IDEA9106 Design Thinking

Design is a state of mind



Blog Reflection 4 – mdes8225

1.) Describe your experience of creating personas from different users’ perspectives gathered in the interview data. Was there enough commonality between the 4 people interviewed to form a coherent persona? or did it make more sense to create a second different persona?

Our group chose the activity ‘catching public transport’. Albeit there were a lot of communalities within our group i.e. most would prefer train to bus, we could form a second persona with the distinct differences in the way that people use public transport and their attitude towards it. Our first had a definite utilitarian approach to public transport whereas the second would use it for pleasure and leisure too.

2.) Do you think your final persona(s) was successful in generating empathy with users? what would you change to make it better?

I think the personas were successful as they were reminiscent of actual individuals with a detailed enough narrative to be believable.

However, the narrative for our second persona was slightly more outrageous as time constraints had not allowed for a more thorough investigation into the other similarities between the people making up the character. This resulted in the fabrication of some of the details. Filling in the blanks and making assumptions inevitably resulted in a more stereotypical character.

If I could change anything I would reinterpret our data and see if there weren’t maybe more commonalities than differences between the two personas (in terms of the initial data that they represented) and if there was a way to maybe have combined the two. Perhaps a character that had a more utilitarian approach during the working week but a more leisurely approach on the weekend.

Blog Reflection 3 – mdes8225

1.) How did this exercise help you build empathy with the prospective users?

As researcher you include and retain a lot more of the initial detail present in the interview, which is something you might have discarded in other methods as it might be dismissed as less applicable. Once in the second stage of the diagram you then begin to define the relationship and see how even the smaller initial ideas become relevant as they hint to the bigger underlying needs and concerns. This exercise therefore helps you build empathy with the prospective users as you gain a holistic understanding of their wants, needs and concerns, even when not very clearly defined or well articulated by the user. The informal style interview was also quite informative as you get to know the language and character of the user.

2.) How did the clustering of information help you to understand user needs?

Clustering the information together creates sense and structure to what could be an overwhelming amount of information. The clustering of information also helps you as researcher understand the relationship between the different details in the interview and you can also extrapolate interesting new information that comes to light through the connections and relationships between the different bits of information. When clustering information it also forces you to clearly then define these relationships.

3.) What was difficult or challenging with the technique? How would you do it better next time?

The most difficult part of the technique was to think of how to define a cluster. Even when it is clear that there is a relationship or connection, putting it down to a single concise statement is quite challenging. I feel however, that this is also the greatest advantage of using this technique.

Next time I would retain a lot more of the initial information uncovered in the interview to see if it proves relevant later on. Discarding information to early in this technique my be a disadvantage as you might miss out on a valuable connection.

Blog at

Up ↑