Recently , my institution made a decision to stop asking students to identify a minor at the time of   application .   While the university would still offer minors , the application process would be more   efficient if the student only needed to select a major .   The problem was how to handle the downstream   effects of the business decision in a way that mitigated the impact to the student , as students still   needed a way to add , or change , a minor if they desired . 

 The solution would need to allow units who served the student a process to make these types of   requests more efficient .   The solution needed to be identified quickly and had to work within the current   technology . 

 We used the tool of Visualization to identify what we presumed we already knew ; why students make   this request and the current process .   We started by identifying the stakeholders – those units directly   working with the student and most able to understand the impact of the business decision . 

 We began by understanding why students may decide to edit a minor – money , time to completion ,   career , etc .   Using post - it notes each person , using only one word per note , identified why a student   would make this type of decision .   We then asked each stakeholder to flow out the process as they   currently complete it or understood it to happen .   The group looked at each version , of the same   process , and worked together to identify the potential pit falls and pain points ; always now considering   how the student may be being impacted .   It was enlightening for the group , upon being asked to look at   their own processes , to see how only seeing the process from one perspective was problematic to the   solution as a whole .   Because each view was unit driven , and specific to that person ’s role , it was not   specific to what the student ultimately needed . 

 We then asked each stakeholder to create the process as they would want it to look – using what we   understood of why student ’s make a change and where we saw problems with the current process .    Each person was asked to explain their ideal process – and as a group we evaluated what we liked and   what was still a concern .   Great ideas were highlighted with specific “ dots ” on those process notes ;   concerns were removed to be re - evaluated later . 

 In the end , the agreed upon process – and the one submitted for pilot testing – was a combination of all   stakeholders ’ thoughts .   It was recognized that previously a request from a student to edit their minor   was seen only as a transaction – an action to be taken on the part of an employee .   The solution was a   holistic process that included the student as its central focus as the solution determined the need to ask   better questions up front , such as : Why do you want to make this change ?   Based on these questions ,   employees could determine if the change would result in what was wanted .   If the student wanted to   complete faster , would that happen ?   If they wanted to change the minor for career purposes , was the   minor being requested appropriate . 

 We identified , through this solution process , a chance to gather data not previously available and a   better way ensure the unstated needs of the student were met .    The original words the group identified   as reasons for why a student would want to make this type of degree change had become the building   blocks of the process , as we recognized students who edit a minor do it for very personal and very real   reasons .   It is not a transaction , it is a personal decision . 

 As a department we have since used Visualization to look at other processes we have identified as   needing to be more efficient and more student focused .   Because Visualization allows multiple people to   look at a process as it is , and overlay pain points , concerns , and area of opportunities , it has proven to   be an efficient design tool for us as we look to make immediate but significant improvements to the   student experience . 


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: Recently , my institution made a decision to stop asking students to identify a minor at the time of   application .   While the university would still offer minors , the application process would be more   efficient if the student only needed to select a major .   The problem was how to handle the downstream   effects of the business decision in a way that mitigated the impact to the student , as students still   needed a way to add , or change , a minor if they desired . 

 The solution would need to allow units who served the student a process to make these types of   requests more efficient .   The solution needed to be identified quickly and had to work within the current   technology . 

 We used the tool of Visualization to identify what we presumed we already knew ; why students make   this request and the current process .   We started by identifying the stakeholders – those units directly   working with the student and most able to understand the impact of the business decision . 

 We began by understanding why students may decide to edit a minor – money , time to completion ,   career , etc .   Using post - it notes each person , using only one word per note , identified why a student   would make this type of decision .   We then asked each stakeholder to flow out the process as they   currently complete it or understood it to happen .   The group looked at each version , of the same   process , and worked together to identify the potential pit falls and pain points ; always now considering   how the student may be being impacted .   It was enlightening for the group , upon being asked to look at   their own processes , to see how only seeing the process from one perspective was problematic to the   solution as a whole .   Because each view was unit driven , and specific to that person ’s role , it was not   specific to what the student ultimately needed . 

 We then asked each stakeholder to create the process as they would want it to look – using what we   understood of why student ’s make a change and where we saw problems with the current process .    Each person was asked to explain their ideal process – and as a group we evaluated what we liked and   what was still a concern .   Great ideas were highlighted with specific “ dots ” on those process notes ;   concerns were removed to be re - evaluated later . 

 In the end , the agreed upon process – and the one submitted for pilot testing – was a combination of all   stakeholders ’ thoughts .   It was recognized that previously a request from a student to edit their minor   was seen only as a transaction – an action to be taken on the part of an employee .   The solution was a   holistic process that included the student as its central focus as the solution determined the need to ask   better questions up front , such as : Why do you want to make this change ?   Based on these questions ,   employees could determine if the change would result in what was wanted .   If the student wanted to   complete faster , would that happen ?   If they wanted to change the minor for career purposes , was the   minor being requested appropriate . 

 We identified , through this solution process , a chance to gather data not previously available and a   better way ensure the unstated needs of the student were met .    The original words the group identified   as reasons for why a student would want to make this type of degree change had become the building   blocks of the process , as we recognized students who edit a minor do it for very personal and very real   reasons .   It is not a transaction , it is a personal decision . 

 As a department we have since used Visualization to look at other processes we have identified as   needing to be more efficient and more student focused .   Because Visualization allows multiple people to   look at a process as it is , and overlay pain points , concerns , and area of opportunities , it has proven to   be an efficient design tool for us as we look to make immediate but significant improvements to the   student experience .
### Output: 