Design thinking

Summative Assessment 2

Presentation Assignment – Activity brief

BDI222 – Innovation and Design Thinking
Online campus

Professor: Danielle Francis [email protected]

Description Collaborate with your team to address the
challenge below utilizing design thinking
process and tools. Present your
recommendation in class.

Opportunity statement: “How might we
reinforce a culture of generosity by creating
charitable giving solutions that are more
accessible, inclusive, and effective?”

Detailed information about the assignment
begins on page 2.

Format Your submission must meet the following formatting requirements:

• Upload one file on Moodle per team.

• File format allowed: PDF copy of the presentation.

• Length: 10 – 12 min in class presentation followed by 5 -7
min question & answer period

• Cover page should list the team members

• Cite references when necessary in slide footer or in
appendix of presentation.

• Harvard Referencing System

Goal(s) To assess the student’s ability to utilize
design thinking and innovation tools to
develop a rational recommendation.

Due date Date: Friday May 7, 2021 (Last day of class)

Time: 11:00H CET

Weight
towards final
grade

This activity has a weight of 60% towards the final grade.

Learning
outcomes

• Analyze design thinking as a
mindset;

• Understand the design thinking
process, platform and tools;

• Critically assess design thinking as a
driver of innovation and
entrepreneurship;

• Utilize the different approaches and
methodologies of design thinking.

Assessment
criteria

See the rubric on page 5.

mailto:[email protected]

Formative Assessment Assignment

Your Task

1. Read the sections below to gain a deep understanding of the opportunity statement, why it is important, and how developing tangible and practical solutions can make

an impact in the world.

2. As a team work together to complete the first 3 phases of design thinking – Empathize, Define, and Ideate. Utilize the tools we learned in class as well as tools

identified and described on these following two sites:

• UX Planet – https://uxplanet.org/the-design-thinking-toolbox-100-tools-to-create-innovative-products-50ede1f5e3c1

• Atomic Object – https://spin.atomicobject.com/2018/12/12/how-might-we-design-thinking/

Describe what steps and tools you would utilize to complete the fourth and fifth phases of DT – Prototype and Test. Do not create prototypes, and therefore do not

test prototypes. The goal is to describe the steps you would take and the tools you would utilize to create a prototype. In addition, describe how you would test the

prototype – including how you would find users to test the prototype and what steps you would take to improve/iterate the design.

3. Prepare and present in class a presentation that outlines the steps that you followed, the tools you used for each DT phase, and the outputs or deliverables from each

phase. The presentation should effectively communicate the following:

a. The specific focus area in which you are aiming to develop a potential solution

b. The tools utilized and the outputs from those tools,

c. The insights discovered from each phase and how those insights influenced subsequent decisions,

d. A potential solution for which a prototype can be developed and tested,

e. The steps to take to develop and test the prototype.

4. Be prepared to answer questions from the professor and your classmates. The question and answer period will last 5-7 minutes.

Opportunity Statement & Background

Opportunity Statement: “How might we reinforce a culture of generosity by creating charitable giving solutions that are more accessible, inclusive, and effective?”

Generosity is a universal human value that spans time, geographies, and cultures. It strengthens relationships and communities. As people come together to respond to

COVID-19 and the movements for racial justice, the power of generosity has never been more apparent.

This opportunity statement focuses on everyday givers—of all races, genders, socio-economic statuses, and perspectives—who are key to supporting the essential work of

nonprofit organizations. While you may hear more about the giving of wealthy philanthropists or large foundations, the everyday giver is one of the largest sources of

https://uxplanet.org/the-design-thinking-toolbox-100-tools-to-create-innovative-products-50ede1f5e3c1

https://spin.atomicobject.com/2018/12/12/how-might-we-design-thinking/

charitable dollars that fuel the nonprofit sector. Around the world, everyday givers advance an unlimited number of causes, from climate change and hunger to public health

and racial equity.

People are innately generous, but the giving process can be complex. It can be hard to find the right organizations to support, know how much to give, or understand the

impact of a gift. The giving landscape is ripe for innovations that will make it easier for donors to give. As the body of research around individual giving behavior grows, the

hope is to bridge the gap between research and real world innovation—by getting better products into the hands of everyday givers. The goal is to optimize and reimagine

tools and products that will help all donors give more and give better. This is an opportunity to design tools that empower everyday donors to have an impact on the causes

they care about.

The Goal

The opportunity to create digital tools will enable individual donors to give more effectively. By focusing on the everyday giver, you can disrupt and reimagine giving. The

ideas that you generate will:

1. Empower everyday givers—of all races, genders, socio-economic statuses, and perspectives—with the tools they need to give in line with their preferences and

intentions.

2. Catalyze innovation in the giving marketplace by translating research and evidence into products that improve the quality, quantity, and impact of everyday giving.

3. Bring new insights and concepts to inform the development of inclusive giving products and services.

Problems To Be Solved

The focus areas below contain “How might we” statements that are more specific. Select only one of the focus areas below to work on as a team in which you will create a

potential solution.

1. SIMPLIFICATION OF CHOICE: How might we simplify choice when identifying causes and organizations to support?

In the US alone, donors can choose from nearly 400,000 charitable organizations. The large number and complexity of giving options make it difficult to choose,

compelling people to make spontaneous decisions or defer a choice altogether. Through research, we know curation—the organization and simplification of

information—increases the likelihood of donating, as well as donation amounts. In a collaborative study between Ideas42 and Intentional Futures, curated lists of

charities, dubbed “GiveLists,” were found to reduce choice overload for donors and increase dollars to effective organizations. Additionally, peer recommendations

help simplify choice overload and are more effective than celebrity or expert endorsements (Parbhoo, Tennant, Welch & Davis, 2020).

2. COLLECTIVE GIVING: How might we supercharge the act of giving together by creating digital products that make collective giving easier and more

accessible?

Collective giving is the pooling of funds by a group of individuals, put towards a specific, mutually determined cause. Current and past research on collective giving in

the U.S. has shown that members give more, give more strategically, and are more civically engaged when they give together (Bearman & Franklin, 2018). Micro-

https://www.ideas42.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Lessons-from-the-GiveLists.pdf

https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/17744/giving-circle-hosting18.pdf

donations (small sums donated by many) can turn small dollars into big impact through vehicles like giving circles, crowdfunding, and more. Giving happens in many

collective settings—the home, the workplace, religious institutions, or via identity-based groups or giving circles—but much of this behavior still happens offline.

3. THE NEXT GENERATION: YOUNG DONORS: How might solutions support young donors to radically engage in and reimagine the next generation of

giving?

Our world is changing, and the culture of giving is shifting radically along with it. Who will lead the next generation of giving, and how might we best support those

users? A study by the Blackbaud institute indicates that people in Generation Z (also known as “post-Millennials,” born in the late 1990s to early 2010s) represent only

two percent of the giving pie, but are increasing in influence. For this rising generation, giving is characterized by additional trends: online and mobile engagement,

social media use, and non-monetary contributions such as volunteering, activism, and spreading the word (Blackbaud, 2018). This Opportunity Area focuses on

young donors and future norms in giving that we can’t yet imagine and welcomes submissions that address not only giving of money, but also of time, talent and

voice.

Additional Resources

Please note that this problem statement is taken from Open IDEO which seeks to democratize innovation. Although this is a public innovation challenge, you will not be

graded on the idea you recommend. You will be graded on your team thought process and ability to communicate how you and your team utilized the first 3 DT phases to

develop a solution, the outputs generated from each phase, and the process you identify to develop and test a prototype.

The information outlined above is enough to complete your final assessment. However, if you would like to delve deeper into the topic, the resources below can assist.

• Open IDEO – https://www.openideo.com/

• “Behavior and Charitable Giving 2019 Update” (ideas42, July 2019)

• “Millennials in the Nonprofit Workforce Present Challenges and Opportunities” — Teri Behrens and Tory Martina (Johnson Center, September 2020)

• “Snapshot: The Impact of Giving Together” — Angela M. Eikenberry and Jessica Bearman (University of Nebraska Omaha, May 2009)

• “The Next Generation of American Giving” — Mark Rovner (Blackbaud Institute for Philanthropic Impact, April 2018)

• “The State of Philanthropy: Why Millennials Will Revive the Nonprofit Sector” — Judin Rodin (Rockefeller Foundation, June 2015)

https://institute.blackbaud.com/asset/the-next-generation-of-american-giving-2018/

https://www.openideo.com/

https://www.ideas42.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/I42-1139_CharitableGivingLitUpdate_3-1.pdf

https://johnsoncenter.org/trend-millennials-in-nonprofit-workforce/

https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=pubadfacpub

https://institute.blackbaud.com/asset/the-next-generation-of-american-giving-2018/

https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/blog/the-state-of-philanthropy-why-millennials-will-revive-the-nonprofit-sector/

Rubric: Presentation

Criteria Accomplished (A) Proficient (B) Partially proficient (C) Borderline (D) Fail (F)

Visuals Professionally designed.
Attractive, relevant and add to
understanding. Support the
development of the
presentation.

Professionally designed but
there are too many (some
irrelevant) or are missing.
Support the development of the
presentation.

Visuals are well designed.
Generally, they support the
argument, but some are
irrelevant or unclear.

Visuals are mundane and not
always relevant to the
presentation development.
Fewer than five spelling
mistakes.

Visuals are poorly designed,
containing only words and are
used as notes. More than five
spelling mistakes. Relevance is
not clear.

Content The content is clear, well
developed and interesting.
Conclusions are clearly
justified. Appropriate language
style and shows thorough, in-
depth understanding of the
subject area.

Competent development of
content showing in-depth
knowledge of subject area.

The content is clear showing
knowledge of the area.
Improvements would help to
justify conclusions.

The content is generally clear
but there are gaps in the
development or information
which is not relevant is given
too much importance.

The content is a simple
repetition of written work with
no amendments to language or
style. The development is
confusing and does not justify
the conclusions.

Questions
and answers

The candidate showed in-depth
knowledge, was well prepared
for the questions and expanded
answers in-depth showing
ownership of the subject area.

The candidate was well
prepared to answer questions
and showed in-depth
knowledge of the subject area.
Expanded on answers.

The candidate was able to
answer the questions but did
not expand on question areas.

The candidate attempted to
answer the questions but not
always appropriately.

The candidate was unprepared
and unable to answer pertinent
questions.