Concept Development for Impact 2019 (Day-5) — Conclusion
Concept Development for Impact 2019, a five-day BUCSBIN workshop intended for providing three-folds training to the selected participants, coaches and lab masters, ended on June 9, 2019. The workshop was jointly organized by Kathmandu University School of Management, King’s College and Oulu University of Applied Sciences, Finland. Overall, the workshop was a great learning experience, as revealed from (final) feedback and reflections from all sides, including myself as an observer. The participants were both university students and professionals, from different countries, and from different disciplines and walks of life. The coaches and lab masters were from KUSOM, King’s College, and OAMK, Finland.
The participants in eleven groups, who made it through Gate 1 on the second day, finally came up with their innovative ideas in the forms of tested prototypes on the fifth day, making use of the Double Diamond Process throughout the whole learning process — problem identification, goal setting, research, surveys, development of ideas, prototype development, validation, and presentations. In each feedback circle session as well as in the virtual BUCSBIN basecamp, these participants daily reflected that the (occasional) constructive inputs provided to them by the coaches were really helpful, especially in goal setting, which has to do with being clear(er) as to where they are headed, and why, and in their diverging as well as converging strategic concept development. It was interesting to listen to these participants reflecting on how they themselves realized how they progressed through a lot of confusions and pressure to more and more of clarity and confidence.
On the other hand, the coaches and lab masters sat together on the backstage twice a day to reflect on their previous day’s learning and to discuss upcoming sessions planning, work division, time management, stress management, and the dos and don’ts of feedback giving. They reflected on the challenges and outcomes of ‘learning-by-doing’ modality of the program, on how the participants were making developments by exercising increasing amount of autonomy from their sides and building up their self-confidence in the process. They further discussed issues such as the importance of multiple ‘WHY’ or ‘HOW’ questions in facilitation, and how such questions help participants become more critical and creative in the whole design process, indirectly propelling them to think about crucial issues such as precision, clarity, effectiveness, feasibility, viability, value, and impact of their respective designs. And this they did in light of the marked progresses seen in the participants’ ongoing or completed projects. Interestingly, the aforementioned positives were also evident in the final day presentations and feedback reflections.
On Day 5, most teams showed efficient team capability, leadership, time management, and improved presentation skills. Their presentations had neat and clean slides, fewer words, SMART goals, and clarity in overall concept development. Their prototypes promised issues of viability and impact as well as value for customer centered products and/ or services. Let me share a few picks here.
I really enjoyed the concept of the 8th presentation, which had to do with providing teachers with students’ feedback through counselors or counseling psychologists in its three stage process. The feedback provided by the students may or may not remain anonymous, depending on choice. Such a design helps, say, for example, shy or fearful students to open up and put forth their ‘say’ about any unfair evaluation done from teachers’ sides, if any. And their problems can be solved through peaceful, reflective counseling with the respective teachers. But in this presentation, teachers’ perspectives were missing, which caused me to question the applicability and viability of their prototype. What value would the prototype have for teachers? Other than this, almost everything was perfect. Similarly, the 6th and 10th presentations, which were also selected as two among the best three presentations at the end, were perfect from all angles. The 7th one, with its reliance on cool 3D effects, was so appealing in its design concept. They had an engineering student in their team, and that added a beautiful strength to their interdisciplinary effort.
The 4th presentation was the weakest in many senses. First, it was confusing as regards what they actually wanted to do — even after the whole process which they had come through. The judges found their major issue confusing. Second, they had hard time clarifying the issue. It was not much reasoned about. Third, their prototype was only a simple proposition, which lacked viability, and was not appealing. They expressed their assumption that they would be able to sustain their project on donations only, from banks. How long? I just happened to wonder. Similarly, the 11th team expressed their assumption that mere four months’ training would make teachers expert counselors. How teachers trained that way could be able to replace the need of professional counselors? Not so plausible. Not well-researched. Though cool in its design look. In these two and few others, what was lacking was ‘reflexive and reflective thinking’. Given that they had paid attention to these aspects of reflection, they would have perhaps even gone to the extent of completely revising their projects, or would have even dropped them for other excellent ones. I even asked the main presenter of team 11 about their prototype after the presentation. He did agree. But later, when in the feedback circle, I did not get to observe him accept this fact. He tried to elude it until the end when one of the participants from another group pointed at the same issue. He was smiling.
Finally, in the evening, guests and industry people visited the closing of the workshop. They also observed the prototypes created by the eleven teams. Then, there was a panel discussion in front of the guests, industry people, and all the others involved.
The participants in the panel reflected on the five-day journey from confusion to clarity, from pains to gains, from helplessness to confidence, from experience to strength. Some reflected that the pressure-filled, intensive nature of the program led them to ‘no slacking’ but hard work, whereas others observed that it was really difficult to be and work in such a time-bound setting flooded with too much of data or content. On one side there were challenges; on the other, there were learning opportunities, either in hostile or helpful surroundings. One of the panelists said that she was working on traffic management design project prior to the elimination of her team on Day 2. After that, she joined another team, which had been working on education design. Unfortunately, she did not find any link whatsoever between the two. Even so, she said, she learnt to efficiently manage, fitting herself in the new team, to learn, to come up with clear understanding of what the real problem was and what the most viable solution to that problem could be. Another panelist added, “I’d have perhaps never learnt to figure out the real problem in a jungle of problems… and to find the most effective solution to that problem, if I hadn’t joined this workshop. Totally worth it!”
Like in the whole five-day Thermometer Feedback Analysis, their panel reflections revealed more positives on the learning side, which was an indicator of the success of the workshop. They said that they learnt the real value of open-mindedness, empathy, calmness, congeniality, modesty, resilience to work in team collaboration, objective approach, reflective practice, time management, stress management, leadership qualities, and all the other crucial concepts, principles and strategies associated with developing of designs. Their concluding expressions had to do more with happy reliefs and empowering skills and strengths.
We need more of such training programs. And we can expect a lot more from the collaborators and organizers that have been doing commendable jobs. It is good to know that King’s College has already been running a Do-Lab, where students learn in similar ways, and KUSOM is in the process of designing a lab-based experiential learning course on design development for its MBA curriculum. These pieces of news do deserve attention amid only theory-based teaching and learning environment here in Nepal.
— Haris C. Adhikari, lecturer of English, DoMIC, Kathmandu University
