Jakeline Lunardi 

 DESIGN THINKING FOR INNOVATION 

 VISUALIZATION APPLICATION EXAMPLE 

 MAI 2017 

 CHALLENGE   ( Describe your challenge , including all relevant information . )     The challenge was to think of an IT solution to a new business process that would allow to propose pricing   conditions for proposed products to potential clients . A potential client can not become a real client , if it   was not transparent which pricing conditions were proposed to him and got approved by the respective   approval body .    The basis to propose prices is the list of products that are proposed to the potential client .    The new process spreads across three different business units ( client management , product management ,   price management ) and will have to integrate several underlying sub processes ( currently executed   independently ) .    The change is pushed by the Pricing business and each business units have their own priorities / goals and   own roadmap / deadline towards achieving these goals .    A close collaboration , shared understanding of the importance of the change and implementation   alignment and agreement is a pre - requisite for the success of this initiative .      TOOL SELECTION   ( In own words , brief description of the tool selected , e.g. , what it is and why you selected it for your   challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture references )     The first tool used was visualization . Visualization was selected because the problem statement had to be   shared among three different teams and ‘ a picture is worth thousands words ’ . So this way , we wanted to   ensure that everybody involved could get on the same page in a quick and easy way ( seeing something is   better than having it described ) .    For the visualization itself , we selected a tool called MIRO .     MIRO is a visual collaborative whiteboard platform for team work .    This tool was chosen for several reasons : 

 1 . It is a collaborative ‘ white board ’ platform , suitable for work to be shared across teams .     2 . It is a powerful tool that enables to do various things like : meetings and workshops , ideation and 

 brainstorming , mapping and diagramming , etc . So it would possible to use the same tool for other   design thinking purposes / phases ( brainstorming , mind mapping , etc . ) and everything would is   available in one central place . 

 3 . The tool allows to group elements , link different elements , etc . in a completely free way   4 . It allows sharing and central access to artefacts / elements of the board .    5 . It allows several people to work in the same time on the same board .    6 . The tool is simple and intuitive . For someone who has not worked with it before , it was easy to 

 jump in and start using it , at least for a basic usage . 

 7 . Changes can be ‘ live ’ : changes are immediately visible to all to have access to the board . My 

 company is starting to use this tool in a broader way , so I want to use every opportunity to learn   the about tool as much as I can . 

 Link to MIRO : https://miro.com       APPLICATION 

 ( How the tool was applied , e.g. , what you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively )     The whole activity was planned as a set of four subsequent workshops ( two more business - focussed and   two more IT focused workshops ) . The participants were not divided into different groups because there   was no need : the challenge topic was not to big and there were not too many participants ( approx . 10 ) .    With every workshop , the participants were diving deeper and deeper into solution finding and its   refinement .    For the first session , a basic picture of the new business flow was prepared and loaded into the MIRO   board . Access was granted to all participants and the link provided a couple of days before the workshop   in case the participants wanted to look and prepare themselves for the workshop .    The first draft of the new flow was generated based on information that was gathered from the end users   ( the ones for whom the solution is targeted ) but also by taking the relevant part of the company strategy   into consideration . This preparation work was executed by a smaller number of persons – let ’s call them   ‘ the core team ’ ( not all involved participants ) . The draft of the new flow did not contain too many details .   We also put a couple of boxes with ‘ errors ’ or wrong wording in order to trigger discussions .    In the first workshop , we started to discuss the draft of the new flow . After setting the scene and   explaining the goal of the first workshop , active discussion started immediately .    We started to ask questions like : 

 1 ) Do you understand why we put the picture exactly like this ?    2 ) How does this fit into your goals and roadmap ?    3 ) Is something missing ?    4 ) What would you ‘ draw ’ differently ? Why ?    5 ) Did we forget something important ? 

 Having a picture in front of people immediately starts the thinking process and triggers comments ,   feedbacks , inputs , etc .    As questions arisen and answers were provided , we started to adapt the ‘ picture ’ : change the wording of   the boxes , add missing boxes and move them around . Thanks to the tool capabilities , the persons that felt   ‘ called to do the changes ’ were able to this themselves , directly in the tool . The changes were live and   immediately visible to all .    After the workshop , the core team did the last updates to add the changes the changes that were not yet   reflected in the board . This was done based on notes recorded by the ‘ core team ’ .    Participants got informed that the MIRO board is now finally updated with workshop # 1 results and   further changes can be added .    The second workshop started based on the last version of the picture . We first did a recap of workshop # 1   results and all changes done between the two workshops were made clear and explained to the group .    We then asked the group to dive into the boxes . We went one by one and asked following questions : 

 1 ) To   refine the box description   2 ) Are the dependencies between the boxes correct ?    3 ) What should we add ?    4 ) Imagine this scenario : when x would do y , what would you line to happen ? 

 Similar as in workshop # 1 , answers , inputs to the questions resulted in changes and refinement of the   boxes and the changes were immediately reflected in the board .    The proceeding for the IT focused worskhops ( # 3 and # 4 ) was exactly the same , only the boxes were no   business process boxes but It system and IT subsystem boxes …    After workshop # 4 , we got a good representation of what will the new flow look like and which IT systems   will enable the new flow and what needs to be implemented first .        INSIGHT & APPROACH    ( Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , how an insight   affected your thinking about the challenge and about design thinking more broadly ) .   ( Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool you selected or a different one - - and the reason(s ) why ) . 

 - The new flow spreads across three different business units and the knowledge about the single business   areas is different . This fact had a couple of very positive effects : 

 -   The non - experts were asking questions about , sometimes also very simple , things . The answers   helped to bring everybody on the same page and make sure that all in the ‘ room ’ are on the same   page , have the same understanding and speak the same language . 

 - Intentional usage of ‘ errors ’ and wrong wording showed good results : it looks like people notice fast   when something is not correct or does not suit them .    - The tool that allows that everybody can write – change , thus actively contribute , increases the motivation   and engagement of the persons involved .    - The real time changes allowed the participants to immediately get a new picture that then triggered a   new or different thinking process .    - Everybody was on the same page during the whole time and everybody had the same level of   information ; information was shared equally among all .    - Early and transparent involvement of all parties was very beneficial . A shared understanding and   commitment was achieved thanks to this fact .      Next time I would use a very similar approach – we had very good results that were achieved in a fast and   efficient way . One thing could eventually be improved : the specific questions to the exerts could be   prepared even better ( e.g. more questions ) . 


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: Jakeline Lunardi
PHONE_NUM: 
STREET_ADDRESS: 
URL_PERSONAL: 
USERNAME: 

### Task: You are a PII (Personal Identity Information) Detection. Given a essays written by students, you have to identify ONLY the following:
NAME_STUDENT - The full or partial name of a student that is not necessarily the author of the essay. This excludes instructors, authors, and other person names.
EMAIL - A student’s email address.
USERNAME - A student's username on any platform.
ID_NUM - A number or sequence of characters that could be used to identify a student, such as a student ID or a social security number.
PHONE_NUM - A phone number associated with a student.
URL_PERSONAL - A URL that might be used to identify a student.
STREET_ADDRESS - A full or partial street address that is associated with the student, such as their home address.
### Input: Jakeline Lunardi 

 DESIGN THINKING FOR INNOVATION 

 VISUALIZATION APPLICATION EXAMPLE 

 MAI 2017 

 CHALLENGE   ( Describe your challenge , including all relevant information . )     The challenge was to think of an IT solution to a new business process that would allow to propose pricing   conditions for proposed products to potential clients . A potential client can not become a real client , if it   was not transparent which pricing conditions were proposed to him and got approved by the respective   approval body .    The basis to propose prices is the list of products that are proposed to the potential client .    The new process spreads across three different business units ( client management , product management ,   price management ) and will have to integrate several underlying sub processes ( currently executed   independently ) .    The change is pushed by the Pricing business and each business units have their own priorities / goals and   own roadmap / deadline towards achieving these goals .    A close collaboration , shared understanding of the importance of the change and implementation   alignment and agreement is a pre - requisite for the success of this initiative .      TOOL SELECTION   ( In own words , brief description of the tool selected , e.g. , what it is and why you selected it for your   challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture references )     The first tool used was visualization . Visualization was selected because the problem statement had to be   shared among three different teams and ‘ a picture is worth thousands words ’ . So this way , we wanted to   ensure that everybody involved could get on the same page in a quick and easy way ( seeing something is   better than having it described ) .    For the visualization itself , we selected a tool called MIRO .     MIRO is a visual collaborative whiteboard platform for team work .    This tool was chosen for several reasons : 

 1 . It is a collaborative ‘ white board ’ platform , suitable for work to be shared across teams .     2 . It is a powerful tool that enables to do various things like : meetings and workshops , ideation and 

 brainstorming , mapping and diagramming , etc . So it would possible to use the same tool for other   design thinking purposes / phases ( brainstorming , mind mapping , etc . ) and everything would is   available in one central place . 

 3 . The tool allows to group elements , link different elements , etc . in a completely free way   4 . It allows sharing and central access to artefacts / elements of the board .    5 . It allows several people to work in the same time on the same board .    6 . The tool is simple and intuitive . For someone who has not worked with it before , it was easy to 

 jump in and start using it , at least for a basic usage . 

 7 . Changes can be ‘ live ’ : changes are immediately visible to all to have access to the board . My 

 company is starting to use this tool in a broader way , so I want to use every opportunity to learn   the about tool as much as I can . 

 Link to MIRO : https://miro.com       APPLICATION 

 ( How the tool was applied , e.g. , what you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively )     The whole activity was planned as a set of four subsequent workshops ( two more business - focussed and   two more IT focused workshops ) . The participants were not divided into different groups because there   was no need : the challenge topic was not to big and there were not too many participants ( approx . 10 ) .    With every workshop , the participants were diving deeper and deeper into solution finding and its   refinement .    For the first session , a basic picture of the new business flow was prepared and loaded into the MIRO   board . Access was granted to all participants and the link provided a couple of days before the workshop   in case the participants wanted to look and prepare themselves for the workshop .    The first draft of the new flow was generated based on information that was gathered from the end users   ( the ones for whom the solution is targeted ) but also by taking the relevant part of the company strategy   into consideration . This preparation work was executed by a smaller number of persons – let ’s call them   ‘ the core team ’ ( not all involved participants ) . The draft of the new flow did not contain too many details .   We also put a couple of boxes with ‘ errors ’ or wrong wording in order to trigger discussions .    In the first workshop , we started to discuss the draft of the new flow . After setting the scene and   explaining the goal of the first workshop , active discussion started immediately .    We started to ask questions like : 

 1 ) Do you understand why we put the picture exactly like this ?    2 ) How does this fit into your goals and roadmap ?    3 ) Is something missing ?    4 ) What would you ‘ draw ’ differently ? Why ?    5 ) Did we forget something important ? 

 Having a picture in front of people immediately starts the thinking process and triggers comments ,   feedbacks , inputs , etc .    As questions arisen and answers were provided , we started to adapt the ‘ picture ’ : change the wording of   the boxes , add missing boxes and move them around . Thanks to the tool capabilities , the persons that felt   ‘ called to do the changes ’ were able to this themselves , directly in the tool . The changes were live and   immediately visible to all .    After the workshop , the core team did the last updates to add the changes the changes that were not yet   reflected in the board . This was done based on notes recorded by the ‘ core team ’ .    Participants got informed that the MIRO board is now finally updated with workshop # 1 results and   further changes can be added .    The second workshop started based on the last version of the picture . We first did a recap of workshop # 1   results and all changes done between the two workshops were made clear and explained to the group .    We then asked the group to dive into the boxes . We went one by one and asked following questions : 

 1 ) To   refine the box description   2 ) Are the dependencies between the boxes correct ?    3 ) What should we add ?    4 ) Imagine this scenario : when x would do y , what would you line to happen ? 

 Similar as in workshop # 1 , answers , inputs to the questions resulted in changes and refinement of the   boxes and the changes were immediately reflected in the board .    The proceeding for the IT focused worskhops ( # 3 and # 4 ) was exactly the same , only the boxes were no   business process boxes but It system and IT subsystem boxes …    After workshop # 4 , we got a good representation of what will the new flow look like and which IT systems   will enable the new flow and what needs to be implemented first .        INSIGHT & APPROACH    ( Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , how an insight   affected your thinking about the challenge and about design thinking more broadly ) .   ( Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool you selected or a different one - - and the reason(s ) why ) . 

 - The new flow spreads across three different business units and the knowledge about the single business   areas is different . This fact had a couple of very positive effects : 

 -   The non - experts were asking questions about , sometimes also very simple , things . The answers   helped to bring everybody on the same page and make sure that all in the ‘ room ’ are on the same   page , have the same understanding and speak the same language . 

 - Intentional usage of ‘ errors ’ and wrong wording showed good results : it looks like people notice fast   when something is not correct or does not suit them .    - The tool that allows that everybody can write – change , thus actively contribute , increases the motivation   and engagement of the persons involved .    - The real time changes allowed the participants to immediately get a new picture that then triggered a   new or different thinking process .    - Everybody was on the same page during the whole time and everybody had the same level of   information ; information was shared equally among all .    - Early and transparent involvement of all parties was very beneficial . A shared understanding and   commitment was achieved thanks to this fact .      Next time I would use a very similar approach – we had very good results that were achieved in a fast and   efficient way . One thing could eventually be improved : the specific questions to the exerts could be   prepared even better ( e.g. more questions ) .
### Output: 