Stanford University

Project 2: Needfinding

Part II


This is the iterative, deliberate practice part of the assignment. Based on the critiques from your studio staff and your peers, go back out into the field. Your studio instructor may have suggested a different place to go this time or different people to talk to. Gather more observations, interview more people, and gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Improve your interpretations and your How Might We? questions. The expectations are high now: blow us away!


Create a four-minute presentation (e.g., Powerpoint, Keynote) communicating your final needfinding results: your most compelling observations, interpretations, and How Might We questions. Remember the principles of effective communitation: the presentation should not be a braindump, but instead an effective communicator of your main results.


On Canvas

Pull your final materials together into your P2 Part II submission folder. That means one PDF that includes revisions of all elements that were part of Part I, as well as a copy of your presentation slides.

In Studio

Your team will present your final results, using your slides, in studio.

Team Dynamics Checkin

Please submit a team assessment form (one for every member of the team). You will only get credit for P2-2 when every member of your team submits a form.

Grading rubric

Part II is worth fifteen points, graded on a rubric.

Category Unsatisfactory Adequate Good Very good Excellent
1: No clear user group to speak of. Ad-hoc methods. 2: Identification of a generic or too-broad user group. Methods only give cursory access. 3: Identification of a relevant user group, but too broad or not compelling. Methods are generally appropriate but may not give complete information. 4: Identification of a compelling user group and appropriate approach to learning about them. 5: Identification of a compelling user group and insightful approach to learning about them.
1: Observations are incomplete. 2: Observations seem generic, few in volume, or missing important perspectives. 3: Observations are generally on-target, but do not capture all stakeholders or have sufficient depth. 4: Observations capture all stakeholders at reasonable depth. 5: Observations identify many points of view that would not be obvious to a casual observer of the environment.
1: Interpretations are incomplete or do not match the empirical evidence. 2: Interpretations only reach the surface level, leaving deeper motivations and quesitons unturned. 3: Interpretations reach beyond the surface level in a limited way. 4: Interpretations have reached a mature level of depth, though there is some inconsistency. 5: Interpretations are through and deep; they have uncovered interesting and unexpected needs+points of view.

If any of the deliverables are missing (e.g., no How Might We questions), we will reduce your score by 25% per deliverable.