Inclusive Design Training Program

Phase one (April–August 2020) focused on gathering input, assessing, and learning from stakeholders, peers, advisory members, and the public. A key part of our work was to translate and apply this robust information and insights in the planning, development, and design of the Inclusive Design Training Program within the context of the Detroit City of Design Challenge on community learning and resource hubs.

Input was gathered using a combination of methods. We conducted a survey of 65 faculty, students, staff, and alumni to understand how the IDTP could augment existing curricula at metro Detroit educational institutions (including College for Creative Studies, Wayne State University, University of Detroit Mercy, Lawrence Technological University, and University of Michigan). We interviewed 18 resident/community, industry/entrepreneur, and government/policy stakeholders. We conducted a field scan where we gathered and synthesized comparative and contextual information through desk research activities. We assembled a bibliography of over 77 relevant books, articles, and papers. We did comparative analysis of 6 benchmark programs. We conducted analysis of 25 adjacent approaches and practices (e.g., social design, designing for society, design with society, social innovation, social entrepreneurship, etc.) From these, we built profiles of each with clear definitions, aims, methods, social values, locus of impact, and impact for each one. We used this to articulate the value proposition of inclusive design from Design Core’s perspective, and how they might differentiate their approach within the field. All this information was analyzed, synthesized, and presented in a summary report and related documents.

In September 2020, we did the first virtual edition of College for Creative Studies’ Toyota Lecture Series. In this talk we discussed the process of codesigning the Inclusive Design Training Program under COVID-19 lockdown conditions, and facilitated a workshop for 45 participants getting their input on what the IDTP should do through a series of interactive exercises.

Phase two (September–December 2020) focused on turning our insights into action – developing, iterating, and testing the inclusive design programmatic offerings. We co-created 8 descriptions of potential future program participants. These were made up of composite characteristics based on real, local people. Beyond demographics, we recorded their networks, skills, workstyle, motivations, and possible barriers to participation. Among these personas were not only people that we hoped would apply for the first iteration of the program, but also those that we believed we would have to earn buy-in over several iterations. For each of the personas, we also developed learner journeys looking at their current situation, the inciting incident that would make them pay attention to the program, early participation, their experience during the program, immediate results from participating, and the long-term impact of participating. In this way, we considered a diverse array of people’s needs, perceptions, and the factors that might contribute to or detract from their experience.

We used these personas to problematize and test all our decisions about the practices and protocols required for program delivery, cohort recruitment, the application and selection process, program content and requirements, and feedback and evaluation mechanisms. We also created an IDTP decision tree – a decision support tool to guide Design Core staff through helping potential applicants decide if the program was the right fit for them. At each of 12 steps, we provided a range of alternative resources, opportunities, programs, and organizations that might be a better fit if the current program was not. Our intent was to provide Design Core with a tool to ensure that their engagement was always an invitation to reconnect and never a case of “No. Goodbye.”