User-Driven Ideation Sessions

The 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐑𝐨𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 (𝐏𝐑𝐨𝐅) teaching case shows how a large healthcare consortium and a small group of manufacturers collaborated to rethink innovation in a highly regulated sector. At its core, the case demonstrates how PRoF turned the interaction between two very different communities into its main innovation engine. The large consortium represents the healthcare user community: nurses, doctors, caregivers, patients, and hospital managers who express the lived reality of care. Their contribution is experiential and value-based. Through structured “brainwave sessions,” they surface latent needs and convert them into broad keywords such as comfort, privacy, dignity, or anti-loneliness. These keywords form a shared language that avoids technical jargon and allows hundreds of users with diverse perspectives to converge around common priorities. The small consortium consists of manufacturers, architects, and designers who have the capabilities to transform these user insights into concrete room concepts. Their commercial goals are kept strictly outside the creative process, allowing trust to grow between the groups. Once the user community defines the keywords, the producer community develops prototypes, after which the large consortium returns to evaluate and refine them. This modular sequencing keeps tensions low, ensures rapid progress, and prevents commercial logic from dominating user needs. The interaction between these two communities solves a longstanding problem in healthcare innovation: suppliers often misunderstand user needs, while users lack the means to innovate. PRoF bridges this gap by letting users drive ideation and letting producers translate that insight into solutions. What emerges is a genuinely user-oriented innovation ecosystem in which neither community could succeed alone, but together they generate concepts that reshape expectations of care design. You can find the case study at HBSP: https://lnkd.in/e6nxTFM7 #UserCentricInnovation #Collaboration #OpenInnovation #CrossCommunityCollaboration #HealthcareEcosystems #CoCreation #Ideation

A question in one of my facilitation communities this morning on clustering spurred some interesting thoughts for me. Clustering is part of many frameworks, and it’s not wrong, there are just things to consider when using it (or whether to use it at all.) I am very aware of what happens in the room when the phrase ‘group similar ideas’ gets thrown around. With a fuzzy statement like that, people tend to fall back on comfortable patterns, instead of discovering new ones. They might slip into autopilot and group only by similar language, by assumed priorities, or even by team (even if the ideas aren’t related in other ways.) And sometimes the team freezes completely, not even sure how to start, blank stares usually enter here.  So what actually helps when this happens? When you choose to cluster, make sure there is clarity: ↳ ‘We're clustering to find _____’ (put the spotlight on desired outcome, consider sharing what happens with these ideas next)  ↳ Give the team a lens to focus through, and maybe switch up the lens for different rounds (ex: focus on user challenges in ideas not solutions)  ↳ Let people absorb the ideas before jumping right into clustering (give time to scan the wall of thoughts, some breathing room)  ↳ Narrow right after divergence. If there's too much noise, eliminate some options before clustering. ↳ Use multiple rounds. Do a fast scrappy round of clustering to get bias out, then regroup with clear criteria. But clustering isn't always the most effective step directly after ideation. Many people default to it because that’s how the process goes right? However that's just one framework, what might we do instead? 🤔 ↳ Pointstorm as part of ideation - This method starts with categories for your ideation. With those up front, followup steps like mashup of ideas flows naturally from ideation.   ↳ Spectrums-  Arrange ideas along a dimension (quick-win to long-term, user facing to internal, easy energizing to draining…) ↳ Now/Next/Later - Sort ideas into timeframes based on urgency and readiness. ↳ How/Now/Wow - Sort ideas into three buckets: breakthrough but can't do yet (How), safe and doable now (Now), or fresh and feasible (Wow) Making clustering work better comes down to being intentional. What are you actually trying to discover? What lens helps people see past first answers and assumptions? And when does it make sense to just scrap clustering and do something different? What does your team reach for after ideation? I'm curious what's been working (or not working) for you. ⬇️

You hire brilliant people. Give them innovation time. Encourage "blue sky thinking." Celebrate creative freedom. Result? Elegant solutions to problems nobody has. Here's what's happening in conference rooms everywhere: Team Member A: "What if we built an AI-powered widget that uses blockchain to optimize user engagement?" Team Member B: "Amazing! Let's add AR visualization and voice control for accessibility!" Team Member C: "Perfect! We should also integrate with IoT devices and add predictive analytics!" Missing from this conversation: Any mention of what customers actually need to accomplish. The Root Problem: Traditional ideation asks the wrong question. Instead of "What could we build?" We should ask "What are customers struggling to achieve?" When teams know which customer outcomes are underserved, ideation becomes laser-focused on value creation. The Five-Step Framework: 1. Stay focused on specific customer outcome targets 2. Aim for breakthrough improvement (15%+ better performance) 3. Use constraints to enhance creativity 4. Eliminate bad ideas quickly using customer criteria 5. Optimize best concepts for cost, effort, risk Real Impact: Instead of hundreds of random ideas, teams generate a handful of concepts that specifically address customer struggle points. The Single Source of Truth Advantage: When everyone targets the same underserved outcomes, creative energy multiplies rather than scatters. Executive Takeaway: The goal isn't creative freedom. It's creative focus on customer value. How does your organization ensure ideation targets real customer needs?

The best way to teach brainstorming? Let students brainstorm your teaching approach. Today, our design thinking class at the University of Kentucky, TEK 300, "Teens and Screens," reached a pivotal moment. With midterms behind us and spring break over, we faced a critical question: How might we structure the remaining weeks to promote deeper understanding rather than just blasting through the steps of our semester-long project? Instead of deciding for our students, we chose to "eat our own dog food"(as they used to say at Apple). (HT Reinhold Steinbeck, charles kerns) We turned our students into users and co-designers through a structured brainwriting session focused on this challenge. The process was beautifully simple: • Students received worksheets with our "How Might We" question and a 3×5 grid • Everyone silently wrote initial ideas (one per box) in the first row • Sheets rotated three times, with each person building on or adding to previous ideas • We ended with a gallery walk and dot-voting to identify the strongest concepts In just 20 minutes, we generated over 50 unique ideas! The winner? Incorporating hands-on, interactive activities in every session that directly connect to that day's learning objectives. The meta-realization? We were already practicing the solution before formally adopting it. The brainwriting exercise itself exemplified exactly what our students told us they wanted more of. My teaching partner Ryan Hargrove immediately began storyboarding how we'll implement this approach, moving us closer to the collaborative learning journey we want to have with our students. We're moving from "Once upon a time..." (not as great as we could be...) to "Students designed..." (active participation), to "Now we really dig learning all this..." Your students already know what they need; your job is to create space for them to tell you. P.S. What teaching approaches have you transformed by inviting your students to become co-designers of their learning experience? #DesignThinking #HigherEducation #TeachingInnovation #BuildingInPublic #StudentCenteredLearning

Workshops are a game-changer in UX. They make insights actionable, drive alignment, and help teams collaborate in real time. Instead of a 50-page report that no one reads, workshops get buy-in, problem-solving, and decision-making done faster. Here are five UX workshop methods, plus when (and when NOT) to use them: 1. Lightning Decision Jam (LDJ) A structured, time-boxed way to identify problems, prioritize solutions, and align on next steps—fast. Use it when: • You need to move from problems to decisions quickly. • Stakeholders struggle with alignment or prioritization. • There’s no time for lengthy discussions, but a decision is needed. Avoid it when: • You need deep exploration of a problem (LDJ is fast, not in-depth). • The team isn’t aligned on the actual problem yet—discovery first! 2. Crazy 8s A sketching exercise where participants generate 8 ideas in 8 minutes—great for breaking creative blocks. Use it when: • You want to push past the obvious solutions. • The team needs quick, diverse ideas before refining further. • A fresh perspective is needed for an existing problem. Avoid it when: • You need structured, research-backed solutions (this is purely idea generation). • The team isn’t comfortable sketching—consider an alternative ideation exercise. 3. Affinity mapping Group and categorize ideas or research findings to spot patterns and key themes. Use it when: • You have a large set of qualitative data that needs to be structured. • You need the team to align on key insights from research. • You want to synthesize user feedback collaboratively. Avoid it when: • The data set is too small—no need to map what’s already clear. • The group prefers data-driven prioritization over qualitative grouping. 4. Impact-Effort Matrix Prioritize initiatives by mapping them based on impact vs. effort. Use it when: • The team has too many ideas and needs a clear priority order. • You need to balance quick wins vs. long-term investments. • There’s limited capacity and you need to focus on high-impact work. Avoid it when: • The problem is still undefined—define before prioritizing. • There’s no clarity on effort estimates, making placement inaccurate. 5. Diverge & Converge Alternating between individual brainstorming and group refinement to prevent groupthink while encouraging collaboration. Use it when: • You need both deep thinking and team alignment. • Some people need quiet time to process before sharing (neurodivergent-friendly!). • The team struggles with groupthink or dominant voices in discussions. Avoid it when: • The workshop is already time-constrained—this method needs breathing room. • The problem is highly technical, requiring expertise over broad ideation. So, whats your favorite? UXR Study

As an introvert who probably spends too much time in her head, I often struggle in impromptu brainstorming sessions. Problem-solving and articulating on the fly doesn't come naturally to me, and I would prefer to come prepared with ideas to get warmed up. If you have similar folks on your team, then they might benefit from silent brainstorming. Silent brainstorming, also known as brainwriting, is a technique where individuals write down their ideas silently instead of discussing them out loud in a group. This approach offers several benefits: ✔ Equal Participation: Ensures that all voices are heard, not just the loudest ones. ✔Deeper Thought: Provides the necessary space for introspection and deeper thinking. ✔Reduced Pressure: Encourages more creative and genuine contributions. ✔Saves Meeting Time: Ideation can be done asynchronously. Use this technique for the following occasions: Retrospectives Problem Solving Developing Team Working Agreements Steps: 1. Set the Goal for the Brainstorm: Why are we doing this?   2. Include Instructions: I tell folks to be sure they create x number of stickies, and to have a noun and a verb on each thought. 3. Outline Next steps: This would include when their input is due and when the group will convene to group the results and develop actions.    This approach not only saves meeting time but also allows for deeper discussions later. Team members can review everyone’s input beforehand, recharging and preparing for the next session. It's a powerful way to engage introverts on your team, ensuring their ideas and perspectives are included in the collaborative process. Introvert-tested and approved! Found this insightful? Give this a thumbs up and follow me as I share my insights around digital transformation, product development and being an AI Power User. 😎