Mind mapping 

 ( sorry for my english if you find some spelling and/or grammar errors ) 

 Challenge & selection   I have not used yet mind mapping , but I have already worked on the design of new commercial offers and would like to reflect on how the mind   mapping tool may have helped me to do a better work .   Indeed , I was once asked by some big monolithic French logistics company to help them to design new commercial offers , some “ quick win ” that   may help them to enlarge their revenues . A 3 - day workshop was conducted with the top management worldwide , but the company had organized .   They just invited the top management for 3 - days ...   They asked us for help 3 days before the workshop to “ save the day ”   Which we did , according to the criteria they had , but I remained pretty sure   we could have done a better job and I have now some ideas why . Indeed , even if our job was to be the firefighters for a messy situation ( limited   knowledge of the sector beforehand and stressed timing ... ) , we still could have gained more momentum from the c. 20 participants .     Application & approach   What we did was i ) to look for “ real customer needs ” first , ii ) to then generate some “ new ideas ” through brainstorming , iii ) assess these new ideas   and iv ) develop them . The 3 - day workshpo encompasses phases i ) and ii ) .   Here are a few errors we did : 

 -   for “ real customer needs ” , we asked the company what they thought the customer needed . We differentiated behavior , want and need ,   but we looked only on a theorical way on the “ customer journey ” and never spoke to one of them 

 -   for “ new ideas ” we asked top management for their insights : these were sometimes partial or “ out of the field ” and , even when they   were good , were generated by people who had a similar mindset 

 -   and we assessed the ideas instead of trying them 

 I want to focus on the mind mapping because , even with the constraint we had ( 3 - day time to generate an idea and insights mainly from top   management ) , I am pretty sure we could have better handled the connection between the “ needs ” and the “ ideas ” . Hence the “ criteria ” .     More specifically , to generate “ needs ” we separated the 20 participants into 4 groups to discuss about customers ’ situations that the logistics   company had to handle . What happened ? What was the issue ? What was the reaction ? And , most importantly , why did this specific situation   occure , what was the core element ? For each situation , we tried to highlight the customer point of view and , for instance , the security aspect   emerged for specific products , or the complex storage management of some specific dangerous products .   We also looked at the competition , their actions and why they developed that functionality or that other one .     From there we defined some patterns . But these patterns were developped by groups of 4 - 5 persons within a room , talking about the specific   issues they already knew . At the end of the process , each group showed its conclusions to the entirety of the workshop ( traditional “ each group   selects a speaker to show its conclusions ” way of doing ) and we hoped to generate some discussions between the 4 groups ( for instance “ oh yeah ,   we all agree this is an important need to tackle ” .     Insights   Wrong . We missed a lot of things 

 1-   when the boss speaks , other people remain silent . And nobody contradicts him 

 2-   people do not think , they speak . And sometimes it is important to take some time for yourself 

 3-   people did not really have time to discuss about the situations per see , they only had time to discuss the conclusions each group had   reached 

 4-   we did not generate any link between clusters / topics 

 5-   we missed the ‘ criteria phase ’ and directly jumped to the “ what do we do ? ” phase 

 I think the 1st phase , considering the constraints we had ( timing and people ) , may not have been a bad one ( generate 4 small groups to brainstorm   on specific situations ) . But , after these discussions , it would have been great to just describe on panels or other media the situations that led to our   conclusions . Only the situations and not the conclusions each group reached , to see if other participants who look at the same situations on the   panel would reach the same conclusions . Maybe other “ needs ” or other insights would have emerged to aliment our ideas . A same situation can be   seen differently according to the point of view . We would have generated more discussion on the 2nd phase and , quite important , some   connections may have emerged between the different situations or insights ( whereas we remained limited to a “ group ” by “ group ” point of view ) .      We directly jumped to the 2nd phase without really looking at one of the most important phase , the links and the criteria .      At the end of the process we had something like 10 to 14 ideas , selected 5 of them , developped 3 prototypes and one went into market . It “ went   into market ” , I am not sure it succeeded 


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: Mind mapping 

 ( sorry for my english if you find some spelling and/or grammar errors ) 

 Challenge & selection   I have not used yet mind mapping , but I have already worked on the design of new commercial offers and would like to reflect on how the mind   mapping tool may have helped me to do a better work .   Indeed , I was once asked by some big monolithic French logistics company to help them to design new commercial offers , some “ quick win ” that   may help them to enlarge their revenues . A 3 - day workshop was conducted with the top management worldwide , but the company had organized .   They just invited the top management for 3 - days ...   They asked us for help 3 days before the workshop to “ save the day ”   Which we did , according to the criteria they had , but I remained pretty sure   we could have done a better job and I have now some ideas why . Indeed , even if our job was to be the firefighters for a messy situation ( limited   knowledge of the sector beforehand and stressed timing ... ) , we still could have gained more momentum from the c. 20 participants .     Application & approach   What we did was i ) to look for “ real customer needs ” first , ii ) to then generate some “ new ideas ” through brainstorming , iii ) assess these new ideas   and iv ) develop them . The 3 - day workshpo encompasses phases i ) and ii ) .   Here are a few errors we did : 

 -   for “ real customer needs ” , we asked the company what they thought the customer needed . We differentiated behavior , want and need ,   but we looked only on a theorical way on the “ customer journey ” and never spoke to one of them 

 -   for “ new ideas ” we asked top management for their insights : these were sometimes partial or “ out of the field ” and , even when they   were good , were generated by people who had a similar mindset 

 -   and we assessed the ideas instead of trying them 

 I want to focus on the mind mapping because , even with the constraint we had ( 3 - day time to generate an idea and insights mainly from top   management ) , I am pretty sure we could have better handled the connection between the “ needs ” and the “ ideas ” . Hence the “ criteria ” .     More specifically , to generate “ needs ” we separated the 20 participants into 4 groups to discuss about customers ’ situations that the logistics   company had to handle . What happened ? What was the issue ? What was the reaction ? And , most importantly , why did this specific situation   occure , what was the core element ? For each situation , we tried to highlight the customer point of view and , for instance , the security aspect   emerged for specific products , or the complex storage management of some specific dangerous products .   We also looked at the competition , their actions and why they developed that functionality or that other one .     From there we defined some patterns . But these patterns were developped by groups of 4 - 5 persons within a room , talking about the specific   issues they already knew . At the end of the process , each group showed its conclusions to the entirety of the workshop ( traditional “ each group   selects a speaker to show its conclusions ” way of doing ) and we hoped to generate some discussions between the 4 groups ( for instance “ oh yeah ,   we all agree this is an important need to tackle ” .     Insights   Wrong . We missed a lot of things 

 1-   when the boss speaks , other people remain silent . And nobody contradicts him 

 2-   people do not think , they speak . And sometimes it is important to take some time for yourself 

 3-   people did not really have time to discuss about the situations per see , they only had time to discuss the conclusions each group had   reached 

 4-   we did not generate any link between clusters / topics 

 5-   we missed the ‘ criteria phase ’ and directly jumped to the “ what do we do ? ” phase 

 I think the 1st phase , considering the constraints we had ( timing and people ) , may not have been a bad one ( generate 4 small groups to brainstorm   on specific situations ) . But , after these discussions , it would have been great to just describe on panels or other media the situations that led to our   conclusions . Only the situations and not the conclusions each group reached , to see if other participants who look at the same situations on the   panel would reach the same conclusions . Maybe other “ needs ” or other insights would have emerged to aliment our ideas . A same situation can be   seen differently according to the point of view . We would have generated more discussion on the 2nd phase and , quite important , some   connections may have emerged between the different situations or insights ( whereas we remained limited to a “ group ” by “ group ” point of view ) .      We directly jumped to the 2nd phase without really looking at one of the most important phase , the links and the criteria .      At the end of the process we had something like 10 to 14 ideas , selected 5 of them , developped 3 prototypes and one went into market . It “ went   into market ” , I am not sure it succeeded
### Output: 