After the analysis phase, I reflected on what the partner organization tackled during the interview, read literature (see Related Studies) that discusses the problem of wayfinding, and informally consulted with subject matter experts (i.e., librarians) within my network. Through this, I came up with three objectives for the development plan (see Appendix F):
To redesign the printed library map to include:
color-coded and numbered shelves;
a map key based on the Dewey Decimal System with user-friendly icons; and
study areas, computers, and other key facilities
step-by-step process on how to locate books and resources within the library
To create an interactive digital version of the library map that integrate clickable hotspots that provide step-by-step directions.
To produce a short instructional video on how to locate books and resources within the library.
With these objectives in mind, I designed a Minimum Viable Product (MVP), which is a simplified version of the instructional design product meant to gather initial feedback before full development (see Appendix E).
In our set meeting with Ms. Melissa, the library director, and Ms. Alyssa, the Associate Library Director, I presented these objectives I crafted and the Minimum Viable Product for the problem mentioned in the objectives. They were able to share their sentiments about it—what they liked and what they felt were not suitable for the practices of the library.
For objective 1a, they liked the idea of redesigning the printed library map as they were dissatisfied with the current version. However, they felt that color-coded and numbered shelves would be impractical due to frequent shelf reorganization. Instead, they preferred labeling general sections rather than individual shelves.
For objective 1b, they liked the idea of using the Dewey Decimal System but suggested that instead of labeling every shelf, we should label general sections. For example, "Nonfiction (000-319)." This would make the map simpler and easier to navigate. They also loved the idea of adding user-friendly icons for specific areas (i.e., computer stations, elevators, printers, copiers, stairs, restrooms, etc.) to make the map much easier for patrons to understand.
For objective 1c, they loved the idea of adding the study areas on the map, as this would help patrons find places to stay and lounge, which is currently absent from the existing map.
For objective 1d, they suggested that instead of including a step-by-step guide on how to locate a resource, we should include an intent-based FAQ instead since the common questions asked at the information desk are not about locating specific books, but more about how to find particular areas in the library. They also shared the frequently asked questions with me, which I took note of.
For objective 2, I introduced the idea of making the study areas and meeting rooms clickable in the interactive map. Once a patron clicks on a room, a pop-up would appear with directions on how to get there. They suggested connecting it to the library’s booking system for those rooms, which is a great idea as it would make it very useful for patrons.
For objective 3, they were open to creating an instructional video. However, they also brought up the need to train employees on map editing, which we both agreed deserve more attention.
The subject of software also came up. Although my initial plan was to develop these instructional materials using Articulate Storyline, a commonly used tool by instructional designers, it is quite expensive. This posed a challenge for the library, as it would make it difficult for them to update the map in the future, which was one of their concerns. As a matter of fact, their current map is created in AutoCAD, which is why staff is having a hard time to update it. With that in mind, as an alternative, I suggested using Microsoft PowerPoint, which would be more cost-effective, easier for them to edit, and more accessible for revisions. Additionally, I offered to create a guide to help them make updates on their own in the future.
After the meeting, I stayed for a few more hours in the library and started working on the initial iteration of the map for level 2. This way, in the following days, I would be able to work on the other levels using the approved level 2 map as my guide. Before I left, I presented this initial iteration to Ms. Melissa, and she loved it. She gave me the go signal to move forward to the development phase.
In this phase, I gained three (3) important insights:
First, I gained a deeper understanding of the importance of working closely with the partner organization throughout the process. If I had skipped this step and moved forward haphazardly to the development phase, I would have wasted time and effort creating a product that didn't align with the library’s needs or practices.
Second, I was able to appreciate the benefit of presenting a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) instead of an abstract plan. By presenting a simplified MVP rather than just an abstract plan, I was able to gather concrete feedback that would be incredibly helpful for the development phase. As a bonus, it also helped prevent misunderstandings and ensured that we both had the same vision in mind regarding the direction of the project.
Third, I realized that instructional design is indeed not a linear process but rather an iterative one. In an ideal world, we would move forward through the ADDIE process continuously and without hiccups. However, as outlined in the narration of events, during the design phase, a new need emerged: the need for staff training. This meant we had to revisit the analysis phase to determine who the target learners for the training manual or course would be, ensuring that all new needs are addressed effectively.
Several problems arose during this phase, but thoughtful resolutions and compromises were made:
First, the initial proposal for a printed library map, which included color-coded and numbered shelves, was not suitable for the library’s practice of frequently rearranging items. As a compromise, we decided to use general section labels rather than labels for specific shelves. This solution ensured that the map would remain accurate and usable despite ongoing reorganization.
Second, a challenge regarding the sustainability of making updates to the map arose. To address this, I suggested creating a training guide or course for the library staff to enable them to independently update the map in the future. This would help maintain the map’s relevance and accuracy over time and would minimize the library's reliance on external help.
Third, the software initially considered for creating the materials (i.e., Articulate Storyline) was too expensive and inaccessible for the library. As a solution, I recommended using Microsoft PowerPoint, which would be more affordable, flexible, and easy for the library to use for updates.
One of the major strengths of how the design phase was conducted was the use of the Minimum Viable Product (MVP). By presenting a simplified version of the instructional design product early on, I was able to gather concrete feedback from the library directors and proceed to the development phase with confidence.
One weakness in the design phase is that there was a lack of clear documentation of all feedback received. There were instances when I wasn't able to take detailed notes on everything that was brought up. Fortunately, the video recording came in handy, as it provided a valuable reference for reviewing the feedback later.
For future phases, particularly the development phase, it is recommended that all the data gathered during the design phase be used to inform the development process. Be open to feedback and don’t be afraid to revisit and go back to earlier phases if needed. Again, instructional design is an iterative process, and flexibility is key to ensuring that the final product effectively meets the needs of both the organization and the users.