Overcoming Barriers - The Story of the Movie at a Fuel Distribution Plant 

 Challenge 

 The certification program for fuel distribution plant management systems owned by oil company was in   process . I was responsible for coordinating the project . The certifications were conducted by an   international auditing company and were intended to meet requirements defined by the oil company 's   industrial customers . Until that moment , a large number of fuel distribution plants had been achieving   certificates of compliance . However , there was a particular plant where management system   implementation process was not reaching the target . The deployment process had been tried more than   twice unsuccessful . Plant employees were demonstrating resistance to the implementation of the   management system . In order to get the process done , the plant manager had made some decisions   that confronted the employees , which made the situation worse . Given this fact , it was necessary to   understand the reasons for the failure of the attempts and to implement the management system in an   innovative manner , in order to meet the goal set by the direction of the oil company . 

 Selection 

 The situation required careful exploratory action on what was happening at the plant . It was more than   obvious that measures of force , objectionable , would not solve the problem , especially since the   organizational ambience had been tried and made worse . Thus , as coordinator of the Oil Company   program , I chose to personally conduct research on the source of the problem and to conduct   innovative actions to achieve the certification goal . In this way , I chose to use the Storytelling tool to   establish an empathetic relationship with the plant 's staff , so that they could expose their dissatisfaction   in stories , define the problem most perceived by people , contextualize the problem and act ,   transforming the dissatisfaction of the team in satisfaction with the achievement of the results . The   choice of the tool was due to a past experience of using the same tool , when I also had to deal with   behavioral problems of a group of engineering sector employees of the same company , whose project   and project implementation sectors were constantly diverging , causing significant delays in the delivery   of the works . At that time , I used the concepts of the books by Don Norman ( “ The Design of Everyday   Things ” ) and Tim Brown ( “ Change by Design ” ) to turn pain points into delights , abandon the status quo   of processes and practices conducted in the engineering department and lead teams towards the future   scenario . The Storytelling proved quite effective to create an open and continuous narrative that   involved people and encouraged them to proceed in solving the main problem originated prejudice   among sectors and lack of mutual trust between people . Also in the activity to be narrated , the same   authors and books served as a bibliographic reference . 

 Application 

 Work began with the distribution plant team carefully . I did not address failure in attempts to deploy   the management system . Initially , I used some edited films to break the ice , addressing issues such as   perseverance to overcome barriers ( " The Pursuit of Happyness " , with Will Smith ) ; confronting prejudice   and the struggle for the ideal ( “ Hacksaw Ridge ” , with Andrew Garfield ” ) ; inspiration when in times of   hopelessness and crisis ( " Walt Before Mickey " , with Jodie Sweetin ) and breach of trust between leader   and followers , which is overcome by team maturity ( " Inception " , with Leonardo DiCaprio ) . After   watching each movie , I distributed people to groups for discussion and presentation of the central ideas   of the films presented . For the last film , in addition to the groups , I requested a solo presentation from   the plant manager , who addressed the issues of the film and paralleled his performance in front of the   team , making it clear that he had made recent mistakes in project execution decisions , and asking for a   vote of confidence to improve their performance . Throughout this first phase , based on Brown and   Norman , I sought to empathize with the team members as well as between them and me . Rapport   techniques were also used to assist in this process . 

 The next step was to invite the team to star in their own movie . I used Storytelling to build the story   from a group challenge in line with Brown . The director of the film would be me and the plant manager   would be the “ stagehand ” . I set the storyline of the film , which would tell the story of the plant team   and their efforts to achieve management system certification ( the story from a challenge ) . We would   not define the title yet . The tentative name would be " Our Movie . " I informed that the script of the film   would be presented in a storyboard with 6 frames ( the clusters or groups of information , according to   Norman ) , transcribed in sheets of flip chart . 

 I started the preparatory activities for the film , addressing about the moment of the plant that the film   would be shown , that is , the description of the status quo , according to Brown . In what situation were   the actors in the film before the certification journey , their doubts , questions and opinions about the   goal ? I led as a director of the film a divergent discussion ( Norman ) . Organizational , functional and labor   issues could be presented and discussed one by one . At this stage , besides myself , I worked so that all   members of the group paid close attention to each other and each one could speak , inhibiting   monopolization by one person ( Brown ) . Through my encouragement , using the “ 5 Why s Methodology ”   technique to identify the root cause of the problem , and continuing to use Rapport techniques to build   the empathy map , everyone was able to talk about their activities . What they thought about the plot of   the film , its perceptions and inferences ( Norman ) in relation to the moment . Thus , it was possible that ,   naturally , everyone shared the particular and collective frustrations ( Norman ) . Still , there were   questions and confusion from the group about exactly what a management system certification process   was . I recorded at powerpoint all aspects of the group 's statements simultaneously . Doubts were   elucidated , I led questions and answers elaborated by the group members themselves , until a problem   most strongly perceived by the group ( pain point , according to Norman ) was highlighted by all and   elected as the starting point of the film . The behavioral resistance of the group in relation to the   implementation of the certification system was identified , based on wrong information provided by the   region 's workers ' union ( source of unemployment ) and mistaken inferences propagated by influencers   in the group ( increase in workload , without increase salary ) . 

 Having reached this stage , I designed films that presented , from the implementation process to   obtaining the management system certificate , the experience of two of the company 's fuel distribution   plants . The films featured employee testimonials , scenes of work done , everyone 's reaction to the   announcement of the success of international certification , and , finally , what the routine of the plant   was like after certification . I then separated the team into four groups , asking them to produce six   paintings ( Norman ) that told the story , in this case the film , of that plant 's management system   certification , considering : 

    1st table : description of the current situation in the plant ( status quo ) ; 

    2nd table : presentation of the finding that would break with the status quo ; 

    3rd chart : description of the emotional reaction of the group with the finding ; 

    4th table : presentation of innovative ideas for conducting the plant certification process ; 

    5th table : presentation of how the group would act during the implementation of innovative ideas ,   conducting the plant certification process ; 

    6th table : description of the new situation of the group after the international certificate was won . 

 During the framing of the films by the groups , I stayed close and interacting with everyone ,   strengthening the empathy framework and urging everyone to abandon the status quo and dare to   generate ideas for conducting the certification process . At the end of time for the work , all groups had   produced his films , exposed in the storyboard of six frames . Each group posted their pictures on each   wall of the room where the work was conducted . From there , I started the " direction " of all four films   produced . I requested that each group member chooses a character to play , from a relationship that I   presented , consisting of one management systems consultant , two employees , one supervisor and one   manager . I rehearsed with each group what their “ acting ” would be like when presenting their films . For 

 each group , the “ stagehand ” , that is , the plant manager , would act helping the continuity in the   performances , so that the film did not suffer “ continuity problems ” . Thus , after all the rehearsals and   corrections , the groups were able to “ stage ” their films . While a movie was being screened by a group ,   the others watched as they ate popcorn brought in by the plant 's service assistant . 

 After the presentations of all the films were completed , I began discussions to evaluate each of the six   frames presented in the films , with the purpose of consensing the frames and producing a single movie   that told the story of the plant . Regarding Chart 1 , there was unanimity in the presentation of the   groups , which showed that the team was fully aware of their situation and their current behavioral   posture . The same happened with Table 2 . In Chart 3 , different situations arose . For some groups , there   was no surprise that it would break with the status quo . For others , surprise set the tone . Regarding   Table 4 , all groups presented different ideas . I related all the ideas and led the divergent discussion   ( Norman ) about them , so that they all deviated from the points presented and evaluated the ideas   without prejudice and without disagreement . So , I led the team with all the emulation of the journey for   each presented idea , so that all live the problem , simulate how ideas would be applied to visualize the   effects of the application of the ideas and expectations generated ( Brown ) . This reduced the initial list   of ideas . I conducted the exercise of evaluating the perception of value that each idea would add   ( Brown ) in the process of implementing the management system , both to achieve the goal , but mainly   to the people of the plant . Which ideas would act in the binomial person x problem solving , turning pain   points into delights ( Norman ) and changing the status quo to a desired future scenario . Once again , the   list of ideas has been reduced to about four or five ideas . The next step was to evaluate the viability of   ideas ( Norman and Brown ) . What could be done ? What would be technically possible ? Everything that   could be implemented in the short term and also met the corporate requirements of the oil company .   The result was the consensus of the length of two ideas , which were adjusted to each other , so they   were bound together in only one single idea . After this work , it was very interesting to realize the “ Wow   Effect ! ” ( Norman and Brown ) in the participants , who noted how the consensus solution added value to   the process of deploying the management system at the plant . Regarding Table 5 , groups presented   similar action plans and schedules , which were consolidated into a single action plan , with phases that   added or merged into a larger one . In Chart 6 , the groups presented their respective photos or   presented reports of how they understood that their activities and tasks would be transformed , with   changes in routines , but without generating extra workload . The group decided to use the two   approaches in Box 6 final , inserting a summary report , along with a photo of the entire plant team ,   making positive gestures and satisfaction with the achievement of international certification , which they   unanimously gleaned from that moment . The consensus team named the film " Overcoming Barriers . " 

 Insight 

 The use of Storytelling in the case presented allowed me some conclusions . When I started working with   the team , I used some films with core ideas , such as perseverance and trusting relationships . I noticed in   the team some nonverbal language typical of those who think they are manipulated , or simply unbelief .   On the other hand , I found that this reaction completely disappeared from the moment the work of   establishing empathy was carried out during the discussion of the reality of the plant and its problems . It   worked very well not to let the failures of previous attempts to obtain international certification be   mentioned . Thus , the word “ guilt ” did not appear at any time in the works , which made participants   more comfortable to interact and expose their opinions throughout the activity . Another point that   worked very well was awaiting the team reaches an established level of empathy for conduct the   activity and , only after , to present the films that teams from other plants recorded , showing their   experiences with the implementation of management systems . I noticed that this experience , in   addition to messing with people 's pride , ended up destroying prejudices that still exist in part of the   team . Finally , impress me enough to conclude that the design challenges are not only a great way to 

 benefit from the power of generating innovation , as well as create stories around an idea , turning   people from passive observers into participants involved , doing- become part of the story . 

 Approach 

 Some lessons learned were found in the application of Storytelling and motivate adjustments in the   application of this tool in future activities . The first is the importance of starting work by providing more   information on who suffers from the product or service ( Norman ) . In this case , I would use the   Visualization Tool of Design Thinking and present real stories written , post its or powerpoints , from the   industrial customers in the oil company on problems experienced in relation to the care of that   particular plant . Based on this information , I would work with the team to write in flipchart charts their   views on the issues raised . This has not been done and could in some ways have improved collective   awareness with the need for an innovative solution in implementing the management system . Other   improvement point refers to the absence of an individual time for each of the members could have their   insights and awakenings ( Brown ) . All activity was conducted in a group manner . I believe the possibility   to also gather perceptions of individuals , and not only small groups could confer higher quality and   depth in the generation of solutions . Finally , even though the activity has achieved the proposed   objective , some good innovative ideas have been abandoned , not for technical viability , but for   contradicting corporate positions . Tim Brown 's phrase that the best ideas die more often , because they   fail to navigate the dangerous waters of the organization in which they are born , is a reality rather than   market rejection . 


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: 
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: Overcoming Barriers - The Story of the Movie at a Fuel Distribution Plant 

 Challenge 

 The certification program for fuel distribution plant management systems owned by oil company was in   process . I was responsible for coordinating the project . The certifications were conducted by an   international auditing company and were intended to meet requirements defined by the oil company 's   industrial customers . Until that moment , a large number of fuel distribution plants had been achieving   certificates of compliance . However , there was a particular plant where management system   implementation process was not reaching the target . The deployment process had been tried more than   twice unsuccessful . Plant employees were demonstrating resistance to the implementation of the   management system . In order to get the process done , the plant manager had made some decisions   that confronted the employees , which made the situation worse . Given this fact , it was necessary to   understand the reasons for the failure of the attempts and to implement the management system in an   innovative manner , in order to meet the goal set by the direction of the oil company . 

 Selection 

 The situation required careful exploratory action on what was happening at the plant . It was more than   obvious that measures of force , objectionable , would not solve the problem , especially since the   organizational ambience had been tried and made worse . Thus , as coordinator of the Oil Company   program , I chose to personally conduct research on the source of the problem and to conduct   innovative actions to achieve the certification goal . In this way , I chose to use the Storytelling tool to   establish an empathetic relationship with the plant 's staff , so that they could expose their dissatisfaction   in stories , define the problem most perceived by people , contextualize the problem and act ,   transforming the dissatisfaction of the team in satisfaction with the achievement of the results . The   choice of the tool was due to a past experience of using the same tool , when I also had to deal with   behavioral problems of a group of engineering sector employees of the same company , whose project   and project implementation sectors were constantly diverging , causing significant delays in the delivery   of the works . At that time , I used the concepts of the books by Don Norman ( “ The Design of Everyday   Things ” ) and Tim Brown ( “ Change by Design ” ) to turn pain points into delights , abandon the status quo   of processes and practices conducted in the engineering department and lead teams towards the future   scenario . The Storytelling proved quite effective to create an open and continuous narrative that   involved people and encouraged them to proceed in solving the main problem originated prejudice   among sectors and lack of mutual trust between people . Also in the activity to be narrated , the same   authors and books served as a bibliographic reference . 

 Application 

 Work began with the distribution plant team carefully . I did not address failure in attempts to deploy   the management system . Initially , I used some edited films to break the ice , addressing issues such as   perseverance to overcome barriers ( " The Pursuit of Happyness " , with Will Smith ) ; confronting prejudice   and the struggle for the ideal ( “ Hacksaw Ridge ” , with Andrew Garfield ” ) ; inspiration when in times of   hopelessness and crisis ( " Walt Before Mickey " , with Jodie Sweetin ) and breach of trust between leader   and followers , which is overcome by team maturity ( " Inception " , with Leonardo DiCaprio ) . After   watching each movie , I distributed people to groups for discussion and presentation of the central ideas   of the films presented . For the last film , in addition to the groups , I requested a solo presentation from   the plant manager , who addressed the issues of the film and paralleled his performance in front of the   team , making it clear that he had made recent mistakes in project execution decisions , and asking for a   vote of confidence to improve their performance . Throughout this first phase , based on Brown and   Norman , I sought to empathize with the team members as well as between them and me . Rapport   techniques were also used to assist in this process . 

 The next step was to invite the team to star in their own movie . I used Storytelling to build the story   from a group challenge in line with Brown . The director of the film would be me and the plant manager   would be the “ stagehand ” . I set the storyline of the film , which would tell the story of the plant team   and their efforts to achieve management system certification ( the story from a challenge ) . We would   not define the title yet . The tentative name would be " Our Movie . " I informed that the script of the film   would be presented in a storyboard with 6 frames ( the clusters or groups of information , according to   Norman ) , transcribed in sheets of flip chart . 

 I started the preparatory activities for the film , addressing about the moment of the plant that the film   would be shown , that is , the description of the status quo , according to Brown . In what situation were   the actors in the film before the certification journey , their doubts , questions and opinions about the   goal ? I led as a director of the film a divergent discussion ( Norman ) . Organizational , functional and labor   issues could be presented and discussed one by one . At this stage , besides myself , I worked so that all   members of the group paid close attention to each other and each one could speak , inhibiting   monopolization by one person ( Brown ) . Through my encouragement , using the “ 5 Why s Methodology ”   technique to identify the root cause of the problem , and continuing to use Rapport techniques to build   the empathy map , everyone was able to talk about their activities . What they thought about the plot of   the film , its perceptions and inferences ( Norman ) in relation to the moment . Thus , it was possible that ,   naturally , everyone shared the particular and collective frustrations ( Norman ) . Still , there were   questions and confusion from the group about exactly what a management system certification process   was . I recorded at powerpoint all aspects of the group 's statements simultaneously . Doubts were   elucidated , I led questions and answers elaborated by the group members themselves , until a problem   most strongly perceived by the group ( pain point , according to Norman ) was highlighted by all and   elected as the starting point of the film . The behavioral resistance of the group in relation to the   implementation of the certification system was identified , based on wrong information provided by the   region 's workers ' union ( source of unemployment ) and mistaken inferences propagated by influencers   in the group ( increase in workload , without increase salary ) . 

 Having reached this stage , I designed films that presented , from the implementation process to   obtaining the management system certificate , the experience of two of the company 's fuel distribution   plants . The films featured employee testimonials , scenes of work done , everyone 's reaction to the   announcement of the success of international certification , and , finally , what the routine of the plant   was like after certification . I then separated the team into four groups , asking them to produce six   paintings ( Norman ) that told the story , in this case the film , of that plant 's management system   certification , considering : 

    1st table : description of the current situation in the plant ( status quo ) ; 

    2nd table : presentation of the finding that would break with the status quo ; 

    3rd chart : description of the emotional reaction of the group with the finding ; 

    4th table : presentation of innovative ideas for conducting the plant certification process ; 

    5th table : presentation of how the group would act during the implementation of innovative ideas ,   conducting the plant certification process ; 

    6th table : description of the new situation of the group after the international certificate was won . 

 During the framing of the films by the groups , I stayed close and interacting with everyone ,   strengthening the empathy framework and urging everyone to abandon the status quo and dare to   generate ideas for conducting the certification process . At the end of time for the work , all groups had   produced his films , exposed in the storyboard of six frames . Each group posted their pictures on each   wall of the room where the work was conducted . From there , I started the " direction " of all four films   produced . I requested that each group member chooses a character to play , from a relationship that I   presented , consisting of one management systems consultant , two employees , one supervisor and one   manager . I rehearsed with each group what their “ acting ” would be like when presenting their films . For 

 each group , the “ stagehand ” , that is , the plant manager , would act helping the continuity in the   performances , so that the film did not suffer “ continuity problems ” . Thus , after all the rehearsals and   corrections , the groups were able to “ stage ” their films . While a movie was being screened by a group ,   the others watched as they ate popcorn brought in by the plant 's service assistant . 

 After the presentations of all the films were completed , I began discussions to evaluate each of the six   frames presented in the films , with the purpose of consensing the frames and producing a single movie   that told the story of the plant . Regarding Chart 1 , there was unanimity in the presentation of the   groups , which showed that the team was fully aware of their situation and their current behavioral   posture . The same happened with Table 2 . In Chart 3 , different situations arose . For some groups , there   was no surprise that it would break with the status quo . For others , surprise set the tone . Regarding   Table 4 , all groups presented different ideas . I related all the ideas and led the divergent discussion   ( Norman ) about them , so that they all deviated from the points presented and evaluated the ideas   without prejudice and without disagreement . So , I led the team with all the emulation of the journey for   each presented idea , so that all live the problem , simulate how ideas would be applied to visualize the   effects of the application of the ideas and expectations generated ( Brown ) . This reduced the initial list   of ideas . I conducted the exercise of evaluating the perception of value that each idea would add   ( Brown ) in the process of implementing the management system , both to achieve the goal , but mainly   to the people of the plant . Which ideas would act in the binomial person x problem solving , turning pain   points into delights ( Norman ) and changing the status quo to a desired future scenario . Once again , the   list of ideas has been reduced to about four or five ideas . The next step was to evaluate the viability of   ideas ( Norman and Brown ) . What could be done ? What would be technically possible ? Everything that   could be implemented in the short term and also met the corporate requirements of the oil company .   The result was the consensus of the length of two ideas , which were adjusted to each other , so they   were bound together in only one single idea . After this work , it was very interesting to realize the “ Wow   Effect ! ” ( Norman and Brown ) in the participants , who noted how the consensus solution added value to   the process of deploying the management system at the plant . Regarding Table 5 , groups presented   similar action plans and schedules , which were consolidated into a single action plan , with phases that   added or merged into a larger one . In Chart 6 , the groups presented their respective photos or   presented reports of how they understood that their activities and tasks would be transformed , with   changes in routines , but without generating extra workload . The group decided to use the two   approaches in Box 6 final , inserting a summary report , along with a photo of the entire plant team ,   making positive gestures and satisfaction with the achievement of international certification , which they   unanimously gleaned from that moment . The consensus team named the film " Overcoming Barriers . " 

 Insight 

 The use of Storytelling in the case presented allowed me some conclusions . When I started working with   the team , I used some films with core ideas , such as perseverance and trusting relationships . I noticed in   the team some nonverbal language typical of those who think they are manipulated , or simply unbelief .   On the other hand , I found that this reaction completely disappeared from the moment the work of   establishing empathy was carried out during the discussion of the reality of the plant and its problems . It   worked very well not to let the failures of previous attempts to obtain international certification be   mentioned . Thus , the word “ guilt ” did not appear at any time in the works , which made participants   more comfortable to interact and expose their opinions throughout the activity . Another point that   worked very well was awaiting the team reaches an established level of empathy for conduct the   activity and , only after , to present the films that teams from other plants recorded , showing their   experiences with the implementation of management systems . I noticed that this experience , in   addition to messing with people 's pride , ended up destroying prejudices that still exist in part of the   team . Finally , impress me enough to conclude that the design challenges are not only a great way to 

 benefit from the power of generating innovation , as well as create stories around an idea , turning   people from passive observers into participants involved , doing- become part of the story . 

 Approach 

 Some lessons learned were found in the application of Storytelling and motivate adjustments in the   application of this tool in future activities . The first is the importance of starting work by providing more   information on who suffers from the product or service ( Norman ) . In this case , I would use the   Visualization Tool of Design Thinking and present real stories written , post its or powerpoints , from the   industrial customers in the oil company on problems experienced in relation to the care of that   particular plant . Based on this information , I would work with the team to write in flipchart charts their   views on the issues raised . This has not been done and could in some ways have improved collective   awareness with the need for an innovative solution in implementing the management system . Other   improvement point refers to the absence of an individual time for each of the members could have their   insights and awakenings ( Brown ) . All activity was conducted in a group manner . I believe the possibility   to also gather perceptions of individuals , and not only small groups could confer higher quality and   depth in the generation of solutions . Finally , even though the activity has achieved the proposed   objective , some good innovative ideas have been abandoned , not for technical viability , but for   contradicting corporate positions . Tim Brown 's phrase that the best ideas die more often , because they   fail to navigate the dangerous waters of the organization in which they are born , is a reality rather than   market rejection .
### Output: 