To bridge the gap between leadership decisions and user needs, I started by conducting research and surveys to uncover real user pain points. Instead of relying on assumptions, I gathered qualitative and quantitative data to inform our strategy. I then organized a brainstorming workshop involving key stakeholders: Director, Product Owner, QA Manager, Tech Manager
During this session, I presented research insights and walked the team through the pain points, patterns, and opportunities I had discovered. This collaborative approach allowed us to ideate solutions together, rather than making decisions in isolation.
Having business, product, and tech leaders in the same room helped us define business goals and technical constraints upfront, reducing rework later in the process.
Instead of relying on undocumented verbal discussions, we conducted our brainstorming sessions in FigJam, structuring them into sections like: Objectives & Goals, Research Insights, "How Might We", Statements, Proposed Solutions.
Using sticky notes, voting systems, and collaborative feedback, we created persistent artifacts, ensuring that any decision we made was well-documented, transparent, and easy to revisit.
After implementing Design Thinking into our decision-making process, I soon noticed another challenge within our Scrum events, particularly during Retrospectives. Most team members remained silent and contributed very little. Since our meetings were virtual, with cameras off, and we had language barriers, discussions felt disengaging and unproductive. To address this, I proposed to the Scrum Master that I'd host the next Retrospective with a more interactive format using FigJam.
I designed the Retrospective in FigJam, dividing it into three key sections:
- Game Section: A quick activity to help everyone loosen up and get engaged.
- Retro Board: Featuring three columns: Done Well (What went well during the sprint?), Can Improve (What could be better?), Ideas for Next Sprint (Suggestions for improvement).
- Grading Section: Each team member would rate their sprint and list bullet points explaining their score.
This helped identify teammates who didn’t have a good sprint so we could address their challenges. Having a visual board structured this way made it easier for everyone to follow the flow rather than struggling to think of what to say on the spot. Writing their thoughts also helped overcome the language barrier, giving people time to process and articulate their ideas before discussing them.
The first redesigned retrospective was a big success. To help the team get used to this new approach, I introduced a fun competitive element: Each Retrospective, the Scrum team was randomly divided into two teams to compete during the game section. The losing team would be responsible for hosting the next Retrospective. Not only did this make the sessions more engaging, but it also strengthened collaboration. This approach has been a huge success, leading to 36 consecutive productive sprints and counting.
