EXPERIMENTATION

Better Service, Faster: A Design

On February 14, 2014, Stanford students Elizabeth Woodson and Saul Gurdus drove a rented
Winnebago to the San Mateo office of the Golden Gate Regional Center (GGRC), where they
greeted eight curious GGRC staff members.
GGRC provides services and financial support to people with developmental disabilities in the
San Francisco Bay Area. But for parents of children with disabilities, navigating the long and
sometimes bewildering bureaucratic process required to get such services often challenges
their patience and persistence. Before GGRC can determine which services, if any, are best for
a child, staffers conduct a thorough assessment that entails meetings with parents, home
visits by social workers, and evaluations by medical professionals including speech
pathologists, psychologists, and nurses.

Elizabeth and Saul learned that these assessments usually take three months or more and that
parents have to drag their children to a daunting series of meetings and examinations in
unfamiliar new places, which distresses the children and leads many parents to abandon the
process. Although GGRC’s staff often develop great empathy for individual clients, going to
heroic lengths to help clients navigate the administrative maze, the system was not designed
to make life easy for clients or staff members.

Elizabeth and Saul pulled up in that Winnebago to invite those eight staffers to participate in
an experiment. The plan was to meet with potential clients in the neighborhoods where they
live. The GGRC team would assess each family’s needs and decide if they qualified for
assistance right then and there.

That day, they did nine assessments in less than two hours.

The Winnebago experiment wasn’t something that GGRC was ready to sustain and scale up. It
was too expensive, for one thing. But the exercise wasn’t really about the Winnebago; it was
about pushing beyond what was comfortable, taking a different point of view, trying
something new, experimenting, and discovering what to try next. It was part of a larger effort
by GGRC staffers to rethink what was possible for their clients and themselves.

In 2013, GGRC began working with the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford
University (which everyone calls the “Stanford d.school”) to learn the basics of design
thinking, a hands-on approach that focuses on developing empathy for others, generating
ideas quickly, and testing rough “prototypes” that, although always incomplete or often
impractical, fuel rapid learning for teams and organizations.

Working with Elizabeth, Saul, and a former GGRC staffer who understood both the client and
staff perspective because he had an autistic child, GGRC created a detailed map of the
assessment process. The group used color-coded Post-its to identify each step and the
emotions that clients usually felt, starting with parents’ initial contact with GGRC and ending
with the day they (finally) began to receive services. Constructing this “process map” helped
GGRC staffers realize that they were not attuned to numerous, unpredictable, frustrating
waiting periods.

GGRC staff members also discovered that while they each knew their own responsibilities,
they didn’t know much about what other colleagues did or how their work meshed with the
overall process.

No single stage felt broken from the vantage point of individual staffers. But when the
complete journey was framed from intertwined perspectives of the client and all GGRC
staffers, it was painfully obvious that there were big opportunities for improvement.

COURTESY OF ROBERT I. SUTTON

Design thinking entails a bias toward action. In that spirit, Elizabeth and Saul pushed forward
with the Winnebago rental.

After interviewing clients in the Winnebago that day, it took staffers another week of
concentrated work at the GGRC office to finish processing the assessments and begin serving
these families. But that was 10 weeks faster than usual, and they had learned valuable lessons
about how they could improve the process for all clients.

COURTESY OF ROBERT I. SUTTON

Bringing everyone into the same “room” led to a drastic reduction in waiting times. Families
could see everyone in one session, without going to a strange environment, which eased their
frustration and stress and helped disabled family members receive services much sooner.
GGRC staffers learned a great deal about the work that their colleagues did, how to better
support each other’s work, and how to work better as a team. The members of a complex and
vital human chain could now look one another in the eye, discuss each case from different
angles, and make better decisions. That opportunity had never existed before.

GGRC is now brainstorming improvement ideas and figuring out ways to prototype them on a
regular basis. They’ve learned that it’s not about one idea (the Winnebago); it’s about the
process of continuous improvement.

Several prototypes inspired by that day on the Winnebago have been launched or will be
soon. The first created a dedicated assessment team, which focuses on redesigning numerous
steps in the assessment process. The team’s goal is to process each application in no more
than 45 days — a 50% reduction. A second is called “Hybrid Social Worker 2.0.” This
prototype untethers social workers from their desks so they can spend more time with the
families they serve. The GGRC is experimenting with tablets, new software, and new
procedures that will allow social workers to complete their assessments in the field, which
will make the process feel better and move faster for families.

A third prototype, tested this year, focused on families that need GGRC services but have not
applied for them. The idea was sparked by interviews that GGRC staff had with families who
didn’t know they were eligible or were concerned the application process would be difficult
and distressing. The staff realized that, as GGRC head Lisa Rosene explained, “We must meet
families where they are, both physically and emotionally.” The resulting prototypes were
“open houses,” held right in the communities where eligible families live.

We are taken with the GGRC story because beyond the improvements for clients and the pride
that staff members feel about the changes they’ve made, it offers three key lessons for other
leaders and teams who are determined to make their organizations “Better by Design.”
First, your organization probably looks a lot different through your clients’ and customers’
eyes than it does through employees’ and leaders’. Anything you can do to gain empathy for
what it feels like to deal with your practices and people can help you design a more humane,
respectful, efficient organization.

Second, focus on ways that people in specialized roles and silos are blinded to how their work
meshes with the larger system. Look for broken practices and bad habits that unwittingly
create bottlenecks and bad handoffs between well-meaning people. And keep asking them,
their colleagues, and clients whether they have key information they aren’t passing along that
would speed the process and ease clients’ frustrations. Once people better understand how
their learning and role fits into the big picture, it is a lot easier for them shift from being part
of the problem to part of the solution.

Third, at the d.school, our goal is to teach people to “get comfortable with feeling
uncomfortable.” We’ve learned that enticing leaders and teams to try impractical things that
make them squirm a bit, such as the day spent in the Winnebago, can help them see what
they do from another vantage point. And when you can find ways to see the same old thing in
a different way, you can find solutions to obstacles that once seemed insurmountable.

The fourth and final lesson is that change takes courage, and if you can give people just a bit
of encouragement, it is remarkable how brave they can be.

Elizabeth and Saul’s GGRC project was completed for a d.school class called d.leadership: Design
Leadership In Context, where a dozen or so pairs of Stanford students each year work with an
external “client” to help them apply design thinking to solve thorny problems. The class is taught
by Perry Klebahn, Kathryn Segovia, Bob Sutton, and Jeremy Utley.
 Robert Sutton is Professor of Management Science and Engineering in the Stanford
Engineering School, where he is co-director of the Center for Work, Technology, and
Organization, cofounder of the Stanford Technology Ventures Program, and a cofounder and
active member of the new “d.school.” His new book, with Huggy Rao, is Scaling Up
Excellence: Getting To More Without Settling For Less.

David Hoyt is a research associate at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business.

This article is about EXPERIMENTATION

Related Topics: DESIGN

Comments
Leave a Comment

POST

0 COMMENTS

 JOIN THE CONVERSATION

POSTING GUIDELINES
We hope the conversations that take place on HBR.org will be energetic, constructive, and thought-provoking. To comment, readers must sign
in or register. And to ensure the quality of the discussion, our moderating team will review all comments and may edit them for clarity, length,
and relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted per the moderators' judgment. All postings
become the property of Harvard Business Publishing.