1 month
UX Research/ Design Research
Design Researcher (within a 12-person core research team)
Qualtrics, Miro, Zoom
1. Unclear employee experiences & pain points in Atlanta office.
2. Limited insight on brain-health-focused space improvements.
Assess workspace efficacy & guide improvements with research-driven recommendations to stakeholders and higher leadership.
Worked as a design researcher within a 12-person core research team
1. Qualitative data collection through semi-structured interviews
2. Data synthesis across 4 listening sessions
3. Data visualization & presentation to higher management and stakeholders
1. Identified 9 critical questions for higher management to address in the near future.
2. Profiled 8 spaces by perceived intent vs. actual usage
3. Found brain-health focused discrepancies in 7/8 spaces.
1. Timeline. A tight span of 4 weeks was allocated for this project.
2. Knowledge. My understanding of the Atlanta Living Lab was initially limited, requiring external research before diving in.
Our team used the design thinking framework (define, design, deliver) for this project.
The Atlanta branch of HKS stands as a distinctive “Living Lab.” This term signifies ecosystems that continuously adapt and evolve, embracing a culture of assessment to cater to the needs of every stakeholder. Essentially, it's a living prototype. At the heart of the design philosophy lies brain health. Accordingly, the Atlanta Living Lab integrates spaces tailored for five primary brain-healthy affordances: focus, collaboration, rest, social connection, and ideation.
Despite having 80 employees stationed at the Atlanta branch, there's a noticeable gap in comprehending their actual experiences in these spaces. The primary challenges were:
01
Uncertainty about users' understanding and alignment with the intended purpose of the spaces.
02
Limited insights into their actual experiences and associated pain points.
03
A lack of clarity at the management and leadership levels about progressing with the living lab concept, especially regarding improvements and potential issues.
Our mission was clear cut, which was to discover and direct.
During my time as an intern, I had two major challenges:
01
Timeline. A tight span of 4 weeks was allocated. The initial half was dedicated to research, while the latter focused on data synthesis and visualization for management.
02
Knowledge. My understanding of the Atlanta Living Lab was initially limited. This required external research to understand its foundational intent and its evolution over time.
Because this project was a "quick burn", I made sure that our team was aligned in the specific research questions we wanted to answer.
To better empathize with users and understand the project’s context, I proactively scheduled a meeting with my manager leading the effort, who also provided me documentation and resources to get a grasp on the project.
Keeping our goals and constraints in mind, we came up with some key research questions:
01
Do employees align their activities with the intended affordances of office spaces?
02
Does the office encourage brain-healthy behaviors?
03
How well does the Atlanta office foster community engagement?
Given the novelty of this research within the Atlanta office, our goal was exploratory. We aimed to gather genuine, unrestricted feedback on experiences, opinions, values, and challenges.
My main responsibility was collecting qualitative feedback and synthesizing the data. Affinity mapping was utilized to categorize feedback, and common themes were highlighted.
Given our project's emphasis on brain health and our tight timeline, our stakeholders were specifically curious in:
01
Find discrepancies between space intentions and actual use. This would ultimately guide redesign efforts for optimal space utilization.
02
Identify factors aiding or obstructing brain-health affordances (focus, breaks, social interaction, ideation, collaboration).
We presented our findings and insights, focusing on clarity and impact, to the senior leadership of the Atlanta branch.
Using the important-feasible matrix, we prioritized 9 research questions needing attention and suggested potential future research areas, like the possibility of transforming the "Rapid Operations" room to better foster collaborative and ideative work.
Our sessions didn't probe whether users felt spaces should adhere to their original designs. If users have discovered alternative, more suitable uses, it might be worthwhile question our starting premise.
In design, flexibility and user-centricity are crucial. Adaptation can sometimes lead to more meaningful solutions than rigid adherence to original intentions. Future research should also investigate:
1. Do users feel like they should've adhered to its intended use?
2. If they hadn't, what aspect of the space did it serve a better purpose?
