STAR is a really good framework for telling a story about impact. But I see a lot of designers use it wrong, so I updated it. The acronym STAR stands for Situation, Task, Action, Result. In essence: what was the goal, what did you do, and how well did that work? All the basic components you need for a good case study. Unfortunately, sometimes you'll see STARs that look like this: Situation: Product manager wrote a user story Task: I had to design the visuals for it Action: *description of the Double Diamond design process* Result: I attached the visuals to the Jira ticket Technically this story fits the STAR framework, but doesn't it sell the impact a bit short? That's because everything described here is part of the Task "I was responsible for the visuals". The story starts without telling us anything about the context, and ends by saying "I was responsible for following these steps, so I followed them." Not a very satisfying conclusion. What readers of your case study are looking for isn't the "definition of done" of your role. They want to know how successful the output was at serving its purpose; the Situation description establishes that purpose while the Result description shows the progress towards the desired outcome that you were able to achieve. CARDIO is an update of STAR that makes it easier to hit those notes by making them more explicit. It prompts you to share the Context of the work (including the goal) and the Assumptions about it (such as the task or output that will achieve the goal). Then (because design is a feedback loop and not a linear process) it offers the opportunity to talk about the Research, Discovery, and Iteration done to update those assumptions (multiple cycles of framing Tasks, taking Action, and then reframing the Tasks based on what you learned) before describing the Outcomes. This formulation is (hopefully) a little bit more output-proof than the original. https://lnkd.in/eYaEGw_5
One of my issues with STAR/cardio or any of the other clever acronyms is that it enlists the interviewer to an orthodoxy with an expected outcome. Which is to ask, if an interviewee who might have ADHD or be on the spectrum (ahem) who does not stick to each letter to the letter, have they then given a wrong answer that costs them a job which they might otherwise be perfect for? Good stories often do not fit into neat cookie cutters.v
Man, I hate cardio :/
Very informative! I'm definitely going to try CARDIO in my projects. When I follow the STAR framework, I make sure to use STAR-I, where 'I' stands for Impact. I believe it's important for designers to measure the results of the problems they solve. This can be overlooked if we focus solely on delivering the results without addressing their impacts.
Love this! It’s a much better framework for designers. I see a lot of designers struggle to articulate the problem, and talk about the process as a series of steps rather than outcomes, just as you said. Which is why I sometimes coach designers on the PAAR (Problem, Assumptions, Actions, Results) framework, and narrative storytelling. It completely changes how the case study lands. I’ll be working this CARDIO method in now as well, thank you!
I’d love if it were “STARDIO” to capture the idea that it was building on an existing model.
Great framework. I like the explicit mention of assumptions and research.
Really interesting take on it, I have trouble sticking to any framework when story telling and try to leave myself sticky notes as reminders... Im afraid if I put CARDIO on a sticky note I'll just think I'm reminding myself to work out 😅
Love this approach
This is great! I usually suggest STAR to designers as a guide to point to for answering common interview questions. For talking about a project or using it as a guideline for a case study, this would be much more telling and interesting.
Lead Product Designer @ IBM Cloud ☁️ | Product Management | Developing UX Engineer | US Air Force Veteran
3wSuper interesting and very well written! My thought is, do we really need frameworks for people to explain their work? Wouldn’t a better hiring criteria simply be evaluating that’s person’s unique communication style and judging the outcome of their story? Some of the best communicators I have ever met don’t fall into structured frameworks or academic guardrails, they can simply evaluate the person they are talking to and craft a dialog that would resonate directly to that archetype of person.