Introduction

This chapter includes the following objectives: It starts by outlining why people involved in new product development have challenges when coming up with new ideas. It then explains why there is a need for a systematic method, or approach, to connect the people responsible for coming up with new product solutions to the user. It goes on to describe a method based on design thinking principles, which can be used to help bridge user research findings to concept generation and concludes by explaining how this method can be applied in industry.

5.1 Challenges in Idea Generation

Coming up with new product ideas and innovations is not an easy task. The process of coming up with new ideas can sometimes feel challenging for a number of reasons. Sometimes the team coming up with a new product idea has been working on that particular product line for a long period of time. They may have years of experience working on one product, and for that reason they may consider themselves experts in that category. In this case, their experience with what the product can and can't do can actually create a barrier to their creativity when attempting to reinvent or even refresh a product. They may be very good at improving a product's performance or optimizing its technology, but they may struggle when it comes to effectively evaluating the relevance of the product to a user. However, when deciding to enter a new category, the team faces different obstacles in ideation. The team may have limited exposure to the product category that they are entering and they may not be familiar with users of that particular product. This lack of familiarity can limit their ability to create a competitive product with innovation that is meaningful to the end user. Ideation can also be challenging simply because it can be hard to come up with a new ideas. Even if we have substantial research and clear findings on the end user, the transition from research findings to concept generation is challenging. Often, the solutions that come from the concept generation phase lack a meaningful connection back into the user research.

5.2 The Need for a Systematic Method to Connect to the User

A deep understanding of the user and his or her experience can help us develop more meaningful solutions. Unfortunately, it is at times hard for people tasked with designing a new product or system to understand the user. Even experienced industrial designers, engineers, marketing professionals and other new product development (NPD) team members struggle with understanding the needs of users. This is challenging to team members for several reasons.

The first reason is that team members may simply lack a comprehensive understanding of their users. Often, this is a result of a lack of ethnographic research on their end users' needs. The team may not have conducted ethnographic research and they may lack real insight into what their end users' experiences are. They may have relied exclusively on quantitative data to formulate a profile of their end user. While quantitative data is important in constructing a user profile and can provide directional information, it doesn't truly expose any rich end-user experience information. Sometimes even when a team has conducted ethnographic research, the research that they have conducted may lack depth and may not be truly representative of their users' experience.

One of the other reasons that team members face obstacles when understanding their end user is that it is natural for the people on the teams to think of themselves as the intended user, when in fact they are not. This is evident in a person's quick reaction to denounce or eliminate an idea during a brainstorming session because they do not particularly care for it. Their response to declare the idea good or bad is instinctive because they are evaluating the idea from their personal perspective and experience. Their personal judgment of an idea being good or bad indicates that they are thinking of themselves as the end user. This is a false assumption on their behalf because their personal preferences, demographic information, needs, pain points, and the problems and frustrations they have with a product and/or within a system, may be very different from the intended users'. Getting team members to separate themselves and their personal judgments from what is important to the end user can be challenging.

These challenges in getting team members to truly understand the user inhibit their ability to come up with meaningful and impactful ideas and innovations that users care about. This can result in stagnant product innovations that may be unsuccessful because they do not address the user's true needs and therefore may lack real value. Because it is challenging for people tasked with developing new products, systems, and services to understand and identify with end users, there is need for a systematic method that helps them make that connection. The connection that they make has to go beyond reading and reviewing data in order for it to be effective. It has to be an active method where the team members can deeply understand users' experiences and pain points. The method has to be systematic in order for it to effectively bridge the collection of research findings into the generation of concepts. A systematic approach also allows the method to be repeated and applied consistently over multiple projects.

5.3 The Visualize, Empathize, and Ideate Method

The Visualize, Empathize, and Ideate method was specifically designed to help bridge the gap between research, product ideation, and conceptualization. Often, during the development of a new product, there is a lot of velocity in the research phase. Many research insights are collected, but the research findings don't always make their way into new ideas and innovations. Sometimes people “stall” in taking the research findings and turning them into a product idea. This method, shown in Figure 5.1, helps people take ethnographic research findings, extrapolate key insights, and form new product innovations and ideas that respond to the research.

This method was inspired by a combination of methods used in industry during the NPD process, specifically for envisioning new products and for reimagining stagnant products and product categories. While working in new product development and participating in and conducting cross-functional brainstorming sessions, I found a few key methods that helped to drive new ideas in static product lines. After transitioning from industry to academia, I attempted to extract and streamline some of the things that worked from these sessions into one method that could be executed within a three-hour studio time frame that mimicked the industry environment. The method needed to take findings discovered through ethnographic research and provide a means for the students to deeply understand them so they could come up with user inspired product solutions during the concept generation phase. It was important that the method had a process and a pace that would actively engage the students in a collective realization of what the research findings meant and would allow them to identify and arrive at their own separate approach to a product solution.

Like many design thinking methods, this method has its own strengths and weaknesses that should be considered prior to implementation. One of its strengths is that it can be completed in a short period of time relative to the number of ideas that it produces. It also allows a group of people to establish an in-depth understanding of the end user, including the users' pain points, and then generate a large quantity of ideas that directly respond to these pain points. This helps guide a team to come up with ideas and innovations that are inspired by the end user, rather than inspired by the team's personal interests. This method also helps a team take the post-research mountain of user insights and synthesize those observations into concepts that can be built on during the development phase by breaking the information down into more digestible components.

There are several things that should be considered before employing this method. This method should be used between the research and concept generation phases. It requires minimal setup, but its effectiveness is contingent on good ethnographic research findings that are vital in serving as the foundation for user-inspired innovations. In the first part of the method, the findings from the research have to be distilled into key insights that are shared with the team so that the team has a comprehensive understanding of the user that is based on research and not on their own personal perspective. This part of the process is essential to its success. Without a thorough briefing on the user, the participants will not be effective—their participation may be limited by their own unsubstantiated views of the user and the user's experiences. The method takes several hours to conduct and relies heavily on active engagement of the participants. This active engagement works only when there is minimal distraction to the participants (i.e., e-mail checking, texting, phone calls, etc.). In the business environment, this is most effective when the team can go offsite so that the participants can avoid interruptions and have the chance to focus. This method also depends on a strong facilitator who is capable of getting the team to work together and to share their ideas.

The method follows the three key steps shown in Figure 5.2. The first step is getting the participants to have a deeper understanding of the user. The second step is getting the participants to identify what the user's pain points are. In the final step, the participants use the information generated in the previous two steps and ideate solutions that are specific to the user. These activities are summarized in three key steps: visualizing, empathizing, and ideating. This method also employs alternating periods of action followed by subsequent reflection. The team is required to reflect on the ethnographic research they conducted together and draw their own personal insights from it. This is followed by activities that require them to reflect on their own conclusions and communicate their insights to the team. This process of team research followed by individual reflection and thinking, and then interactive communication, helps the team make sense of the research and gain a deeper understanding of its implications. It also helps the team move forward with a clearer product vision in the concept generation phase.

This method produces a large quantity of ideas that respond to end-user insights, but have no real ranking or prioritization. A ranking and prioritization approach needs to be applied after the insights and innovations are collected and organized. Also, it should not be assumed that the ideas that are a result of this method are immediately usable. The ideas are in their earliest phase and usually just a starting point that will need to be built on in order for them to become a usable concept.

5.4 The Importance of Visualizing and Empathizing before Ideating

The order of this process is intentional and significant to the outcome. The goal of this method is to specifically get user-inspired ideas that will generate innovations, not ideas that are a result of personal preference or the preference of the team or organization. In order to accomplish this, visualization of the user must be completed first. The team members need to “see” the user before they can establish an exhaustive list of what the user's pain points are. The way that the visualization process is applied can be entertaining for participants and is relatively easy for them to do making it a good starting point to get the group engaged. Team members are asked to reflect on the ethnographic research and to visualize the end user and then assemble a visual map of the user. The visual map includes images cut from magazines that show things about the users' lives, including what products they may own, the type of house they may live in, things that are important to them, and so on. The process of creating a visual map is important because it allows the team to build consensus by coming to a collective definition of who the user is. Individuals start by selecting images that they think best represent the user. Once everyone has placed their images together in a map, the team can collectively discuss who the user is, what the user values, and why. This allows the team to arrive at a unified vision of the user. The imagery also creates a more substantial impact on the team, as opposed to reading reports on the users' profile. The imagery is more memorable and more symbolic. The visualization process also helps the team identify gaps in their own perspectives of the end user. If there are flagrant differences in the selected imagery, the team has an opportunity to discuss why they perceive the user differently and whether the differences are important or need further investigation.

Once the team has a cohesive vision of the end user, they can begin the empathizing process. The goal of the empathizing phase is to get the team to deeply understand what the user's pain points are. This is important because it helps the team look at the product, system, or service experience from the view of the user. Doing this helps the team come up with more purposeful ideas and innovations that the user will value and ultimately pay for. They do this by referencing the visual map of the user they put together, reflecting on the ethnographic insights, and drawing conclusions on what the users pain points are. This list becomes the catalyst for ideating.

5.5 Applying the Method

The following section outlines how this method was applied in an industrial design studio with third and fourth year undergraduate students. While this example focuses on a classroom application, this method can easily be adapted to industry. For example, what was accomplished in one three-hour session could be accomplished in an offsite workshop or over several shorter meetings. The studio was composed of 12 students. It was an industry collaborative studio, where students worked with a company to individually develop a new product solution. The company tasked the students with designing a product in a category in which the company was not yet competing. The students were challenged to bring user-centered innovation to their design solution.

After the project was kicked off with the client, the studio was divided into three teams to conduct ethnographic research. The three ethnographic research teams included user, technical, and market research teams (Figure 5.3). The three research teams represented the cross-functional teams that make up the NPD process in industry. The user research team represented the roles that industrial designers, product managers, and/or marketing research team members have in industry. The technical team was tasked with uncovering technical findings similar to what engineering and/or research and development would contribute. The market research team focused on looking at market trends, competitive analysis, and benchmarking, mimicking the product management and marketing functions in industry. The goal of the research was for students to understand what users' pain points were with the existing solutions in that product category. Each team was responsible for compiling insights from their research. The ethnographic research that was collected during this phase became the foundation for the Visualize, Empathize, and Ideate method.

The technical research team included four students. The team started by conducting performance testing on competitive products. They set up tests that mimicked how users would interface with the product. They also tested the product to failure to fully understand its capabilities. Then they disassembled them. During this product tear-down, they timed themselves to determine how long it would take to access maintenance and service components. This team also interviewed service and maintenance professionals to identify what were common issues with existing products. They also researched new technologies that were emerging in this category and related categories that could be employed in their design solution.

The market research team was composed of four students. The team started by putting together a competitive comparison chart that showed product specifications, features, price, and the like for each of the major competitors' models. They highlighted strengths and weaknesses in competitors' product line-ups. They also outlined major competitors' strengths and weaknesses in both brand perception and product perception. They also put together market opportunity maps that highlighted potential areas in the market for differentiation and entry. They went on in-store visits at retailers and interviewed store associates about existing products that were sold in that particular store. They also analyzed online customer reviews of existing products to further understand customer perception at the brand and product level.

The user research team also consisted of four students. The students started by putting together a quantitative user behavior survey that they launched digitally. They then began identifying users in residential, commercial, and industrial markets. After identifying users, they visited each of them and conducted ethnographic observations and interviews. The team conducted product interceptions, where they took existing products into public places and interviewed people about their experience with that particular type of product. During these product interceptions, they had people try to start and use the product. The team videotaped and timed each person to get a better understanding of how long it took them to figure out how to start the product and to identify where the users' frustrations were when starting the product. The team also put together user personas and profiles and they mapped users' sequence of use when interacting with the product.

The teams were not only assigned with providing raw research data (images, videos, transcripts, etc.), but they were also tasked with providing meaningful and actionable key insights. To discover these key insights, the teams had to ask themselves, “What does this data mean? And how can it inform a new solution?” These key insights helped them clearly articulate not only what they had done but why they had done it and what was important about it.

After the ethnographic research was collected, organized, and analyzed, the Visualize, Empathize, and Ideate method was implemented. The studio was set up in advance to facilitate an effective environment for design thinking. One wall was divided into three sections, each section representing a market segment (residential/home users, professional users, and do-it-yourself/light professional users). The market and user research teams identified these three segments in this product category after conducting their research. Each section of the wall was labeled with the target user segment name. The output from the research was hung up around the room making it visible and accessible to all of the student participants. These research outputs included: product opportunity maps, brand profile charts, sequence-of-use charts, exploded views of existing products, product comparison charts, and so on. Work areas were put together in the center of the room. Groups of desks were arranged as designated work areas for the students to sit at while participating in this phase of the design thinking method. The work areas included a diverse selection of magazines so that the students had many images to select from, sticky notes, markers, tape, and scissors.

Visualizing the User

The first part of this method required students to visualize the user for each of the three segments. Creating a visual map of the target users helped the students see who they were designing for and gave them a visual priority of what was important to the user. The visual maps are different than personas. Visual maps uses imagery to show what users value and their experience with the product versus a persona where much of the content about the user is captured through written descriptions. Students were asked to reflect on the ethnographic research they had conducted and individually select images that they felt answered: “What does a user in this segment look like? Where do they live? What other products do they own? What things do they value and/or care about?” Then they taped the images that they selected under the respective user segment. Students included images that answered the questions above, and any additional images that they felt represented the user. The compilation of imagery created a visual “collage” of each of the user groups for which the students were tasked with designing (Figure 5.4).

Once the visual “collages” of the users were complete, students were asked to describe to the rest of the class some of the images they selected and explain the image's significance to that particular segment. During this phase, students identified similarities in the imagery that was selected and established a common view for each user segment.

Ideating

After pain points were identified in each of the user segments, students were divided back into their ethnographic research teams (market, user, and technical). The students were divided this way because they had built rapport with each other and had developed a positive and productive team synergy that they leveraged to come up with new ideas. Each team was given a different colored stack of sticky notes and markers. The teams were asked to come up with solutions, in the form of product ideas, that would solve these user pain points by writing down their ideas or drawing sketches of their ideas on the sticky notes. As they came up with ideas, they placed their sticky notes on the visual map of the user segment that the idea was most applicable to (Figure 5.5).

After the ideating phase of the method was complete, students were tasked with finding inspiration for design solutions from existing products in other product categories. Looking for inspiration in other product categories helped them build on their ideas from the ideating session and think of new ideas altogether. Students were asked to bring in five images of existing products, in different product categories, that demonstrated functional solutions that could be applied to the ideas that the team came up with during the ideating phase. The purpose of this exercise was to help them find examples of products with functions that they could draw inspiration from during the concepting phase, the phase where they started transforming ideas into product solutions. Each student presented his or her five existing products to the rest of the class and identified their significant function and how their function might be applied in a product solution. As each student presented their five products, the rest of the class was given sticky notes to write and draw new ideas on as they were listening. After each student finished presenting a product and its function, the rest of the students placed their new ideas on and around the product image.

5.6 Conclusion

This method can be used to help NPD teams make an effective transition from research insight collection and analysis to concept generation. Although this method was used in a classroom environment with undergraduate industrial design students, it has relevance outside of this application and could be used with NPD teams in industry. It can help teams synthesize a large quantity of information, thoroughly and deeply comprehend it, and then act on it by generating a large quantity of new ideas in a relatively short period of time. When used in the classroom, the students were able to come up with over 200 ideas across three user segments within several hours.

The three different teams that the students were initially divided into (technical, user, and market) were designed to mimic industry. In industry, the technical team represents engineering, manufacturing, research and development. The user team may include industrial designers, anthropologists, interaction designers, psychologists, and so on. And the market team could include market researchers, analysts, product managers, and the like. In most cases in industry, these teams are fully integrated and are working side by side throughout the product development process. There are different ways to approach this method, with pros and cons to each approach.

Additionally, and most importantly, through active participation and synthesis of the research data, participants are able to understand all aspects of the research findings, and examine them at a level deeper than through a summarized report or presentation. Engaging all of the cross-functional participants tasked with bringing a new product to market in one participatory exercise where they are challenged to visualize the users, empathize with them, and then ideate by coming up with solutions helps them embed the findings into their product solutions.

About the Author

Lauren Weigel is a Product Manager at Empire Level, a division of Milwaukee Electric Tool in Wisconsin. Prior to working at Empire Level, she worked at Generac. She started there as an industrial designer and later joined the engine-powered tools team as a product manager for the portable generator category. She has taught industrial design at Auburn University in addition to teaching at the Art Institute of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She earned a Master of Industrial Design and a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Design with a focus in industrial design at Auburn University.