Parent Circle

The transition to early parenthood in Australia is shaped by three converging pressures: social isolation, uncertain or conflicting guidance, and financial strain. For parents of children aged 0–4, these pressures arrive simultaneously. The resources meant to help are scattered across health portals, government websites and social media groups, with no connecting thread and no reliable way to know what to trust.

In a survey of 25 Australian parents, 33% turned to friends and family first for guidance, not health professionals or formal services. Over half reported checking social media advice against another source before acting on it. Parents aren’t short of information. They’re short of a way to know which of it to trust.

Triangulated across surveys (n=25 Australian parents and caregivers via Google Forms), semi-structured interviews with parents of children aged 0–4, and online ethnography through shadow observation of Mouths of Mums, Beyond Blue forums, and Mamamia comment threads.

I explored the problem space through five methods. Mind-mapping narrowed 20+ life transitions down to parenthood, then Crazy 8s and bodystorming pushed on it further, the latter by physically acting out the “freeze moments” of parental stress. Worst Possible Idea did the most work: it flipped “Mandatory Bootcamp” into flexible optional support, and “AI Robot Babysitter” into augmented human care with oversight. A PMI matrix then evaluated the eight concepts the five methods produced.

Two concepts progressed: Village (a credible knowledge hub with health tracking) and Parent Circles, the concept that became Parent Circle (a community-focused platform built around social connection and local support). The PMI evaluation selected Parent Circles for its “strongest social and emotional benefits”, directly addressing the research finding that parents with strong local networks reported higher confidence regardless of circumstance.

Mid-to-high fidelity Figma prototype tested with 8 participants (peers and tutors) at an in-class User Testing Fair. Two-station setup: Station 1 ran think-aloud with facilitator, observer, and Wizard of Oz operator; Station 2 handled interviews and surveys.

Each participant completed three task-based scenarios. Every task captured success/failure, completion time, error count, and a Single Ease Question (SEQ) score (1–7), followed by a structured interview and unstructured follow-up. 35 data points were synthesised into an affinity diagram.

The rule that kept this project coherent was simple: every feature had to answer one of the three research clusters (guidance, money, belonging) or it stayed out.

The finding I keep coming back to is ID verification. It was not part of the original concept; it went in late, to patch marketplace safety concerns. Then testing showed it was the single thing that separated Parent Circle from the alternatives: participants called it “safer than Facebook Marketplace” in their own words. I had spent the project designing for warmth and belonging; the feature that actually earned trust was a verification step.