← ./work
04

TVO Kids

A science and engineering platform built to pull girls into STEM — and the project management that had to hold five stakeholder groups together to ship it.

Type:
Project management
Role:
Planning, research
Client:
TVO Kids (academic)
TVO Kids Science case study cover: the Explore your path homepage on a laptop and a Did you know fact card on a phone
Context

TVO programmes for every age — documentaries, current affairs, children's programming, and classroom resources. Its flagship, The Agenda with Steve Paikin, runs from politics to science to culture.

This project sits in the children's half of that: a digital product meant to get girls into engineering and the sciences. The design matters, but how the project is run is what decides whether it ever ships.

Problem

A new product, and no map

TV Ontario wants a digital product that gets girls into engineering and science. That brief doesn't tell you what to build. Running the project well is what turns it into something you can actually hand over.

Solution

Find what actually motivates them

Find out what actually motivates girls, then build the platform around that: science and engineering topics, videos, podcasts, events, and stories from women already doing the work.

The question

Two audiences, one build

How do you build something a ten-year-old wants to use, that also proves its worth to the people funding it?

Who has a say

01 — stakeholders
Project manager
& TVO Kids team
Build it, run it, and keep the schedule honest.
ParentsTell us what worries them, all the way through.
ChildrenThe only real proof it works. If they lose interest, it doesn't.
EducatorsCheck every topic against the Ontario curriculum.
AdvertisersHold the line on ad guidelines and what children should see.
Educator hub on a tablet: Grade 4 science units aligned to the Ontario curriculum

Five groups, five definitions of success. The job was to collaborate closely enough with all of them that the site serves every one — not only the group in the room most often.

Pitching the research

For stakeholders

Research you can watch. A ninety-second pitch beats a forty-page report.

The motion piece turns the background research into something stakeholders can feel: who the platform is for, what gets in girls’ way, and how videos, podcasts, events and real women in STEM answer it. It was built to win support in the room. Educators, funders and the TVO team could see the idea working before committing budget, and it doubles as the first piece of marketing for launch.

Motion piece presenting the research and proposal to stakeholders
02 — the phases

Initiation, planning, execution

The kickoff sets everything: scope, assumptions, content, strategy, objectives — and the constraints you'd much rather hear about now than in month three.

User flow across five phone screens: spark, explore, watch, try it, belong
01

Initiation

Scope and kickoff. Agree what this is, who it's for, and what would count as done.

Lo-fi wireframe beside the hi-fi homepage, split down the middle
02

Planning

Turn the scope into a schedule, a content plan, and a review loop each stakeholder group actually fits into.

Design components: colour palette, type pairing, shapes and buttons
03

Execution

Build, test with children, review with educators, and update the plan as reality argues with it.

Three page mockups: home, videos and podcasts, and events
03 — what it delivers

Topics, videos, podcasts, events — and women in STEM telling their own stories.

The last one carries the most weight. You can teach engineering from a curriculum, but what makes a ten-year-old believe it's for her is watching someone who looks like her already doing it.

Three launch posters: a fact of the day, women building the future, and little engineers wanted
Launch posters, built to get girls curious before day one
What I'd do differently

Five stakeholder groups, and I gave all of them the same review cadence.

Educators needed to see content early and once, against the curriculum. Children needed to see screens late and often, because their feedback is only useful on something that works. Treating those two groups identically cost a full round of revisions that better sequencing would have avoided.

Next — 05 Motion graphics and digital art →
Let's make something good