Challenge   The software company I work for has been wanting to introduce design thinking into the   software development process for the last two years . The introduction has been slow and   unconvincing . One big issue has been to create a common view around what the problems are   and how we should proceed with the introduction . Some favour a revolutionary approach while   others favour an evolutionary approach .     Conversations and meetings often go in circles around what each party involves wishes the   future design - driven organisation should look like . Very little time is spent on how we get there   or what should be the next step .      Selection   The mind mapping tool was selected to try and bring together all the ideas , observations , and   understanding of what has gone wrong around in the organisation . As the video on mind- mapping states “ Mind mapping is more intuitive . It 's more creative . It 's more visual , and it 's more   engaging . ” The hope is that with a shared mind map the cooperative drawing will bring people   together around a common view of the what are the current problems as well as assets and   opportunities .     Creating a common view seems especially important in this case as one of the biggest issues is   that people are currently working independently from each other . They have different views and   information that would do well to be brought together .      Application   We applied mind - mapping in two ways . First we did a rather traditional mind mapping where we   accumulated an inventory of facts and observations . It created as is presented in module 2 a   sort of “ yard sale ” information . 

 We then took this collection of loosely related information and created a second mind map . This   one was a less traditional mind - map that tries to relate results / objectives we think we need to   accomplish to reach a better design - driven work environment . 

 The diagram tries to map the agreed key results we need to work on ; the order in which we   think we should work on them ; the value ( improvement ) each will deliver ; and the critical path to   follow . It does not explain how or what we will do to reach each objective . This we think is what   we will do in the next phase of the process when we attack the “ what if ” phase of the design   thinking process .     Insight & Approach   The first mind map allowed all the issues to be unified into one single view . It also allowed to   establish common ground around understanding . Further it allowed for everyone to realise the   complexity of the problem at hand . Where as before each participant ’s views were isolated , now   brought together the complexity and depth became clear .     The second mind map allowed us to agree on the value , the importance , and the priority of   different aspects of the problem to solve . It helped overcome some of the issues with traditional   mind - maps which only show information hierarchies .      This approach helps bringing a lot of information together very quickly , but it is hard to keep   everyone thinking only about “ what is ” and not already propose “ what if ” or solution - oriented   statements . The second mind map was an attempt to alleviate this frustration and make some   kind of statement about views already held about how we should go forward without going into   details . 

 Overall , the mind map approach forced collaboration into a single picture all the views that were   opposing each other before . There is a risk that this is a bit artificial , but we will find out in the   next phase if we manage to build on top of this new common view of what is .     In conclusion , I feel that mind mapping   tool are good to bring many people together around a   problem where it is important to collect information quickly without getting bogged down in   details or having to resolve any conflicting or competing ideas and information . 


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 software company I work for has been wanting to introduce design thinking into the   software development process for the last two years . The introduction has been slow and   unconvincing . One big issue has been to create a common view around what the problems are   and how we should proceed with the introduction . Some favour a revolutionary approach while   others favour an evolutionary approach .     Conversations and meetings often go in circles around what each party involves wishes the   future design - driven organisation should look like . Very little time is spent on how we get there   or what should be the next step .      Selection   The mind mapping tool was selected to try and bring together all the ideas , observations , and   understanding of what has gone wrong around in the organisation . As the video on mind- mapping states “ Mind mapping is more intuitive . It 's more creative . It 's more visual , and it 's more   engaging . ” The hope is that with a shared mind map the cooperative drawing will bring people   together around a common view of the what are the current problems as well as assets and   opportunities .     Creating a common view seems especially important in this case as one of the biggest issues is   that people are currently working independently from each other . They have different views and   information that would do well to be brought together .      Application   We applied mind - mapping in two ways . First we did a rather traditional mind mapping where we   accumulated an inventory of facts and observations . It created as is presented in module 2 a   sort of “ yard sale ” information . 

 We then took this collection of loosely related information and created a second mind map . This   one was a less traditional mind - map that tries to relate results / objectives we think we need to   accomplish to reach a better design - driven work environment . 

 The diagram tries to map the agreed key results we need to work on ; the order in which we   think we should work on them ; the value ( improvement ) each will deliver ; and the critical path to   follow . It does not explain how or what we will do to reach each objective . This we think is what   we will do in the next phase of the process when we attack the “ what if ” phase of the design   thinking process .     Insight & Approach   The first mind map allowed all the issues to be unified into one single view . It also allowed to   establish common ground around understanding . Further it allowed for everyone to realise the   complexity of the problem at hand . Where as before each participant ’s views were isolated , now   brought together the complexity and depth became clear .     The second mind map allowed us to agree on the value , the importance , and the priority of   different aspects of the problem to solve . It helped overcome some of the issues with traditional   mind - maps which only show information hierarchies .      This approach helps bringing a lot of information together very quickly , but it is hard to keep   everyone thinking only about “ what is ” and not already propose “ what if ” or solution - oriented   statements . The second mind map was an attempt to alleviate this frustration and make some   kind of statement about views already held about how we should go forward without going into   details . 

 Overall , the mind map approach forced collaboration into a single picture all the views that were   opposing each other before . There is a risk that this is a bit artificial , but we will find out in the   next phase if we manage to build on top of this new common view of what is .     In conclusion , I feel that mind mapping   tool are good to bring many people together around a   problem where it is important to collect information quickly without getting bogged down in   details or having to resolve any conflicting or competing ideas and information .
### Output: 