Author:

Karolina Roziewicz.

Communication intervention description:

Develop skills necessary for clear and concise explanations needed at leader level, put across information and knowledge in an understandable manner.

Desired learning outcome:

I CAN articulate ideas clearly in a logical order, applying a (modified) storytelling technique.

I AM confident and cool about the process of explanation.

Work process:

I used LxD Canvas for developing persona, doing a need analysis and examining the environmental conditions.
I included basic ideas for steps and intervention elements in the canvas as well.

Here is the work. Green notes are some comments written down after prototype and testing.

Theory:

For the first part of the process I suggested using a storytelling technique by Pixar. Here is what it looked like:

The learner role was to test it and tweak it to actual needs. Some steps were reordered or removed. Another version of more practical application was created (notes by learner).

Application:

The first practical application of the new “tool” (the “cheat sheet” of steps to follow while explaining) was to summarize a “long” book in a few steps. The book chosen was “11/22/63” by Stephen King.

The aim of this activity was to relate to learner’s personal interest in books, King’s work in particular. I wanted to create an atmosphere of relatedness and comfort. At this step I decided not to use communal work but individual experience.

The written summary went like this:

We then had a few rounds of practicing speaking ad hoc using the steps:

• Explain why folderS on PS4 UI are useful. (tweaked cheat sheet)
• Explain the plot of “Horizon Zero Down” game. (Pixar technique).
• Explain usability improvement in a specific UI component for a web application (tweaked cheat sheet).

Testing conclusions:

You can find some comments in green on the Learning Experience Canvas (reattached here again for reference).

• Some steps of the process proved dummy – a more practical sequence needed.
• The storytelling technique will not always be applicable for IT related issues.
• Pixar’s method might be too simplistic for complex problems. Alternatives were missing.
• Making a habit of implementing the technique will take a lot of time.
• Other methods for concrete and succinct communication were suggested by the learner – a great beyond learning outcome (drawing on today’s  discussions): ownership of tool choice and tool design done by learner.
• There was not enough time to test all aspects of the experience and not enough trials.
• Suggested mindfulness practice was regarded not crucial – a better understating of learner needs needed.
• Restricted and limited f2f contact with others impacts proper testing of methods proposed (so actually impedes the learning process), though it would be helpful to test and trial (despite introvert assumptions).
• General comment: interesting solution (learner open to new approaches), would work as part of a greater series of interventions. A broader learning plan was needed.
• Learning outcome of the testing session: learner noted how important context is for any explanation – a great first step.

An improved version is yet to be made. Testing conclusions make up a very good starting point for improved development.