Challenge 

 Our learning programs are designed with a heavy faculty model . This structure ensures   senior individuals / leaders of the Firm are present for our learning programs and   allows for a faculty member to facilitate the small breakout group sessions . The breakout   group sessions have 5 participants each thereby creating a requirement for faculty to be   present for each group of 5 participants . This creates a requirement of 6 faculty to be   present for a group of 30 participants – our typical class size . As you can imagine ,   scheduling this number of faculty for large numbers of programs throughout the year is   very challenging . Given this challenge , we developed a list of ideas to test reducing the   faculty number . These ideas included 1 ) increasing the size of the breakout groups , 2 )   giving participants the responsibility to lead their own breakout groups and 3 ) rotating   faculty across multiple breakout groups . 

 Selection and Application 

 We selected the learning launch tool to test our ideas . We selected 20 % of our programs   and tested the 3 ideas across the programs . We did not let the participants know there   was any change – hoping that they would not go into the program with any biases . We   implemented the guidance provided by Ed Hess in the Week 4 content . We thought   about 

 -   What we needed to confirm and disconfirm the idea and   -   The quantity and quality of the data . 

 We structured survey questions to understand the value and impact of the session in the   new format as compared to the old format . We tested for the impact on the participants ’   ability to practice and develop the new skill at the end of the program . We also tested   the longer - term impact by surveying the group 100 days after the program . We   compared the results from the programs with the new faculty models with the results   from programs in the old format . The team implementing and evaluating the change   consisted of learning team members and experienced program faculty . It was important   to test the ideas and collect data and facts . The ‘ old ’ faculty format had been used for   years and we needed enough high - quality data to feel confident that a change could be   made without negatively effecting the experience and impact of the learning program . 

 Insight 

 By testing the different approaches , we were able to uncover what worked well and what   did not . Some key takeaways are as follows : 

 -   Slightly larger groups had no significant negative effect on experience or impact   at the end of program or 100 days out   -   The conversation during the participant led sessions was rich and felt more risk- free   -   Participants needed the most guidance at the start of a session as sometimes the   groups did not start off on strong footing   -   Once participants began a participant led session , it was hard for a faculty   member to enter the room – it did not feel natural 

 These insights helped us think about other new ideas and we questioned whether we   were being bold enough in our thinking . We asked ourselves 

 -   How large could the groups get before there was a real negative impact ?   -   What are the key roles that the faculty need to play vs. remain in the room for the   entire time ? For example , at kick - off to explain the activity .   -   Are their different models for how the sessions are scheduled ( stagger sessions )   to maximize the time of the faculty ? 

 The debriefs of the data included the learning team and faculty . We did not include the   learners except for collecting the feedback results . More engagement from the learners   would help to better understand and develop a learner driven solution . 

 Approach 

 The learning launch tool worked well to test our ideas . We were careful about the   quantity and quality of the data . We were focused on building data driven insights . All   these aspects of the learning launch approach worked well . Where I believe we could   improve on our implementation of design thinking is in the up - front stages and team   structure . Jasim ’s comment about initial data collection can be small – not   to confirm an idea but to inspire idea generation – resonated with me . This idea   generation area is an area where I feel we could improve the next time . Additionally , I   also believe we could structure the team with a more diverse set of individuals . Our team   was largely staffed with learning team members . We should include the learners more in   the idea generation process and in understanding the impact of the results . 


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 

 Our learning programs are designed with a heavy faculty model . This structure ensures   senior individuals / leaders of the Firm are present for our learning programs and   allows for a faculty member to facilitate the small breakout group sessions . The breakout   group sessions have 5 participants each thereby creating a requirement for faculty to be   present for each group of 5 participants . This creates a requirement of 6 faculty to be   present for a group of 30 participants – our typical class size . As you can imagine ,   scheduling this number of faculty for large numbers of programs throughout the year is   very challenging . Given this challenge , we developed a list of ideas to test reducing the   faculty number . These ideas included 1 ) increasing the size of the breakout groups , 2 )   giving participants the responsibility to lead their own breakout groups and 3 ) rotating   faculty across multiple breakout groups . 

 Selection and Application 

 We selected the learning launch tool to test our ideas . We selected 20 % of our programs   and tested the 3 ideas across the programs . We did not let the participants know there   was any change – hoping that they would not go into the program with any biases . We   implemented the guidance provided by Ed Hess in the Week 4 content . We thought   about 

 -   What we needed to confirm and disconfirm the idea and   -   The quantity and quality of the data . 

 We structured survey questions to understand the value and impact of the session in the   new format as compared to the old format . We tested for the impact on the participants ’   ability to practice and develop the new skill at the end of the program . We also tested   the longer - term impact by surveying the group 100 days after the program . We   compared the results from the programs with the new faculty models with the results   from programs in the old format . The team implementing and evaluating the change   consisted of learning team members and experienced program faculty . It was important   to test the ideas and collect data and facts . The ‘ old ’ faculty format had been used for   years and we needed enough high - quality data to feel confident that a change could be   made without negatively effecting the experience and impact of the learning program . 

 Insight 

 By testing the different approaches , we were able to uncover what worked well and what   did not . Some key takeaways are as follows : 

 -   Slightly larger groups had no significant negative effect on experience or impact   at the end of program or 100 days out   -   The conversation during the participant led sessions was rich and felt more risk- free   -   Participants needed the most guidance at the start of a session as sometimes the   groups did not start off on strong footing   -   Once participants began a participant led session , it was hard for a faculty   member to enter the room – it did not feel natural 

 These insights helped us think about other new ideas and we questioned whether we   were being bold enough in our thinking . We asked ourselves 

 -   How large could the groups get before there was a real negative impact ?   -   What are the key roles that the faculty need to play vs. remain in the room for the   entire time ? For example , at kick - off to explain the activity .   -   Are their different models for how the sessions are scheduled ( stagger sessions )   to maximize the time of the faculty ? 

 The debriefs of the data included the learning team and faculty . We did not include the   learners except for collecting the feedback results . More engagement from the learners   would help to better understand and develop a learner driven solution . 

 Approach 

 The learning launch tool worked well to test our ideas . We were careful about the   quantity and quality of the data . We were focused on building data driven insights . All   these aspects of the learning launch approach worked well . Where I believe we could   improve on our implementation of design thinking is in the up - front stages and team   structure . Jasim ’s comment about initial data collection can be small – not   to confirm an idea but to inspire idea generation – resonated with me . This idea   generation area is an area where I feel we could improve the next time . Additionally , I   also believe we could structure the team with a more diverse set of individuals . Our team   was largely staffed with learning team members . We should include the learners more in   the idea generation process and in understanding the impact of the results .
### Output: 