Menu
Marie comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo. She is 35 years old, speaks French and arrived in Greece 8 months ago with her two children aged 6 and 8. Their main weaknesses are a lack of knowledge of Greek and English languages and limited digital skills. She has work experience in the sewing industry.
In this first phase, the educator must understand Marie’s feelings and needs in order to help her in her process of social and labor inclusion. In addition, it is intended to evaluate the initial level of the competencies to be developed during the Design Thinking (DT) process.
With the aim of getting to know Marie, the educator uses the activity Who am I? After viewing the different videos, Marie indicates that she identifies with the characters Miney Mouse, Porky and The Roadrunner. This information shows that, in general terms, he identifies with a profile of a friendly, smiling, hard-working, intelligent, observant and distrustful person.
In order to obtain more information about the person with whom she is going to intervene, the educator asks Marie questions informally using a simultaneous translation system. The information obtained is organized in a SWOT Analysis.
Difficulties in reconciling work and family life, lack of knowledge of the languages of the host country and poor command of digital tools.
Lack of resources, lack of knowledge of the environment and discrimination.
Hard-working, intelligent and observant person.
Previous work experience, guidance from the educator and collaboration on the part of the institution providing assistance.
Once this first phase has been completed, the educator uses the Evaluation thermometers.
The evaluation is based on the openness shown by the participant and whether the time spent has been adequate, as well as the degree of satisfaction with the information obtained.
The measures obtained reflect a favorable evaluation (all three scores exceed the minimum score of 3 out of 5) to be able to move on to the next phase of the DT process.
Once an adequate level of empathy has been achieved, it is time to proceed to the initial competency assessment. The evaluation instruments used with Marie are: the Test of Creative Imagination for Adults (PIC-A), the CREA test and an adaptation of the Development of Basic Employability Competencies situational test (DCBE). The information gathered will be useful to evaluate at the end of the process whether the DT methodology has promoted improvements that will favor greater autonomy and empowerment in Marie. The results of the initial assessment indicate a low number of multiple and diverse responses by Marie to a given situation, as well as difficulties in questioning different problems. Also noteworthy are the low scores for the decision-making process and self-organization.
This phase is aimed at improving Marie’s ability to identify her problems and needs, define them concretely and decide where to start.
In the second phase of the method, we use the Needs roulette for Marie to manifest challenges in different areas of her life. In this way, with the guidance of the educator, he/she identifies different challenges, which from the Definition formula (Description of the person+ NEED +need +WHY+ personal situation) can be specified as follows:
Marie NEEDS to improve her training BECAUSE she wants to increase her chances of job inclusion.
Marie NEEDS to learn the language BECAUSE she wants to improve her social inclusion.
In order for Marie to choose what will be her first challenge, different criteria are discussed with her: the time frame for its achievement (short, medium or long term), its level of difficulty (easy, medium or difficult), the degree to which she believes she will be able to achieve this challenge (expectations of success) and the locus of control (if the resolution of the problem depends only on herself, depends on other people or is mixed).
Two tools will be used for the application of these criteria: the Evaluation Axis, to classify the ideas according to difficulty and temporality and the Analogical scales
which assess expectations of success and locus of control.
Marie decides to solve in the first instance the Challenge1. The difficulty is medium, but it could be solved more quickly. Moreover, she feels empowered to solve it even if it is not entirely up to her.
At the end of this phase, both the educator and Marie reflect on the achievement of the main objective of this phase using the Evaluation Thermometers.
This allows us to assess their capacity to identify their needs, their ability to define them concretely and to decide which challenge to face. In this case, both assess these criteria and use the thermometers, so the educator should explain to Marie the self-assessment process and the criteria to be used.
The educator and Marie consider that the challenges posed by Marie were not sufficiently clear and detailed in their definition (scores below 3 points out of 5). With unfavorable scores, Marie and the educator must meet before they can move on to the next phase of the DT process.
Marie is asked to provide greater operationalization and detail in the challenges posed, so that she is able to expand on different nuances, so she now gets a favorable evaluation to move to the Ideate phase and can continue with the process of solving the Challenge 1.
Marie NEEDS to be able to come to improve her job training BECAUSE she wants to benefit financially and improve her quality of life.
Marie NEEDS to learn the Greek language
BECAUSE you want to meet people in the host country and increase your circle of friends.
From the previously selected challenge (Marie NEED to have the possibility to go to improve her job training BECAUSE she wants to obtain economic benefits and improve her quality of life), use is made of Analogies to get inspiration for ideas that can solve the challenge posed. The institution that helps Marie contacts women who have been in a similar situation in the past and have managed to overcome it to offer their testimonies.
In this way, Marie feels more motivated and has ideas on how to solve her need. Some of the ideas it provides to solve the challenge to be faced are:
The next step is to use analysis and evaluation criteria for each proposed idea to assist in the decision making process. To do so, after an explanation by the educator, Marie analyzes and evaluates each of the ideas using a Evaluation rubric which includes different criteria. In order to facilitate the evaluation process, the following are again used Analog scales which will later be transformed into numbers using a scale from 1 to 5.
Idea 1 | Criteria | Score |
|---|---|---|
Final score | 5+4+3+2+3= 17 | |
Attending courses that you can attend with your children | Do I have the necessary resources to carry it out? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Do I have the time required for this solution? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
To what extent will this solution solve the challenge? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Is it very difficult or complex? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
In general, this idea is appropriate | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Idea 2 | Criteria | Score |
|---|---|---|
Final score | 5+2+4+2+3= 16 | |
Offer sewing services to other families in exchange for the care of their children when they have to attend courses. | Do I have the necessary resources to carry it out? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Do I have the time required for this solution? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
To what extent will this solution solve the challenge? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Is it very difficult or complex? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
In general, this idea is appropriate | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Idea 3 | Criteria | Score |
|---|---|---|
Final score | 2+4+5+2+2 = 15 | |
Take online courses to be able to train from home | Do I have the necessary resources to carry it out? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Do I have the time required for this solution? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
To what extent will this solution solve the challenge? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Is it very difficult or complex? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
In general, this idea is appropriate | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Idea 4 | Criteria | Score |
|---|---|---|
Final score | 5+4+4+3+4= 20 | |
Create a network with other migrant women to establish a system of childcare shifts so that they can attend training courses. | Do I have the necessary resources to carry it out? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Do I have the time required for this solution? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
To what extent will this solution solve the challenge? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Is it very difficult or complex? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
In general, this idea is appropriate | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Idea 5 | Criteria | Score |
|---|---|---|
Final score | 4+3+2+2+3= 14 | |
Attendance at courses that can be attended with your children | Do I have the necessary resources to carry it out? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Do I have the time required for this solution? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
To what extent will this solution solve the challenge? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Is it very difficult or complex? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
In general, this idea is appropriate | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
This procedure has enabled Marie to understand and train a systematized procedure for making informed decisions, while promoting greater autonomy and efficiency. In addition, it helps you become more aware of the reason for the decision taken, which will have an impact on your motivation and your expectations of success.
Idea 4 (Create a network with other migrant women to establish a system of childcare shifts and thus be able to attend training courses), with the highest score, is the one that Marie will implement.
To finalize this phase and reflect on the appropriateness of promoting to the subsequent phase, the educator, as well as Marie, use the Evaluation thermometers. In this case, they measure whether the “temperature reached is adequate” in relation to: the number of ideas proposed (fluency of ideas), their variety or diversity (flexibility of categories) and finally their degree of personalization (originality).
In order to evaluate the fluency and flexibility indicators, the criteria established by the educator are applied to the thermometers: the number of ideas (rated from 1 to 5) and the different response categories proposed (also rated from 1 to 5, so that if more than 5 alternatives are offered, the score of 5 is maintained). In terms of originality, Marie and the educator comment on and take into account as a criterion the level of personalization of the proposal and the extent to which it reflects the personal idiosyncrasies of the protagonist of the process.
Specifically, Marie has been able to propose 5 different alternatives to solve the challenge posed; which is satisfactorily evaluated by the educator. In terms of flexibility, Marie has been able to come up with 4 different ways of how to deal with childcare while she receives training. Likewise, the ideas proposed respond to the personal idiosyncrasy of the protagonist of the process, adjusting to her lifestyle and can be considered as original alternatives.
Taking into account the results obtained and the favorable evaluation on the thermometers (all scores were higher than 3 out of 5 points), it is possible to move on to the next phase of the DT process.
Before implementing the idea, a prototype representing the action plan must be developed. In order to plan the steps of the chosen idea (Create a network with other migrant women to set up a system of childcare shifts so that they can attend training courses).
Marie should think about what she is going to do and then Dramatize the situation. A role-playing game is carried out in which other members of the institution, as well as the educator, participate to design the action plan to be followed.
Once the dramatization is finished, guided by Marie, the rest of the participants give her their opinion on the process she has decided to carry out and the improvements that could be included.
The tool used has proved to be a success and Marie clearly knows how to put her idea into practice, as the following criteria were positively evaluated (score equal to or higher than 3 out of 5 on all thermometers by both): ability to identify all the significant elements that allow solving the problem, ability to propose an appropriate time sequence and ability to precisely define the steps to be followed.
In this last phase, the plan was implemented. The events unfolded as follows:
Marie tries to promote her network with other migrant women by making posters that she places in the streets of the city and within the NGO itself. Despite the interest in this proposal, it has a low participation rate (only 2 women who do not have flexible schedules are contacted) due to the women’s distrust of leaving their children in the hands of strangers.
The evaluation of this last phase is carried out on the basis of a Final questionnaire (in paper format and translated into the language usually used by Marie), in which Marie reflects on the implementation of the prototype according to the plan, taking into account criteria such as: persistence and resolution of difficulties during the process, autonomy and empowerment to carry out the plan and resolution of the challenge posed.
Since the proposed challenge could not be solved, the educator meets again with Marie to recall the previous phases of the DT process and to define more clearly the challenge to be addressed. From this conversation, in which a simultaneous translation system is used, it is discovered that Marie does not receive support from her husband in the tasks of caring for their children, so it is decided that the couple should attend different courses to help them understand the importance of reconciling work and family life. Thus, Marie’s husband understands that his wife’s inclusion in the labor market is essential, as well as his own, and he begins to take care of his children so that Marie can attend training courses and thus increase her chances of inclusion in the labor market.
As it has been observed, the DT process is open and allows the return to previous phases. In this case, the real solution was found within the family itself, since there was no active participation and coordination among its members. Once the questionnaire was completed again to evaluate the resolution of the challenge posed, favorable results were obtained, since Marie was able to attend different courses.
The end of the process is aimed at making visible through objective data Marie’s improvement in the different competencies related to the problem-solving process. For this purpose, the evaluation instruments used in session 3 (CREA, PIC and the adaptation of the DCBE ). The data obtained provides Marie with objective evidence to help her become aware of her improvement in exploring her needs, making decisions, seeking alternative solutions, planning and organizing. In addition, it scores higher in aspects such as self-organization and the decision-making process. All this will favor their empowerment, proactivity, expectations of success and, therefore, the process of social and labor inclusion.
The information obtained through objective tests is completed with an interview. Interview The interview focused on the following questions: does Marie feel more empowered, did she have fun, does she think the methodology can be useful in the long term, what aspect of the DT process did she like the most/least, what would she change, which phase and which activity caused her the most/least difficulties, is she aware that a problem can be solved in different ways, will she face problems differently from now on? From this interview it is clear that Marie now knows a new systematized method to solve her problems, which was difficult for her to assimilate in the first phases but which she considers very useful and practical for decision making.
Finally, in order to evaluate the correct acquisition, internalization and comprehension of the DT methodology, the following asks Marie to carry out the process again autonomously, starting from another of the challenges set out in the Define phase. The educator, in this case, only records progress.
