Challenge 

 The challenge I present is a real case in which we applied the method of Design Thinking in its different   phases . Our users are people suffering from   Malaria in fairly advanced stage and to whom is performed a series   of treatments . This means carry a device through which the   medicinal product is delivered . This device has measures of 22 cm.x   10 cm . X 2.5 cm . ( Length x width x height ) and weighs 500 g. 

 The challenge that we were proposed was to raise ways to bring the medical device as   functional , comfortable and aesthetic for the patient ( men and women ) . 

 At the beginning of this phase of the project , we had 5 prototypes to test with patients . Each   prototype was very different in terms of : place of the body to be carried , way of subjecting , type of   fabric , accessory details . 

 With these 5 different prototypes , we should determine which worked and which did not , and for   those who worked what and how they should be improved . 

 Selection 

 With the range of possible proposals , our objective at this stage was to determine which were really   valid and could finally be real solutions to carry the medical device . Because patients can be male /   female and different age and physical states , we had to see if one product was enough to give as a   solution or we would validate different from them . 

 Learning Launch the tool is the best way to perform this test because we had groups of patients to   whom we could perform testing of prototypes .     Insights 

 At the beginning of the Learning Launch process we were unclear of how many rounds of testing   would be required . The application of the same process gave us the key . 

 In the meeting with patients and nurses held at the end of the first learning launch , we gave the   first clue of the prototypes to be dismissed ; They did not meet the functionality that should be   required . 

 In the second learning launch we tested the refined prototypes and got further feedback with   improvements to be made as on fabrics . 

 At the end of the third learning launch , we got four validated prototypes . 

 Application 

 The first learning launch was made with a group of 6 patients ( 3 men / 3 women ) of different ages and 

 different physical . 

 We arranged a meeting in which each patient was provided with a kit with 5 different prototypes   models with detailed explanation - how to carry , instructions , etc . - In this phase , nurses accompany   patients throughout the process , so questions or doubts could be solved . This test phase lasted a   month . At the end of the month we held a meeting with all patients to obtain feedback from each of   them . The conclusion of this first learning launch was to dismiss 2 prototypes and make   improvements in the remaining 3 . 

 We made a second learning launch with improved prototypes with another group of patients , following   the same process as before . At the end of the round , with the feedback obtained we refined the   prototypes . 

 Finally we considered a third learning launch with patients who were in the initial phase of introducing   the device , so they had no vices , as in former groups of patients we diagnosed sometimes were little   open to admit new ways to bring the apparatus because they were already used to a specific way . 

 At the end of this stage we got confirmation of 4 prototypes fully validated in terms of way to wear ,   fabrics , and accessories . 

 Approach 

 After the second learning launch , we did not give the phase concluded , because we questioned what   would happen to new patients with the device . Previous learning launch were conducted with   patients who had had time with the device which gave us the insight that they were people with vices   as to how to carry and less open minded for introducing different ways . 

 This gave us the key to the need for a third learning launch with new patients in the disease   because we made assumptions or assumed vices we had to contrast . 

 Future learning launch should get all range of different users from the beginning . 


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: Challenge 

 The challenge I present is a real case in which we applied the method of Design Thinking in its different   phases . Our users are people suffering from   Malaria in fairly advanced stage and to whom is performed a series   of treatments . This means carry a device through which the   medicinal product is delivered . This device has measures of 22 cm.x   10 cm . X 2.5 cm . ( Length x width x height ) and weighs 500 g. 

 The challenge that we were proposed was to raise ways to bring the medical device as   functional , comfortable and aesthetic for the patient ( men and women ) . 

 At the beginning of this phase of the project , we had 5 prototypes to test with patients . Each   prototype was very different in terms of : place of the body to be carried , way of subjecting , type of   fabric , accessory details . 

 With these 5 different prototypes , we should determine which worked and which did not , and for   those who worked what and how they should be improved . 

 Selection 

 With the range of possible proposals , our objective at this stage was to determine which were really   valid and could finally be real solutions to carry the medical device . Because patients can be male /   female and different age and physical states , we had to see if one product was enough to give as a   solution or we would validate different from them . 

 Learning Launch the tool is the best way to perform this test because we had groups of patients to   whom we could perform testing of prototypes .     Insights 

 At the beginning of the Learning Launch process we were unclear of how many rounds of testing   would be required . The application of the same process gave us the key . 

 In the meeting with patients and nurses held at the end of the first learning launch , we gave the   first clue of the prototypes to be dismissed ; They did not meet the functionality that should be   required . 

 In the second learning launch we tested the refined prototypes and got further feedback with   improvements to be made as on fabrics . 

 At the end of the third learning launch , we got four validated prototypes . 

 Application 

 The first learning launch was made with a group of 6 patients ( 3 men / 3 women ) of different ages and 

 different physical . 

 We arranged a meeting in which each patient was provided with a kit with 5 different prototypes   models with detailed explanation - how to carry , instructions , etc . - In this phase , nurses accompany   patients throughout the process , so questions or doubts could be solved . This test phase lasted a   month . At the end of the month we held a meeting with all patients to obtain feedback from each of   them . The conclusion of this first learning launch was to dismiss 2 prototypes and make   improvements in the remaining 3 . 

 We made a second learning launch with improved prototypes with another group of patients , following   the same process as before . At the end of the round , with the feedback obtained we refined the   prototypes . 

 Finally we considered a third learning launch with patients who were in the initial phase of introducing   the device , so they had no vices , as in former groups of patients we diagnosed sometimes were little   open to admit new ways to bring the apparatus because they were already used to a specific way . 

 At the end of this stage we got confirmation of 4 prototypes fully validated in terms of way to wear ,   fabrics , and accessories . 

 Approach 

 After the second learning launch , we did not give the phase concluded , because we questioned what   would happen to new patients with the device . Previous learning launch were conducted with   patients who had had time with the device which gave us the insight that they were people with vices   as to how to carry and less open minded for introducing different ways . 

 This gave us the key to the need for a third learning launch with new patients in the disease   because we made assumptions or assumed vices we had to contrast . 

 Future learning launch should get all range of different users from the beginning .
### Output: 