The who/what/when/where/why framing device was useful in helping to identify areas where we can possibly intervene or highlight in our design proposals. Framing our map with these five questions showed that certain parts of the problem are set while other facets can be challenged and changed. For example, the who involves the set groups of multiple generation of Australians, and only when we consider why each group holds the position they do can we start to formulate design ideas. User values and motives are key in designing a service or object that has impact that lasts. In this sense the group session was really useful.
I find working in a group to be the redeeming quality of doing similar mapping tasks over and over. While we may repeat ourselves a lot, slowly, new things are introduced. One weakness of the process has been a general confusion around the purpose of research. We are use to a different order of process, in the sense that most design projects involve getting familiar with the problem space, coming up with ideas and then doing in-depth research; while here we are doing things in reverse in the hope that something will emerge. I guess this uncertainty has been a weakness of the process. That being said, I feel like we are now at a point where the problem space is clear and possible design interventions have started to emerge.