Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

Lynn Dixon Case Study Analysis and Reflection Paper

Esther Garrison

Purdue 67200

Key stakeholders and their concerns:

The following are key stakeholders in the Lynn Dixon case study:
Designer: Lynn Dixon, working for Telopea Learning as instructional
designer (Sydney, Australia). Jeanette Parks, head of sales team at
Telopea Learning.
Client: Laura Barton, project sponsor for The Aquarium (Cairns,
Australia), The Marine Park- The Aquarium, Ben Williams, the education
Subject matter expert (SME): Ben Williams, education manager for The
Aquarium, software engineers and graphic designers at Telopea
Audience: Visitors to The Aquarium, ranging in age from small children
to senior citizens (senior citizen group may be a pilot audience).
Having identified the key stakeholders it is important to identify what each is
concerned with regarding the case. The key concern of the designer (Lynn) is
to design a kiosk interactivity station for all age groups at The Aquarium
within her clients budget and project timeline, while at the same time
balancing her other projects. Jeannette is not necessarily a designer but is
working for the design company in sales. Her lack of communication with
Lynn regarding design services and cost has created a struggle for Lynn in
dealing with her clients.
The clients (Laura Barton, Ben Williams, The Marine Park) primary concern is
to cater the design of the kiosk to the variety of visitors that come to The
Aquarium. Laura also mentioned wanting to include more regional wetland
content in order to respect the patronage of the community donors. However,
I believe the key concern for Laura and the park is making sure the
wetlands kiosk will be an engaging, interactive experience for all of the
people that visit The Aquarium- this includes the children and parents,
adolescents, the senior citizens, and the international guests.
The SME (Ben Williams) is concerned with designing a highly interactive kiosk
with fancy graphics and animations. Ben has some big expectations for this

project, some which may not fit into The Aquariums budget for the kiosk. He
also has a special desire to include Aboriginal culture into the wetlands kiosk.
This concern does not seem as important to Ben as the overall interactivity
the kiosk will offer with the visitors.
And, lastly, the audiences primary concern, which is not necessarily outlined
in the case study, is that the kiosk offers relevant content, appropriate for
their age. I can also see a key concern of the audience being user-friendliness
of the kiosk as well as entertainment. The audience will want to be able to
interact with the kiosk and its content with ease and interest.
ID challenges:
Within this case study there are two key design challenges that Lynn and her
team at Telopea are being faced with. I believe the first challenge comes in
the design stage of the ADDIE model of design. Lynn is being asked to design
an interactive interface and activities that must meet the needs (graphics,
animations, etc.) of her clients within their limited budget with an interface
she is not familiar with. Her challenge here is working on this design step with
Laura and Ben, and being able to give them what they want at the price that
is accurate. Speaking of price, Lynn also needs to communicate with Jeanette
about funding for design projects. It seems there may be a disconnect
between sales at Telopea and the design crew. Lynn also must work closely
with the SMEs at Telopea in working with the touchscreen interface, knowing
very little about it. It would be a challenge, to say the least, to design for an
interface you have no previous experience with.
The other design challenge I see facing Lynn is in meeting the concerns of
Laura regarding the audience. This would be in the analysis stage of ADDIE
where Lynn must analyze the types of learners, the objectives the kiosk is
being designed to meet, and evaluating the environment and mode in which

each learner will experience the kiosk. This is something that should have
been conducted and communicated at the start, but it seems Lynn has not
been able to get a handle on all the components that the clients want
included in this kiosk software. If communication were a step in the ADDIE
model I would select that stage of the process that is dealing with continued
challenges. However communication is laced throughout all levels of the
ADDIE model, and I would say in the analysis stage Lynn will need to take a
step back in communicating with Ben and Laura about key objectives for the
learners so she can better design the kiosk program to meet those objectives.
Case-specific constraints: The constraints that Lynn is facing while
meeting the above design challenges are miscommunication between clients
needs and their budget (some of that being in-house at Telopea), Lynns
inexperience with the interface, and the long-distance work relationship Lynn
and Jeanette (Sydney) have with Laura and Ben (Cairns). Here is a prioritized
list of these constraints along with the rationale for their position:
a. Balancing clients needs and budget: The next constraint of import
is the fact Lynns clients are asking for more than they are willing to
pay for. And this may be a product of Jeanettes false presentation
of what Telopea can do for them with that budget. Ben is stuck on
the use of high-flying animations and games that are not realistic
with the budget. This is priority number one because without
clearing up the fuzzy line between what the clients want and what
they can afford will create tension and larger issues as the project
continues. The project may even hit a wall if the communication
cannot improve in this arena.
b. Unfamiliarity with interface: I would rank this constraint after
miscommunication regarding budget/cost. Lynn is unfamiliar with
the design of a touchscreen interface however she has access to
staff members at Telopea that can partner up with her and take her
through that process. She will be learning along the way and it will
add a challenge to her project design but it is not something that
cant be learned and smoothed out.
c. Long-distance relationship: I know businesses are always working
through long distances, but that doesnt mean it cant add stress
and inconvenience to the working relationship. I believe having
Laura and Ben a plane ride away makes it trickier in sending and
receiving feedback regarding some of the other project constraints.
I rand this constraint last simply because it hasnt seemed to create

too much fuss within the case study. They seem to be managing
this long-distance relationship well, through email and digital
Contributions to analysis:
Readings: The Hoffler and Leutner (2007) article fascinatingly
addressed if interactivity with animated graphic images (opposed to static
images) affects learning. The results showed that representational animations
are superior to learning than static images and even decorational
animations. This made me analyze Bens desire to include high-flying
animations of animals into the kiosk. I would consider that decorational
animation which, according to Hoffler and Leutner, would not have significant
affects on audience learning. It may look fancy but seeing that their budget
is already tight it would not be practical to invest in decorational animations.
This sort of study would give Lynn more ammo as she goes into reviewing the
budget and expectations with her clients. The Sung and Mayer (2012) article
would also support this idea. In their article, Sung and Mayer have found that
graphics relevant to the content can improve student learning. This finding
would also guide Lynn and her design team in keeping the graphics and
animations relevant. And by not getting fancy, as Ben wanted, can keep the
cost low and keep the clients within their budget.
Previous experiences: I dont have much experience dealing with
software design in a business setting, however I do have experience in
picking out age-appropriate digital programs that I want to use in my
classroom. As I think of Lynn tackling the task of differentiating the kiosk
content for all learners I understand the difficulty in doing so. I also
understand that every segment of a lesson will not cater to all learners. So I
look at the challenge Lynn has before her and know she will not be able to

reach all age groups and nationalities at every facet of the kiosk. But she will
be able to sprinkle in age-appropriate content as well as some international
catering as she makes each level of the interactive.
Being in a small, rural school I also understand the difficulty in
balancing the wants and desires I have regarding my resources and the
reality of what I can be afforded. Lynn will need to be firm and genuine as she
deals with reminding her clients of the reality of what their budget can afford
them. Although clients may be disappointed it is a pretty black-and-white
situation; it comes down to simple numbers.
Reasonable Solutions:
Solution 1: Lynn needs to meet with Jeanette and present her with an
outline of what exactly she can design and implement using various budgets.
Re-communicating this aspect of the project is crucial. It seems that Jeanette
may have miscommunicated what Telopeas design team can do for The
Marine Park, and Lynn seems to be out of the loop regarding that situation.
Once this is reestablished Lynn can then meet again with Ben, Laura, and any
other Telopea design team member that might be involved. Coming to this
meeting Lynn should have the budget clarification sheet she and Jeanette
created as well as a more detailed design document that reflects the budget
From there, Lynn and her clients can go ahead with the plan that fits
nicely in their budget or renegotiate the funding
Solution 2: Lynn must spend some time analyzing her
audience/learners. In order to meet Lauras need of meeting all the various
learners that the kiosk will target, Lynn will need to do additional research
regarding pedagogy for the various age groups. By that I am suggesting for

her to read literature and research studies regarding the topic, not actually
conducting her own research.
Lynn must also learn to delegate. She has another project she is
working on as well. She could easily hand-off the task of researching and
analyzing the learners for the kiosk project on another staff member that
works on her design team. It may also help her to include other designers
and get second opinions.
Once the grunt work has been conducted, Lynn can now address the
issue of designing the kiosk curriculum to meet all learners. She will have to
meet with the graphic and software designers at Telopea so she can discuss
and learn how to implement what she knows about her learners with the
touchscreen interface.
After smoothing out how to reach all of the learners with the
touchscreen interface, Lynn needs to work that knowledge into the design
document she originally sent to Ben and Laura. Once that document is
finalized, she should present it to her clients in person. They can either
accept the final product (which she will present it as) or the clients can bring
up additional concerns which Lynn would need to work out. This would be at
the expense of the clients budget and time frame established.
Pros and Cons:








Final recommendation:
My final recommendation is for Lynn to focus on clearing up the
communication issues between herself and Jeanette, as well as herself and
the clients regarding the project budget. Without this basic, foundational
issue being resolved Lynn will always be involved in conflict with her clients
and potentially with the sales staff at Telopea.
Once Lynn has reworked the design services and project costs of the kiosk
project with Jeanette she will then be able to call a meeting with the SMEs
and clients.
A face-to-face conference would be best, allowing the group to go over the
financial documents and the project design document. I think it would be key
to have a staff member from the graphic design arena in this meeting, giving
validity to Lynns limitations regarding highly interactive graphics/animations
and budget.
After Lynn regroups with her clients she can take the firmly established plan
back to Sydney and spend her energy and time working out the design
logistics with the touchscreen interface. The issue with the clients wanting
design features they cannot afford will be dissolved, and this will allow Lynn
to effectively lead as project designer. The project will be back on track with
focus and clear expectations.

Addressing the cons:

In a job such as Lynns there will always be risk of upsetting a co-worker with
confrontation. However the benefit outweighs the risk in this situation,
because in order to move forward Lynn needs clarification and access to how
the sales department views cost of design. Time was also a concern with
picking solution 1. It would take Lynn some time to develop the financial
document as well as traveling to meet with the clients. Comparing the time
and cost to reestablish the clients desires with their budget with the time it
would take to conduct the research in solution 2, I think the time is much
better invested in clarifying client expectations. The project would not be able
to move forward without this foundational issue being resolved.
My only rationale regarding not pursing instructional differentiation is
because Laura seems pleased with Lynns response to that concern in the
second meeting. It is pretty clear that no matter what the interactive kiosk
includes it will be able to reach all ages with either images, graphics,
animations, or content.

Ertmer, P., Quinn, J., & Glazewski, K. (2014). The ID casebook: Case studies in
instructional design 4th ed.. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Hoffler, T. N. and Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animations versus static
pictures: A meta-analysis, Learning and Instruction, 17, 722-738.
Sung, E. and Mayer R.E. (2012). When graphics improve liking but not
learning from online lessons, Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1618-1625.