Design Thinking   Reflection    Siew Santamaria       Challenge   One of the challenges we chose to address in 2017 was how to provide more immediate performance   feedback to our consultants in the field .   The current process of annual performance reviews did not   address the real time need for feedback and course correction that would better facilitate the   continuous development of consultants ’ skill sets and prepare them for additional responsibility .     Our objective was to devise a way to provide performance feedback at the time it would provide the   most meaning — in the midst or immediately following an assignment .   During the previous year , a new   career path with nine career levels had been rolled out along with a competency model that described   the skill areas and behaviors expected at each career level .   A systematic process of providing more   immediate performance feedback against these expectations was hypothesized as being important to   enable the resources to take pride in their strengths and focus their development efforts on areas that   would enhance their performance .     Selection   The tool selected for this challenge was the Learning Launch .   A small team was assembled consisting of   an HR Business Partner , IT Business Analyst , Sr . HR Director and HRIS Senior Analyst .   There were several   ideas about how to accomplish the objectives .   Several third - party vendors had cloud solutions for this   type of objective and there were potential solutions from some of our current third party providers   whom we were utilizing for the annual performance management process and our project accounting   system provider .   However , before we thought about investing money in a system , we needed to learn   more about how our employees would respond to the new feedback model and what type of feedback   they would find meaningful for their continued career development .     The team initially got bogged down in requirements gathering , but came to the realization that   experimenting was the best way to get out of the gate quickly and cheaply and thus the Learning Launch   was selected .   The Learning Launch was inexpensive and fostered an iterative process whereby the team   could Test , Learn , Adapt , and then Test , Learn , Adapt again , building upon those assumptions that were   confirmed and pivoting from those assumptions that were disproved .   It also put us in closer contact   with our ultimate customers from whom we needed to gather important data .     While our goal was to provide a non - threatening feedback mechanism that fostered development rather   than judgment , we needed to learn from our customers how they perceived the exercise and what value   the feedback provided to them .     Application   For our first Launch 1.1 , we developed a brief feedback form that could be manually launched from our   performance management system .   The form was tied closely to the competency model categories as   well as the technical skills the consultants were required to perform at the client .   Next , we needed to   select a test group .   We reached out to the operations team for data on a project team that had recently   completed a project and had logged a minimum number of hours .   They provided us with the project   name , list of consultants that charged time to the project along with their role on the project , hours   charged and the name of the project manager . 

 We contacted the test group in advance via email .   We told them they had been selected to participate   in a pilot of the feedback process and explained the objectives of the pilot and what we needed from   them .   We launched the forms to the test group and gave them two weeks to respond .   Unfortunately ,   no one responded .     It was time to pivot to Launch 1.2 .   We learned a valuable lesson from the failure of Launch 1.1 ; we   needed to get some leaders involved and we needed to explain what we were trying to do live before   launching into the test .   This time around we selected a project team that was delivering a project in one   of our biggest accounts .   We met with the project lead first to discuss our objectives , share the process   and feedback form and get his input prior to launching the test .   He recommended who should provide   feedback on whom based on their role on the project .   We made some adjustments to the form and   process based on his feedback and proceeded to meet with his whole team .   During this meeting he did   most of the talking , explaining the purpose of the pilot test and his expectations .   One of the changes we   made for this launch was the routing of the feedback .   Whenever the feedback was provided by anyone   other than the project lead , it was routed to the project leader for review first before going to the   recipient .   This time we had 100 % participation .     Insight   Testing our ideas on a small scale was extremely valuable .   We were able to identify kinks in the process ,   such as planning for the following situations :   1 ) what to do when the reviewer does not complete the   feedback form in the time allotted , 2 ) the cycle time to initiate and close the process , and 3 ) what to do   when the project leader is the bottleneck .   We were also able to obtain feedback on the form itself such   as :   1 ) was there too much information or not enough information , 2 ) were the instructions clear , and 3 )   was the feedback actionable .       The Learning Launch was also inexpensive .   We were able to utilize our existing system to facilitate the   test and it enabled us to iterate as we gained additional insights from our test group without incurring   additional cost .   The entire process enabled us to prove and/or disprove the assumptions we made at   the beginning .       The Learning Launch was a true learning event .   It allowed us to test our hypothesis that our resources   desired more immediate feedback on their performance that they could then take action on to continue   their own development .   Despite failing on Launch 1.1 , we were able to regroup and try again after   making some changes to the testing process .   We also learned something that we had not anticipated   during Launch 1.2 ; some of the reviewers were not very good at providing actionable feedback .   This   was brought to our attention by the project leader during Launch 1.2 .   This insight alone identified a   need for training resources in the art of providing feedback .     Approach   The Learning Launch is a powerful tool .   It provides a platform for small scale , inexpensive test runs that   can be launched quickly and provide valuable insight into the assumptions as well as revealing areas that   may have been blind spots for the team .   I would definitely recommend using this tool again when   confronted with similar circumstances .       Based on some lessons learned , I would recommend making the following changes to how we employed   this tool .   First , be mindful that the tool is just that , a tool and not all powerful in and of itself .   Bringing   the right people to the table up front to collaborate is equally as important .   The failure of our first   launch illuminated a couple of key oversights , namely the need to involve a business leader in the 

 change process who can champion the change to the team and inviting a skeptic into the planning team   to challenge our assumptions and protect us from confirmation bias .   Secondly , our small test was only   the beginning .   We need to run more small tests and gather more data in order to confirm or disprove   our hypotheses .   And finally , we need to continuously ask ourselves the following questions , what do we   know , what do n’t we know , and what do we need to know .   Then go figure out how to learn what we   need to know and keep iterating . 


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: Siew Santamaria
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: Design Thinking   Reflection    Siew Santamaria       Challenge   One of the challenges we chose to address in 2017 was how to provide more immediate performance   feedback to our consultants in the field .   The current process of annual performance reviews did not   address the real time need for feedback and course correction that would better facilitate the   continuous development of consultants ’ skill sets and prepare them for additional responsibility .     Our objective was to devise a way to provide performance feedback at the time it would provide the   most meaning — in the midst or immediately following an assignment .   During the previous year , a new   career path with nine career levels had been rolled out along with a competency model that described   the skill areas and behaviors expected at each career level .   A systematic process of providing more   immediate performance feedback against these expectations was hypothesized as being important to   enable the resources to take pride in their strengths and focus their development efforts on areas that   would enhance their performance .     Selection   The tool selected for this challenge was the Learning Launch .   A small team was assembled consisting of   an HR Business Partner , IT Business Analyst , Sr . HR Director and HRIS Senior Analyst .   There were several   ideas about how to accomplish the objectives .   Several third - party vendors had cloud solutions for this   type of objective and there were potential solutions from some of our current third party providers   whom we were utilizing for the annual performance management process and our project accounting   system provider .   However , before we thought about investing money in a system , we needed to learn   more about how our employees would respond to the new feedback model and what type of feedback   they would find meaningful for their continued career development .     The team initially got bogged down in requirements gathering , but came to the realization that   experimenting was the best way to get out of the gate quickly and cheaply and thus the Learning Launch   was selected .   The Learning Launch was inexpensive and fostered an iterative process whereby the team   could Test , Learn , Adapt , and then Test , Learn , Adapt again , building upon those assumptions that were   confirmed and pivoting from those assumptions that were disproved .   It also put us in closer contact   with our ultimate customers from whom we needed to gather important data .     While our goal was to provide a non - threatening feedback mechanism that fostered development rather   than judgment , we needed to learn from our customers how they perceived the exercise and what value   the feedback provided to them .     Application   For our first Launch 1.1 , we developed a brief feedback form that could be manually launched from our   performance management system .   The form was tied closely to the competency model categories as   well as the technical skills the consultants were required to perform at the client .   Next , we needed to   select a test group .   We reached out to the operations team for data on a project team that had recently   completed a project and had logged a minimum number of hours .   They provided us with the project   name , list of consultants that charged time to the project along with their role on the project , hours   charged and the name of the project manager . 

 We contacted the test group in advance via email .   We told them they had been selected to participate   in a pilot of the feedback process and explained the objectives of the pilot and what we needed from   them .   We launched the forms to the test group and gave them two weeks to respond .   Unfortunately ,   no one responded .     It was time to pivot to Launch 1.2 .   We learned a valuable lesson from the failure of Launch 1.1 ; we   needed to get some leaders involved and we needed to explain what we were trying to do live before   launching into the test .   This time around we selected a project team that was delivering a project in one   of our biggest accounts .   We met with the project lead first to discuss our objectives , share the process   and feedback form and get his input prior to launching the test .   He recommended who should provide   feedback on whom based on their role on the project .   We made some adjustments to the form and   process based on his feedback and proceeded to meet with his whole team .   During this meeting he did   most of the talking , explaining the purpose of the pilot test and his expectations .   One of the changes we   made for this launch was the routing of the feedback .   Whenever the feedback was provided by anyone   other than the project lead , it was routed to the project leader for review first before going to the   recipient .   This time we had 100 % participation .     Insight   Testing our ideas on a small scale was extremely valuable .   We were able to identify kinks in the process ,   such as planning for the following situations :   1 ) what to do when the reviewer does not complete the   feedback form in the time allotted , 2 ) the cycle time to initiate and close the process , and 3 ) what to do   when the project leader is the bottleneck .   We were also able to obtain feedback on the form itself such   as :   1 ) was there too much information or not enough information , 2 ) were the instructions clear , and 3 )   was the feedback actionable .       The Learning Launch was also inexpensive .   We were able to utilize our existing system to facilitate the   test and it enabled us to iterate as we gained additional insights from our test group without incurring   additional cost .   The entire process enabled us to prove and/or disprove the assumptions we made at   the beginning .       The Learning Launch was a true learning event .   It allowed us to test our hypothesis that our resources   desired more immediate feedback on their performance that they could then take action on to continue   their own development .   Despite failing on Launch 1.1 , we were able to regroup and try again after   making some changes to the testing process .   We also learned something that we had not anticipated   during Launch 1.2 ; some of the reviewers were not very good at providing actionable feedback .   This   was brought to our attention by the project leader during Launch 1.2 .   This insight alone identified a   need for training resources in the art of providing feedback .     Approach   The Learning Launch is a powerful tool .   It provides a platform for small scale , inexpensive test runs that   can be launched quickly and provide valuable insight into the assumptions as well as revealing areas that   may have been blind spots for the team .   I would definitely recommend using this tool again when   confronted with similar circumstances .       Based on some lessons learned , I would recommend making the following changes to how we employed   this tool .   First , be mindful that the tool is just that , a tool and not all powerful in and of itself .   Bringing   the right people to the table up front to collaborate is equally as important .   The failure of our first   launch illuminated a couple of key oversights , namely the need to involve a business leader in the 

 change process who can champion the change to the team and inviting a skeptic into the planning team   to challenge our assumptions and protect us from confirmation bias .   Secondly , our small test was only   the beginning .   We need to run more small tests and gather more data in order to confirm or disprove   our hypotheses .   And finally , we need to continuously ask ourselves the following questions , what do we   know , what do n’t we know , and what do we need to know .   Then go figure out how to learn what we   need to know and keep iterating .
### Output: 