5 Elements of Empathy: Lessons from Design Thinking

Earlier this Fall, I attended the Faculty Workshop at Northeastern University. I participated in the Design Thinking workshop. The facilitator was discussing utilizing the design thinking concepts to frame the problems correctly to extract assumptions and identify solutions. In general, design thinking is composed of the stages, empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test focusing primarily on why the problem is important, who we are designing the solution for, what are we planning to do, and how is the resulting new experience for the person. As part of the small activities among the participants in the table during the session, we discussed ideas on understanding the user rushing to who are we designing the solution for.

During this session, I started writing some thoughts based on the ideas I gathered from the facilitators and the table activities focusing on what empathize meant. I believe I accidentally landed on five vowel elements of "Empathize" meant. I am sharing my thoughts here.

The first step is acknowledging (A) the user's problem. Nothing better comes unless one acknowledges that something is not working as intended or something is missed in the way the solution was developed. One way for us to demonstrate is scheduling a walk-through session or a hearing session with them and opening our meeting acknowledging the problem. 

The second step is engaging (E) directly with the users. Instead of assuming what we thought the problem was, it is better to interview them and ask powerful questions. Some questions that I can think of are the following:

• How do you really want it to be?
• What is the impact of what you are unable to accomplish now?
• What is important about that approach?
• What is already working that you can build on?
• What would a simple solution look like?

The third step is to immerse (I) oneself in the user's experience. Instead of just listening to them, we can ask them to interact with the product and partake in that experience ourselves. This experience is an expression to them that they matter. In lean thinking, we talk about the 3G principles (Gemba - visiting the actual place, Gembutsu - experiencing the actual product, Genjitsu - Gathering the real facts) and this immerse experience is application of the 3G principles. Some questions that I can think of are extending the questions from the engaging step as follows:

• What else could we do?
• What do you think we should stop doing?
• What is stopping you from doing them now?
• What do you think is possible?
• What does success look like for you?

The fourth step is to observe (O) for things not said or articulated. I feel like this is looking for non-verbal communication. These are the spaces between the words and sentences in non-verbal communication. I often call this approach "Listening with Eyes" (Rajagopalan, 2017), where we fill the gap between what they want versus what they need! It truly helps in not only reframing the problem for the persona but also architect the solution with the DfX principles (Paul, Beitz, Feldhusen, Grote, 2007) prioritizing based on the multidimensional risks associated with 'what matters the most.' As a result, X in DfX can stand for manufacturability, production capacity, testability, cost, reliability, etc. These optimization concepts resonate with Taguchi's system, parameters, and tolerance considerations for design (Gopalakrishnan, Jaraiedi, Iskander, and Ahmad, 2007).

The final step is unifying (U) all these first-hand experiences from user interviews, personal experiences interacting with the product in the environment the user interfaces with, synthesizing both the articulated wants and unarticulated observations and framing the problem. This reframed problem statement lays the foundation for the definition stage focusing not only on who we are designing what but also draws the factual insights and feelings to help with risk driven design and development.

What are your thoughts on my approach? Share your observations!  

References

Gopalakrishnan, B., Jaraiedi, M, Iskander, W.H, and Ahmad, A. (2007). Tolerance synthesis based on Taguchi philosophy. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 2(3), 311-326.

Paul, G., Beitz, W. Feldhusen, J., Grote, K.H. (2007). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Germany: Springer.

Rajagopalan, S. (2017). Listening with Eyes. https://agilesriram.blogspot.com/2017/04/listening-with-eyes.html