Typical studies only look at really successful cases in isolation and draw best practice solutions from them. This is useful, but it doesn’t really clarify whether something worked because of a particular variable or despite it.
For example, when designing a product for people, design thinkers look to both the power-user and the anti-user. In designing cooking utensils, a set of designers watched how chefs used cooking equipment and where they struggled. Then they studied how children used the same utensils, since kids often lack the experience to create a "work-around" for the flaws in the original design.
一般的な勉強は一見とても効果的に見える半面、一定の状況でしか その結果を感じることができないものです。 もちろん 一般的な知識も実用的ですが、効果的な言動や方法だったのか いまいち感じにくいのも事実だと思います。
例えば、商品などを開発する際 デザイン的思考を持つ人は それを毎日のように使う人の事を考えて開発やデザインを進めていくと同時に、普段 その商品をまったく使わない人のことも考えます。 調理器具を開発する際に、シェフが どのように器具を使いながら作業をするのかを勉強し、 小さな子供に 同じ調理器具を与えた時の使い方に注意を払いました。 小さな子供などは もともと、その物自体が使われるべき方法以外の使い方などもしますので。
This surfaced both the strengths and weakness of the products, which ultimately benefited the redesign for the average person as well.
In the case of matching people with jobs, why not look at a series of cases of remarkable employer to employee matches, both unconventional and conventional? We could also find answers by examining a series of concrete cases of seemingly ideal?yet failed attempts?to close the skills gap.
The third technique takes into account the human experience. You can design the most flawless systems on paper, but without taking into consideration the dynamic and quirky dimension of people, you’ll never get it right. That’s why "human-centered design" is a cornerstone of design thinking.
これは当該製品の強みと弱みの両方を浮き彫りにしていて、最終的に一般受けもするデザインへの変更に寄与しました。
仕事と人材をマッチさせる場合、求職者のマッチングに特筆した雇用者の一連のケースについて考えないのでしょうか。マッチングには従来からの方式もあれば新しい方式もあります。一見理想的に思える一連の具体例を調べて回答を見つけることもできたのでしょうか。すでに試したけど失敗したのでしょうか。スキルの格差を縮めるために。
3つ目のテクニックは経験面を考慮しています。紙上では正に完璧なシステムを設計できますが、ダイナミックで気まぐれな人たちを考慮に入れてはいないのです。はっきりとは理解できないでしょう。なぜなら"人間中心設計"こそがデザイン思考の基礎だからなのです。
It's based on the premise that empathy for the user is critical?all systems that intersect with human beings have to cater to human dimensions and experiences. Otherwise they’ll fail.
What does that mean for the skills gap? No matter how perfectly you design an education system, no matter how perfect the on-boarding and development programs an employer institutes, if you don’t address the human elements on all sides?employee, employer, and educator?you're going to face frustration.
それは、ユーザーのための共感が重要であるという前提に基づいていますか？
人間と交差するすべてのシステムは、人間的側面や経験に対応しなければなりません。そうでなければ、それらは失敗します。
スキルのギャップとは何を意味するのでしょうか？どんなに完璧に教育システムを設計しても、どんなに完璧なオンボーディング開発プログラム雇用機関でも、すべての面で人的要素に対応していない場合はどうなりますか？
従業員、雇用者、教育者？あなたは欲求不満に直面するでしょう。
Employers and educators have to put themselves in the shoes of the would-be employee searching for a job. Doing empathy exercises can provide deep insight into unexpected and concealed needs. Employers and educators can do this by actually experiencing what a potential employee would experience, or they can take on an analogous experience.
For example, if an employer wants to remember what it's like to learn something and apply it for the first time, they could try taking up surfing, playing the guitar, or learning how to build a chair.
雇用者や教育者は求職志望者の視点に立たなければなりません。共感する訓練を行うことにより予期せぬ隠れた欲求への深い洞察を得ることができます。このことを雇用者や教育者は有能な従業員が経験するであろうことに実際体験することにより実行できます。また類似したケースを引き受けることもできます。
例えば、もし雇用者が何かを学び、はじめて応用することがどういうことなのか念頭におきたいなら、彼らはサーフィンを始めたり、ギターを弾いたり、椅子の作り方を学んだりすることに挑戦できるのではないでしょうか。
This would help employers personally relate to the emotional ups-and-downs that would-be employees experience while learning something entirely new, while trying to intellectually retain the technical content. Similarly, educators and employees have to consider the needs of the employer, and both employees and employers have to consider the limitations of our educational institutions.
When designers want to know the experience of end users, what they do, think, act, and say?they want the human reaction in context?
they'll engage in observations or empathy exercises to get as close to the experience as possible. By doing so, they can identify pivotal opportunity areas. Some designers call such critical junctures "moments that matter."
These moments are characterized by heightened experiences, often during the outset or closure of a new undertaking, and also in moments of transition. To create effective solutions for the skills gap, we have to identify key moments that matter in the process, like when students realize they need a job to pay for things they want, when an employer is crafting the job description, or when schools hold students’ greatest attention.
Pivotal moments like these usually surface through observation of daily, weekly, and monthly activity.
While the skills gap issue may be contentious and complex, using these three general design thinking tools?analogous thinking, looking to extremes, and keeping the human experience in mind?can help us remember what really matters to all stakeholders. We can be honest about hurdles to overcome and what partnerships can be made along the way. If we use these methods, we might find that solutions are more accessible than we currently believe.
