Participatory design project with UDI

Our design process was based on a participatory design approach, ensuring that our participants: the UDI employees, were actively involved at every stage. We used a variety of methods to explore and address the challenges identified in UDI's skilled labor immigration processes.

‍

Background and problem area:

‍Our team initially explored various topics before deciding to focus on skilled labor immigration within UDI, particularly the challenges related to document forgery in the application process. UDI's role in handling immigration, including case processing, made it a relevant and impactful area for our project. We conducted a SWOT analysis to better understand the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with these processes. Given our unique access to UDI caseworkers, they naturally became our primary participants. While the original plan was to work exclusively with caseworkers, we later recognized the value of including a broader range of participants, such as managers and applicants. However, due to time constraints and the sensitivity of involving applicants, we focused primarily on the organizational perspective within UDI.

‍

‍

Expert Interview

To gain an initial understanding of the systems and organizational culture within UDI, we conducted an in-depth interview with a senior advisor. This interview provided us with valuable insights into the daily workflows, tools like the DUF system, and the broader challenges faced by caseworkers. The knowledge gained here set the foundation for the subsequent workshops, enabling us to tailor our approach to the specific needs of UDI employees.

‍

‍

‍

Future Workshop

Our first participatory session was a "Future Workshop," aimed at identifying current problems and imagining ideal solutions. We facilitated discussions where participants highlighted key issues such as document authentication challenges, team structure complications, and IT system dependencies. Despite time constraints, this workshop was instrumental in uncovering the pain points that caseworkers experience daily and set the stage for generating creative solutions.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Affinity Mapping

After conducting the Future Workshop, we gathered a significant amount of data from participants. To make sense of this information, we used affinity mapping. This method allowed us to categorize and group similar ideas and challenges, helping us identify key themes such as system issues, collaboration difficulties, and the handling of forged documents. The affinity mapping process was crucial in organizing the insights from our workshops, enabling us to prioritize the most pressing issues and guide the direction of our design efforts.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Crazy Eights

Building on the insights from the Future Workshop, we conducted a "Crazy Eights" session to foster creative thinking. In this rapid ideation exercise, participants were encouraged to sketch out eight quick ideas in eight minutes, focusing on potential solutions to the problem of document forgery. This method allowed us to capture a wide range of ideas, from automated document verification systems to enhanced communication channels with educational institutions for validating credentials. The energy and spontaneity of this session sparked several innovative concepts that we later refined.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Storyboard Workshop

In the storyboard workshop, we collaborated with UDI caseworkers to visually map out the process of identifying and handling forged documents. Each participant contributed by outlining the steps they take when they encounter suspicious documents, which we then collectively refined into a detailed storyboard. This exercise revealed gaps in the current process, such as inconsistent communication and inefficiencies in detecting forgeries. The storyboard not only highlighted these issues but also served as a tool to discuss potential improvements, making the challenges more tangible and understandable for all involved.

‍

‍

‍

Talk with UDI-applicant

During our conversation with a UDI applicant, we aimed to gain an outsider insight on the immigration process. The applicant shared their experiences, highlighting challenges such as unclear documentation requirements and long wait times. This discussion emphasized the emotional stress and uncertainty faced by applicants, particularly when communication with UDI is limited. The insights from this talk reinforced the need for better communication and support throughout the application process, particularly in making the system more transparent and user-friendly for applicants.

‍

Talk with UDI team leader

In our discussion with the UDI team leader, we sought to understand the broader organizational perspective on the challenges faced by caseworkers. The team leader provided valuable insights into the internal processes, emphasizing the importance of balancing efficiency with accuracy in handling immigration cases. We learned that while caseworkers have significant autonomy, their input is also considered in higher-level decisions. This conversation highlighted the organizational challenges of implementing changes in a large, bureaucratic system and reinforced the importance of ensuring that any design improvements align with both operational goals and frontline needs.

‍

‍

What was the outcome?

Through our participatory design approach, we developed a comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced by UDI caseworkers, particularly in handling document forgery within the skilled labor immigration process. Our focus had been to ensure the three most important aspects of participatory design:

Co Creation

Mutual Learning

Having a say

Together we had all created sketches from Crazy Eights, made an affinity diagram and built a storyboard. In addition to these achievements, we built a detailed storyboard together with the participants that mapped out the entire process of identifying and managing suspicious documents. This visual tool highlighted inefficiencies and potential areas for improvement in the current workflow. The idea was that by creating such an artifact, the participants could use it to communicate the complexity of identifying false documents to leaders.

What did we learn?

One key learning from the project was the realization that redesigning the entire DUF system was not feasible within our scope. Instead, by focusing on the process and using visual tools like storyboards, we were able to propose realistic and actionable improvements. The project also underscored the importance of collaboration in a participatory design process, where the insights and contributions of UDI employees were crucial in shaping the final solutions.

This experience deepened our appreciation for the complexities of public sector systems and demonstrated how participatory design can effectively address real-world challenges by directly involving those who are impacted.

After the process, we had learned a lot about the participatory design process and we we're able to reflect over what activities could actually be considered "participatory" and not.

‍

Reflections and Challenges

Throughout the project, we faced several challenges, particularly in navigating the complex and sensitive nature of UDI’s processes. One significant challenge was balancing the inclusion of diverse participants, such as caseworkers, managers, and applicants, while managing time constraints and confidentiality requirements. Despite these challenges, the project provided valuable insights into the complexities of public sector systems and highlighted the importance of involving users directly in the design process. This experience reinforced our understanding of how participatory design can address real-world issues effectively, though it requires careful consideration of logistical and ethical constraints.

‍

‍