I NEED ONLY STEP 5 (MAX.400 WORDS)
Here are the steps
1 Read the opportunity statement and background information
2 Gain an understanding of what you read and how it can make an impact by creating solutions for the opportunity statement
3 Choose one of the 3 problems to be solved
a Simplification of choice
b Collective giving
c The next generation
4 Perform the first 3 phases of design thinking for the selected problem.
5 Determine the activities you would perform and tool that you would utilize if you were going to create a prototype and test the protype.
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.
• 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.
See the rubric on page 5.mailto:[email protected]
Formative Assessment Assignment
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 ofhttps://uxplanet.org/the-design-thinking-toolbox-100-tools-to-create-innovative-products-50ede1f5e3c1https://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 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
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
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
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.pdfhttps://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
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
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.pdfhttps://johnsoncenter.org/trend-millennials-in-nonprofit-workforce/https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=pubadfacpubhttps://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/
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.