Reflection (November 6th, 2017)
Describe
Our project went over several iterations in different stages. The first example occurred in the interview sessions in Discover, where we improved our question list. The questions and answers in the first interview were too limited in depth and insight, and so we focused on user stories and experiences with opening questions in the second interview. This can be noticed in the different set of questions and structure used in Interview Round 1 (9/11/2017) and Interview Round 2 (9/14/2017). There were too many "yes or no" questions resulting in short responses in the first interview. The second interview garnered longer, more insightful responses.
The second example occurred in defining the problem statement in Define, where we went over several iterations of the problem statement to properly take into account all of our gained insights and information from the Discover process. Multiple iterations of the problem statement could be found in Reflection (9/18/2017) Describe. The older problem statements suffered various problems of their own, such as defining a target audience or specificity. A final problem statement can be found in the same evidence.
The third example occurred in prototyping found (currently) in Ideate, where we acknowledged the flaws of PROTOTYPE 1 to simplify and better develop PROTOTYPE 2.
The fourth evolution occurred in Collaboration, where we quickened our schedule pacing after PROTOTYPE 1 to make the deadlines.
For the conclusion of PROTOTYPE 2, we tested and verified the success of the most notable methods and removed the ones that didn't seem to work in the testing stage. What we ended up with is a set of tested methods and reccommendations for users to use.
Think/Feel
Despite how every user suffers from procrastination, they may have different fundamental issues and approaches. Our multiple users' responses to our prototype testing indicated their contrasting perspectives on each approach. This difference is probably better attributed to their experiences and personality rather than their fundamental problems. Nonetheless, this project proved important in revealing such nature and behavior and also tackling one of our society's greatest issues.
I realized that while I was somewhat self-critical to realize the flaws in my approaches, I can't seem to form concrete solutions or alternatives. I am still largely complacent about issues I face.
Evaluate
I greatly struggle with finding alternative ideas, researching and discovering project ideas in general, and formulating solutions to solve project issues. In the Discover process, Discovering Ideas (9/7/2017), it can be seen that the brainstorming and research was limited before the group ended up choosing procrastination. No other alternative project idea was indicated. The jump from PROTOTYPE 1 to PROTOTYPE 2 was more of a natural progression rather than an interesting or striking example of creativity or diversity. Procedures and ideas were simplified to create a working prototype but not a satisfying vessel of the original vision. In terms of collaboration, I worked well with my partner but we failed to set a strict schedule and agenda for each meeting. I think in most of the reflections and Self-Assessment, I believe I have been self-critical to an ample degree.
Envision
One thing I noticed about my final product is that it wasn't very concrete. It was a set of methods with no directions or hints on how to effectively utilize them. It's not physical or virtual, so it is not yet in a proper state to deliver to users. Further testing needs to be done, but I should have also tried to create an actual product.
Plan
In the next project, armed with both the rubric and experience, I plan to score exemplary on all factors. I will strive to do more research and observation to discover superior project ideas and better work with my partner to set deadlines and agendas for each meeting. I should also try to create more concrete products.
Describe
Our project went over several iterations in different stages. The first example occurred in the interview sessions in Discover, where we improved our question list. The questions and answers in the first interview were too limited in depth and insight, and so we focused on user stories and experiences with opening questions in the second interview. This can be noticed in the different set of questions and structure used in Interview Round 1 (9/11/2017) and Interview Round 2 (9/14/2017). There were too many "yes or no" questions resulting in short responses in the first interview. The second interview garnered longer, more insightful responses.
The second example occurred in defining the problem statement in Define, where we went over several iterations of the problem statement to properly take into account all of our gained insights and information from the Discover process. Multiple iterations of the problem statement could be found in Reflection (9/18/2017) Describe. The older problem statements suffered various problems of their own, such as defining a target audience or specificity. A final problem statement can be found in the same evidence.
The third example occurred in prototyping found (currently) in Ideate, where we acknowledged the flaws of PROTOTYPE 1 to simplify and better develop PROTOTYPE 2.
The fourth evolution occurred in Collaboration, where we quickened our schedule pacing after PROTOTYPE 1 to make the deadlines.
For the conclusion of PROTOTYPE 2, we tested and verified the success of the most notable methods and removed the ones that didn't seem to work in the testing stage. What we ended up with is a set of tested methods and reccommendations for users to use.
Think/Feel
Despite how every user suffers from procrastination, they may have different fundamental issues and approaches. Our multiple users' responses to our prototype testing indicated their contrasting perspectives on each approach. This difference is probably better attributed to their experiences and personality rather than their fundamental problems. Nonetheless, this project proved important in revealing such nature and behavior and also tackling one of our society's greatest issues.
I realized that while I was somewhat self-critical to realize the flaws in my approaches, I can't seem to form concrete solutions or alternatives. I am still largely complacent about issues I face.
Evaluate
I greatly struggle with finding alternative ideas, researching and discovering project ideas in general, and formulating solutions to solve project issues. In the Discover process, Discovering Ideas (9/7/2017), it can be seen that the brainstorming and research was limited before the group ended up choosing procrastination. No other alternative project idea was indicated. The jump from PROTOTYPE 1 to PROTOTYPE 2 was more of a natural progression rather than an interesting or striking example of creativity or diversity. Procedures and ideas were simplified to create a working prototype but not a satisfying vessel of the original vision. In terms of collaboration, I worked well with my partner but we failed to set a strict schedule and agenda for each meeting. I think in most of the reflections and Self-Assessment, I believe I have been self-critical to an ample degree.
Envision
One thing I noticed about my final product is that it wasn't very concrete. It was a set of methods with no directions or hints on how to effectively utilize them. It's not physical or virtual, so it is not yet in a proper state to deliver to users. Further testing needs to be done, but I should have also tried to create an actual product.
Plan
In the next project, armed with both the rubric and experience, I plan to score exemplary on all factors. I will strive to do more research and observation to discover superior project ideas and better work with my partner to set deadlines and agendas for each meeting. I should also try to create more concrete products.
Comments
Post a Comment