Next week we will be having college representatives coming to MVPS to help us redesign our transcript at MVPS. We have noted that our transcript doesn’t really share the full story of all of the learning we do at MVPS. For example, ID, iFest, the mindsets, transdiciplinary work, etc… Our transcript currently looks like the standard, “here are your classes and this is your grade”, but we want to change that so we more accurately share our story and so colleges can see all of the cool real world learning we do past just the core classes.
I actually get to facilitate the flash-lab portion with Ms. Cureton and today we met to try to figure out how to run it.
It has been kind of weird because we wanted to run it like a Consultivation at first because that was suggested to us, but now we are realizing that we don’t need to do it the exact same way because not every situation fits the same design thinking process mold.
What I’ve really been thinking about since that meeting is this idea of multiple DT processes for different situations. There are sometimes when the challenge is simple “redesign ____” and this is different from the DEEP process where we would start with identifying a user and their needs. It almost feels like you are jumping to a solution to quickly, but if that is the case, then why do we have these situations where the challenge is “redesign”?
Maybe we just need a different process that is the “Redesign Process”. With this is mind I was reminded of Mission Bicycle, an innovative startup company we visited in San Francisco. Mission Bicycle wanted to redesign the bicycle so that it was better suit for a city environment. The team had observed that most bikes were built for either racing or mountain biking, and most “city bikes” just combined the two types which makes for a clunky bike that still isn’t really suit for cities; it is basically the left over category of bike making.
To tackle this problem they took apart the bike piece by piece and examined the purpose of each part. “What is the purpose of the seat?–It makes the bike more comfortable to ride.” They also thought about what a city bike would ideally be like: (to name a few points I remember) it needs to be light weight so a person can move it easily, needs to be able to get up hills (especially in California), and it needs to match the personality of the rider.
From there they created a system so that people can design their own bike so that each bike fits the individual needs of the user. On their website, the rider has various options (usually about 2 because they learned early on that it overwhelmed people to have too many choices) for every individual part based off of options the Mission Bicycle team thinks would be good options for a city bike. It’s all really cool and a neat concept.
I wonder how this way of thinking about a design challenge will help us with redesigning our transcript.