Reimagining the Judy Chicago Research Portal

(Penn State University Libraries & Partners)

Challenge

The Judy Chicago Research Portal is a groundbreaking multi-institutional project that connects archives, libraries, and foundations stewarding the legacy of feminist artist Judy Chicago. By 2025, stakeholders knew the portal had potential to be much more, but key questions lingered:

  • Who exactly was it for?

  • What problem should it solve?

  • And how could multiple institutions align on technical, governance, and resourcing challenges?

Without clarity on purpose or audience, design decisions risked fragmentation and stalled momentum.

Approach

Penn State Libraries brought me in as a facilitator to guide a human-centered design process and technical feasibility assessment. I structured the work into three phases:

  1. Alignment Workshop: Stakeholders across Getty, Penn State, Harvard, NMWA, Nevada Museum of Art, Jordan Schnitzer Foundation, and Judy Chicago’s Studio came together in a remote workshop to clarify audiences and goals. We used personas to test assumptions and aligned around scholarly researchers as the core audience.

  2. Visioning Workshop: Building on research and interviews, we explored possibilities: Should the Portal serve as a unified finding aid? A curated legacy experience? Or both? The group identified the most critical points in the researcher journey where the Portal could add value, and sketched concepts.

  3. Feasibility & Prioritization: We evaluated ideas by impact and difficulty, then mapped a phased roadmap. Early wins included improving metadata consistency, enabling cross-collection search, and simplifying results pages. Longer-term opportunities included AI-powered bibliographies, immersive storytelling, and community collaboration features.

Just as important as the workshops themselves was the work that happened in between:

  • Interviews & Surveys: I conducted stakeholder surveys and one-on-one interviews with archivists, curators, educators, and technologists. These surfaced both the shared excitement about the Portal and the wide range of expectations for what it should do.

  • Synthesis: I distilled hours of interviews and multiple rounds of survey data into themes, user personas, and problem statements. This synthesis work ensured that workshops were grounded in real needs rather than assumptions.

  • Facilitation Prep: Before each workshop, I prepared custom activities (persona deep-dives, prioritization grids, lightning demos) and selected external examples that could spark new thinking among participants.

What We Learned

In the Alignment Workshop, we clarified that scholarly researchers should be the primary audience. In the Visioning Workshop, we debated whether the Portal could simultaneously serve as a finding aid and a legacy platform… and agreed it could, if phased thoughtfully. The Feasibility Workshop used prioritization to focus on high-impact, achievable improvements first, while leaving space for future growth.

  • Divergent expectations can coexist when the roadmap distinguishes core vs. aspirational features.

  • Metadata consistency and governance are the backbone of any unified search experience.

  • Audience clarity (scholars first) provided a compass for decisions while still allowing for expansion later.

Outcome

By the end of the sprint, the project team had a prioritized roadmap that balanced ambition with feasibility. Phase 1 focused on critical researcher needs (cross-collection search, advanced filters, saved links), while Phase 2 and 3 outlined aspirational features (AI, community tools, thematic storytelling).

By combining in-depth interviews, careful synthesis, and intentional facilitation prep with structured workshops, the project aligned a diverse group of institutions around a shared vision, and gave them a practical plan to advance the Portal into its next chapter. The process helped a diverse group of institutions coalesce around a shared vision, while giving funders and partners a concrete path forward.

Approach

Penn State Libraries brought me in as a facilitator to guide a human-centered design process and technical feasibility assessment. I structured the work into three phases:

2. Alignment Workshop: Stakeholders across Getty, Penn State, Harvard, NMWA, Nevada Museum of Art, Jordan Schnitzer Foundation, and Judy Chicago’s Studio came together in a remote workshop to clarify audiences and goals. We used personas to test assumptions and aligned around scholarly researchers as the core audience.

2. Visioning Workshop: Building on research and interviews, we explored possibilities: Should the Portal serve as a unified finding aid? A curated legacy experience? Or both? The group identified the most critical points in the researcher journey where the Portal could add value, and sketched concepts.

3. Feasibility & Prioritization: We evaluated ideas by impact and difficulty, then mapped a phased roadmap. Early wins included improving metadata consistency, enabling cross-collection search, and simplifying results pages. Longer-term opportunities included AI-powered bibliographies, immersive storytelling, and community collaboration features.

Just as important as the workshops themselves was the work that happened in between:

  • Interviews & Surveys: I conducted stakeholder surveys and one-on-one interviews with archivists, curators, educators, and technologists. These surfaced both the shared excitement about the Portal and the wide range of expectations for what it should do.

  • Synthesis: I distilled hours of interviews and multiple rounds of survey data into themes, user personas, and problem statements. This synthesis work ensured that workshops were grounded in real needs rather than assumptions.

  • Facilitation Prep: Before each workshop, I prepared custom activities (persona deep-dives, prioritization grids, lightning demos) and selected external examples that could spark new thinking among participants.

What We Learned

In the Alignment Workshop, we clarified that scholarly researchers should be the primary audience. In the Visioning Workshop, we debated whether the Portal could simultaneously serve as a finding aid and a legacy platform… and agreed it could, if phased thoughtfully. The Feasibility Workshop used prioritization to focus on high-impact, achievable improvements first, while leaving space for future growth.

  • Divergent expectations can coexist when the roadmap distinguishes core vs. aspirational features.

  • Metadata consistency and governance are the backbone of any unified search experience.

  • Audience clarity (scholars first) provided a compass for decisions while still allowing for expansion later.

Outcome

By the end of the sprint, the project team had a prioritized roadmap that balanced ambition with feasibility. Phase 1 focused on critical researcher needs (cross-collection search, advanced filters, saved links), while Phase 2 and 3 outlined aspirational features (AI, community tools, thematic storytelling).

By combining in-depth interviews, careful synthesis, and intentional facilitation prep with structured workshops, the project aligned a diverse group of institutions around a shared vision, and gave them a practical plan to advance the Portal into its next chapter. The process helped a diverse group of institutions coalesce around a shared vision, while giving funders and partners a concrete path forward.