Reflection - Visulaization 

 Challenge & Selection   I work for an automotive Tier 1 supplier . I received from an engineering department a very 

 specific need ( specific design criteria ) that they collected from their customers . My task was 

 to facilitate a brainstorming session with experts from diverse technical fields . As an output 

 they expected to have a portfolio of product ideas that they can further investigate . The 

 challenge was dual . Firstly the need addressed a very well known problem . Secondly there 

 was a trivial solution for the problem . So I expected that the minds of the participants will be 

 highly biased and so it will be hard to come up with a diverse solutions .     Accordingly I planned a meaningful , visual space to let them play with the “ what if ” question . 

 In this space they were invited to start from scratch and build up a new solution from basic 

 elements . ( As a reference for visual tools I used S. Brown , J. Macanufo Gamestorming : 

 Playbook for Innovators , Rulebreakers and Changemakers ) I picked a modified ​4C matrix for 

 initial node generation . A table based ​forced ranking of the combination of nodes , product 

 ideas . Finally based on the ranking the idea portfolio was visualized on an ​impact & effort 

 matrix ​(map ) .      Application   In the first step we collected nodes in the 4C matrix addressing one cell at a time . The 

 modified 4C had the following elements : 

 ● use ​c​ases ( ways how the imaginary product is used ) 

 ● c​haracteristics ( technical features of the solution ) 

 ● c​omponents ( HW , SW elements that could be a part of the product ) 

 ● c​hallenges ( potential difficulties in solving the problem ) 

 In the following step solution proposals ( product ideas ) were generated from the nodes . A 

 coherent set of nodes from each element of the 4C were grouped into an idea , represented 

 by a row of a table with 2x3 columns . I mean by coherent set e.g. : a set of technical features 

 that can be used to cover certain use cases , etc . In the first two column they grouped use 

 cases and characteristics . Based on this the participants gave an impact ranking to the idea 

 ( 3rd column ) . In the 4th and 5th column they put components and challenges respectively 

 and used it to give an effort rank ( 6th column ) . Showing how difficult to develop the product .     Finally , in accordance with the rankings we put the ideas on an impact & effort map . Based 

 on the landscape seen there the participants reviewed the idea portfolio and modified it in a 

 way to cover the 3 meaningful quadrants of the map and thus have a balanced portfolio . 

 ( Low impact - high effort quadrant should be avoided if there are other choices )     Insight & Approach   The obligation to select coherent sets of freely generated nodes of the 4C matrix forced the 

 participants to come up with distinct ideas around the trivial one , and even far from that . It 

 even helped them to understand that the thing which is a trivial idea for a first glance , can be 

 understood in different ways . Thus it is several valuable idea in reality . The impact & effort 

 map helped to refine the result of the pure forced ranking . Participants organically tended to 

 draw areas on the map instead of points to represent where an idea is situated . They made 

 bigger , smaller circles just like snake- and tower - like drawings .     Even though I tried this visual space for the first time , it worked quite well in general , but 

 there were some takeaways for me as a facilitator : The first version of the impact & effort 

 map showed that we have majority of the ideas in the cash cow quadrant ( low effort - high 

 impact ) . The participants realized that this can not be true . Consequently they tried to fix it 

 somehow , but they could not really do it . I think this happened because the range during the 

 forced ranking was not set and/or I did not pay enough attention to give proper guidance . 

 The second issue was that the participants got really excited on a completely new idea and 

 they spent a lot of time discussing feasibility . This diverted them from working out other 

 ones . So I believe we left some good ones undiscovered . Next time I will make sure that 

 they stay focused on their task and try to come up with a tangible example to set the ranges 

 for forced ranking . 


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: Reflection - Visulaization 

 Challenge & Selection   I work for an automotive Tier 1 supplier . I received from an engineering department a very 

 specific need ( specific design criteria ) that they collected from their customers . My task was 

 to facilitate a brainstorming session with experts from diverse technical fields . As an output 

 they expected to have a portfolio of product ideas that they can further investigate . The 

 challenge was dual . Firstly the need addressed a very well known problem . Secondly there 

 was a trivial solution for the problem . So I expected that the minds of the participants will be 

 highly biased and so it will be hard to come up with a diverse solutions .     Accordingly I planned a meaningful , visual space to let them play with the “ what if ” question . 

 In this space they were invited to start from scratch and build up a new solution from basic 

 elements . ( As a reference for visual tools I used S. Brown , J. Macanufo Gamestorming : 

 Playbook for Innovators , Rulebreakers and Changemakers ) I picked a modified ​4C matrix for 

 initial node generation . A table based ​forced ranking of the combination of nodes , product 

 ideas . Finally based on the ranking the idea portfolio was visualized on an ​impact & effort 

 matrix ​(map ) .      Application   In the first step we collected nodes in the 4C matrix addressing one cell at a time . The 

 modified 4C had the following elements : 

 ● use ​c​ases ( ways how the imaginary product is used ) 

 ● c​haracteristics ( technical features of the solution ) 

 ● c​omponents ( HW , SW elements that could be a part of the product ) 

 ● c​hallenges ( potential difficulties in solving the problem ) 

 In the following step solution proposals ( product ideas ) were generated from the nodes . A 

 coherent set of nodes from each element of the 4C were grouped into an idea , represented 

 by a row of a table with 2x3 columns . I mean by coherent set e.g. : a set of technical features 

 that can be used to cover certain use cases , etc . In the first two column they grouped use 

 cases and characteristics . Based on this the participants gave an impact ranking to the idea 

 ( 3rd column ) . In the 4th and 5th column they put components and challenges respectively 

 and used it to give an effort rank ( 6th column ) . Showing how difficult to develop the product .     Finally , in accordance with the rankings we put the ideas on an impact & effort map . Based 

 on the landscape seen there the participants reviewed the idea portfolio and modified it in a 

 way to cover the 3 meaningful quadrants of the map and thus have a balanced portfolio . 

 ( Low impact - high effort quadrant should be avoided if there are other choices )     Insight & Approach   The obligation to select coherent sets of freely generated nodes of the 4C matrix forced the 

 participants to come up with distinct ideas around the trivial one , and even far from that . It 

 even helped them to understand that the thing which is a trivial idea for a first glance , can be 

 understood in different ways . Thus it is several valuable idea in reality . The impact & effort 

 map helped to refine the result of the pure forced ranking . Participants organically tended to 

 draw areas on the map instead of points to represent where an idea is situated . They made 

 bigger , smaller circles just like snake- and tower - like drawings .     Even though I tried this visual space for the first time , it worked quite well in general , but 

 there were some takeaways for me as a facilitator : The first version of the impact & effort 

 map showed that we have majority of the ideas in the cash cow quadrant ( low effort - high 

 impact ) . The participants realized that this can not be true . Consequently they tried to fix it 

 somehow , but they could not really do it . I think this happened because the range during the 

 forced ranking was not set and/or I did not pay enough attention to give proper guidance . 

 The second issue was that the participants got really excited on a completely new idea and 

 they spent a lot of time discussing feasibility . This diverted them from working out other 

 ones . So I believe we left some good ones undiscovered . Next time I will make sure that 

 they stay focused on their task and try to come up with a tangible example to set the ranges 

 for forced ranking .
### Output: 