# PWR-133 — Design thinking: learner worksheet Release: Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition Estimated time: Estimated 27 min reading and worksheet pass Difficulty: Intermediate Equipment: Common household or practice equipment — Exact fictional evidence packet: after each of three events, 9–12 of 30 reusable name cards remain on tables; the current return box sits behind the open exit door and is not visible from the final table; the cleaner moves remaining cards to the office; one supplied note says ‘I looked for the return place while leaving and did not see it.’ These are fixture facts, not real participant data.; Observation–assumption sheet, role map, problem-frame card and three paper-prototype kits.; Walkthrough rubric for visibility, reach, clarity, burden, reversibility and rights, plus three hidden challenge cards: A says the exit path must remain clear; B sets the fixture’s reachable opening at 70–100 cm; C limits organiser setup to five minutes. Space: Desk / seated Automated structural checklist: 10 of 10 structural checks present Evidence quality/context: G1; Focused research depth Automated method-quality band: Comprehensive Method-rating basis: Structure coverage, instruction/check specificity, alternative distinctness, source troubleshooting, comparison depth and whether purpose/check fields are authored rather than derived. Editorial review: Pending manual editorial sign off ## Before you begin - [ ] I read the tutorial authority and stop conditions. - [ ] I have the required equipment/space or a declared accessible alternative. ## Canonical source context Design thinking here means understanding a bounded context, separating observations from assumptions, framing a testable problem, generating alternatives, making small reversible prototypes and learning from task-specific feedback. The exercise uses a fictional community-room name-card return problem. The learner does not invent a demographic persona, claim to know another person’s feelings or implement a real service change. Target outcome: The learner produces three paper prototypes tied to supplied observations and chooses a revision using a predeclared fictional walkthrough rubric. ### Authority and setup conditions - Write FICTIONAL FIXTURE and list the supplied evidence only. - Name the fictional owner, affected roles and who could stop a test. - Set paper-only scope with no real participant recruitment or installation. ### Required or supplied materials - Exact fictional evidence packet: after each of three events, 9–12 of 30 reusable name cards remain on tables; the current return box sits behind the open exit door and is not visible from the final table; the cleaner moves remaining cards to the office; one supplied note says ‘I looked for the return place while leaving and did not see it.’ These are fixture facts, not real participant data. - Observation–assumption sheet, role map, problem-frame card and three paper-prototype kits. - Walkthrough rubric for visibility, reach, clarity, burden, reversibility and rights, plus three hidden challenge cards: A says the exit path must remain clear; B sets the fixture’s reachable opening at 70–100 cm; C limits organiser setup to five minutes. ## 1. Extract observations Copy only directly supplied actions and conditions, such as cards left on tables after events. Put explanations in a separate assumption column. Why: Design starts from evidence rather than judgement about people. Success check: Every statement is labelled observation or assumption. Accessible alternative: Complete “Copy only directly supplied actions and conditions, such as cards left on tables after events. Put explanations in a separate assumption column.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “Every statement is labelled observation or assumption.” Provide easy-read evidence cards and one role per page. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 2. Map roles and authority List participant, organiser, cleaner and room manager, then mark who experiences, operates, approves and can stop the change. Why: Affected roles and decision rights are different. Success check: The map names proposer, owner, affected roles and stop authority. Accessible alternative: Complete “List participant, organiser, cleaner and room manager, then mark who experiences, operates, approves and can stop the change.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “The map names proposer, owner, affected roles and stop authority.” Include disabled participants through legitimate participation in real work, never through invented personas. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 3. Frame a bounded question Write one how-might-we question tied to the observed moment and avoid labels such as careless or unmotivated. Why: A neutral frame keeps multiple causes and solutions open. Success check: The question names task, moment and desired function without diagnosing people. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Write one how-might-we question tied to the observed moment and avoid labels such as careless or unmotivated.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The question names task, moment and desired function without diagnosing people.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 4. Generate alternatives Create at least six mechanisms before selecting: return box at exit, table rack, lanyard cue and structurally different options. Why: Divergence prevents the first familiar solution from defining the problem. Success check: At least three mechanisms differ in where or when they act. Accessible alternative: Replace spoken or audio cues with visible text, captions or haptic timing while keeping the same sequence and success check. Provide easy-read evidence cards and one role per page. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 5. Build three smallest prototypes Make paper representations of three mechanisms, each answering one named uncertainty. Why: A prototype should buy information, not imitate a finished service. Success check: Each prototype has one question and can be discarded cheaply. Accessible alternative: Complete “Make paper representations of three mechanisms, each answering one named uncertainty.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “Each prototype has one question and can be discarded cheaply.” Include disabled participants through legitimate participation in real work, never through invented personas. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 6. Run the fictional walkthrough Apply the same supplied scenarios and rubric to all three. Record failures, access barriers and assumptions needing real participant evidence. Why: Comparable tests expose trade-offs while preserving the boundary. Success check: Every score cites a walkthrough observation. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Apply the same supplied scenarios and rubric to all three. Record failures, access barriers and assumptions needing real participant evidence.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “Every score cites a walkthrough observation.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 7. Test the riskiest assumption For each prototype, select the assumption most likely to reverse its result and use a supplied fictional evidence card to challenge it. Do not invent a participant response. Why: A prototype can look successful only because an unsupported belief stayed hidden. Success check: Each concept has one named assumption, one challenge card and a keep, revise or unresolved response tied to that evidence. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “For each prototype, select the assumption most likely to reverse its result and use a supplied fictional evidence card to challenge it. Do not invent a participant response.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “Each concept has one named assumption, one challenge card and a keep, revise or unresolved response tied to that evidence.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 8. Revise and state the gate Change one feature in the strongest learning candidate, preserve prior versions and list approvals and participation needed before any real test. Why: Iteration and implementation authority must remain visible. Success check: The final record has version change, evidence and an explicit no-implementation gate. Accessible alternative: Complete “Change one feature in the strongest learning candidate, preserve prior versions and list approvals and participation needed before any real test.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “The final record has version change, evidence and an explicit no-implementation gate.” Include disabled participants through legitimate participation in real work, never through invented personas. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## Reflection What changed? ________________________________________________________________________________ What remains difficult? ________________________________________________________________________________ What will I repeat, adapt, ask for help with, or stop? ________________________________________________________________________________ --- Completion of this worksheet demonstrates tutorial participation only. It does not establish capability, qualification, safety clearance, diagnosis, treatment or independent validation.