QUESTIONS : 

 1 . Challenge : Describe your challenge , including all relevant information . 

 2 . Selection : In your own words , briefly describe the tool you selected ( e.g. , what it is and 

 why you selected it for your challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture   references ) . 

 3 . Application : Describe how you applied the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , what 

 you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively ) . 

 4 . Insight : Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your 

 challenge ( e.g. , how an insight affected your thinking about the challenge and about   design thinking more broadly ) . 

 5 . Approach : Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool you 

 selected or a different one -- and the reason(s ) why . 

 ANSWERS 

 1 . CHALLENGE 

 I work within an innovation area inside a multinational company . I am responsible for   the innovation management . In my career I have always worked with innovation and   creativity , using different methodologies in different contexts , as small companies ,   universities and now in a multinational company . When I started working with   innovation ( around 7 years ago ) we were just starting talking about open innovation in   practice inside companies , it was not so common , at least here in Brazil . But , it became   bigger , open innovation during the years become like a must have methodology for   companies and one year ago , I was facing this challenge , how to work with open   innovation inside a multinational company where the culture is completely close , but   on the other hand they believe in innovation ? So , I started reading and thinking a lot ,   and I saw that a lot of big companies were investing in open innovation with startups . I   decided that this was a good way to start and I did a benchmarking in other companies   who have done it . Ok , everything planned , but the big challenge was how to convince   and implement it in our not so innovative and close culture ? 

 2 . SELECTION 

 I presented all the data to our team and the board and then we decided together that   It was not only an open innovation action , but also an opportunity to start a cultural   transformation where we could also learn a lot . We knew that we probably would failed   in some points , but in the other hand , again , we were seeing it as an opportunity to   learn . Then we decided that the best option was to do a learning launch . 

 3 . APPLICATION 

 With everything planned and chosen , we started a process , which we called OPEN   STARTUPS . Normally , a process like this between a big company and startups , takes   around 6 month as we discovered when we did our benchmarking . Then as we have 

 decided to do a learning launch , we cut this time to the half and less . Therefore , we   launched in a platform the open startup process by showing our main objectives , for   example , energy efficiency in our field , artificial intelligence for our market . Then the   interested startups had to submit their solutions by saying why they could help us to   achieve the specific challenge / objectives we put into the platform .      The submission section stayed open only for 1 month ( normally is 2 or 3 months ) . Then   we put together an interdisciplinary team and decided the criteria we would have in   order to choose the startups and it was : the link with our objectives , the product of the   startup , the business case possible and the startup structure / team ( experiences before   to start the business , graduation , etc ) . Forty startups submitted their projects and then   we decided that 10 could go to the next phase .      Those 10 participate into 2 days workshops with us understanding how our company   works and what they could offer effectively . We divided the 10 startups , giving two for   each one of the 5 employees of the innovation team of the company . They started giving   orientations to them and answering their questions about our market , clients and   process during 1 month and half .      Finally , we did what we called a demoday , a moment where the startups presented their   solutions and products to our board , some managers and coordinators . After that , we   did an internal meeting evaluating the companies and seeing which one was the winner   and would have the possibility to make business with us , but also won a prize in money .   Of course , the evaluation follow some criteria in order to be fair and effective . With the   startup chosen , they start planning with the specific area , which will use the solution ,   for example , the solution of the startup was a new tool for our maintenance area , and   then they could negotiate directly with them . That was the end of the process . 

 We consider that the learning launch tool was applied effectively , what was not   completely effectively was our approach to the startups . We can consider that our   objectives were achieved , because we did the open startup process until the end , and   we learned a lot in order to do a better one next time and we had the start of our cultural   transformation as I mentioned before . The board approved the idea to do a learning   launch in other projects , because they saw it was not just a waste of money as they   thought before , but it was a necessary part of a process when we were talking about   innovation and something that has never happened before . 

 4 . INSIGHT 

 As I mentioned , after this learning launch we change completely our approach to our   projects , all innovation projects with deals with something completely new pass through   this . We already saved some money by doing it . Our projects now , go to the approval   phase only with a learning launch done before . The main insight I can say is “ fail faster   to succeed better ” and “ work smarter , not harder ” those are phrases that now we use   a lot here . 

 5 . APPROACH 

 In the next time I will do a process as the Open Startups , probably I will do a Mind   Mapping before , and I explain why . One of the mistakes we committed was to training   only the startups but not our managers on how to evaluate the startups , for example ,   by explaining how the ecosystem of a startup usually works . If we have done a Mind   Mapping before and tested some hypothesis , probably we have realized about this   matter . What happened here was that the winner startup in start negotiating with the   maintenance area , let the manager ask them to develop other things beside their   project , then the project become bigger and far from the focus from what the startup   really offer . In the end , the negotiation was not effectively , because the startups and   the manager realized that it was not possible .      The startup was about to start developing something different and almost lost their core   business . Maybe , if we have trained the managers before , we would not get lost at this   part . The idea of a process like this is to accelerate a startup not to make them go to the   beginning and if the startup were chosen , something great to offer they had . 


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: QUESTIONS : 

 1 . Challenge : Describe your challenge , including all relevant information . 

 2 . Selection : In your own words , briefly describe the tool you selected ( e.g. , what it is and 

 why you selected it for your challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture   references ) . 

 3 . Application : Describe how you applied the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , what 

 you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively ) . 

 4 . Insight : Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your 

 challenge ( e.g. , how an insight affected your thinking about the challenge and about   design thinking more broadly ) . 

 5 . Approach : Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool you 

 selected or a different one -- and the reason(s ) why . 

 ANSWERS 

 1 . CHALLENGE 

 I work within an innovation area inside a multinational company . I am responsible for   the innovation management . In my career I have always worked with innovation and   creativity , using different methodologies in different contexts , as small companies ,   universities and now in a multinational company . When I started working with   innovation ( around 7 years ago ) we were just starting talking about open innovation in   practice inside companies , it was not so common , at least here in Brazil . But , it became   bigger , open innovation during the years become like a must have methodology for   companies and one year ago , I was facing this challenge , how to work with open   innovation inside a multinational company where the culture is completely close , but   on the other hand they believe in innovation ? So , I started reading and thinking a lot ,   and I saw that a lot of big companies were investing in open innovation with startups . I   decided that this was a good way to start and I did a benchmarking in other companies   who have done it . Ok , everything planned , but the big challenge was how to convince   and implement it in our not so innovative and close culture ? 

 2 . SELECTION 

 I presented all the data to our team and the board and then we decided together that   It was not only an open innovation action , but also an opportunity to start a cultural   transformation where we could also learn a lot . We knew that we probably would failed   in some points , but in the other hand , again , we were seeing it as an opportunity to   learn . Then we decided that the best option was to do a learning launch . 

 3 . APPLICATION 

 With everything planned and chosen , we started a process , which we called OPEN   STARTUPS . Normally , a process like this between a big company and startups , takes   around 6 month as we discovered when we did our benchmarking . Then as we have 

 decided to do a learning launch , we cut this time to the half and less . Therefore , we   launched in a platform the open startup process by showing our main objectives , for   example , energy efficiency in our field , artificial intelligence for our market . Then the   interested startups had to submit their solutions by saying why they could help us to   achieve the specific challenge / objectives we put into the platform .      The submission section stayed open only for 1 month ( normally is 2 or 3 months ) . Then   we put together an interdisciplinary team and decided the criteria we would have in   order to choose the startups and it was : the link with our objectives , the product of the   startup , the business case possible and the startup structure / team ( experiences before   to start the business , graduation , etc ) . Forty startups submitted their projects and then   we decided that 10 could go to the next phase .      Those 10 participate into 2 days workshops with us understanding how our company   works and what they could offer effectively . We divided the 10 startups , giving two for   each one of the 5 employees of the innovation team of the company . They started giving   orientations to them and answering their questions about our market , clients and   process during 1 month and half .      Finally , we did what we called a demoday , a moment where the startups presented their   solutions and products to our board , some managers and coordinators . After that , we   did an internal meeting evaluating the companies and seeing which one was the winner   and would have the possibility to make business with us , but also won a prize in money .   Of course , the evaluation follow some criteria in order to be fair and effective . With the   startup chosen , they start planning with the specific area , which will use the solution ,   for example , the solution of the startup was a new tool for our maintenance area , and   then they could negotiate directly with them . That was the end of the process . 

 We consider that the learning launch tool was applied effectively , what was not   completely effectively was our approach to the startups . We can consider that our   objectives were achieved , because we did the open startup process until the end , and   we learned a lot in order to do a better one next time and we had the start of our cultural   transformation as I mentioned before . The board approved the idea to do a learning   launch in other projects , because they saw it was not just a waste of money as they   thought before , but it was a necessary part of a process when we were talking about   innovation and something that has never happened before . 

 4 . INSIGHT 

 As I mentioned , after this learning launch we change completely our approach to our   projects , all innovation projects with deals with something completely new pass through   this . We already saved some money by doing it . Our projects now , go to the approval   phase only with a learning launch done before . The main insight I can say is “ fail faster   to succeed better ” and “ work smarter , not harder ” those are phrases that now we use   a lot here . 

 5 . APPROACH 

 In the next time I will do a process as the Open Startups , probably I will do a Mind   Mapping before , and I explain why . One of the mistakes we committed was to training   only the startups but not our managers on how to evaluate the startups , for example ,   by explaining how the ecosystem of a startup usually works . If we have done a Mind   Mapping before and tested some hypothesis , probably we have realized about this   matter . What happened here was that the winner startup in start negotiating with the   maintenance area , let the manager ask them to develop other things beside their   project , then the project become bigger and far from the focus from what the startup   really offer . In the end , the negotiation was not effectively , because the startups and   the manager realized that it was not possible .      The startup was about to start developing something different and almost lost their core   business . Maybe , if we have trained the managers before , we would not get lost at this   part . The idea of a process like this is to accelerate a startup not to make them go to the   beginning and if the startup were chosen , something great to offer they had .
### Output: 