The Challenge : 

 The organization I work in as a lower level manager is focused on laboratory - based research and   development , with a diverse pool of individual contributors . One of the main challenges to our business   is to increase our speed of delivery while maintaining high quality standards for reports and outcomes .   As a solution , we would like to implement an Agile framework of project management to achieve this   increase in speed to delivery . In our current work , projects are planned without input from the   individual contributors and tasks are assigned to one or two people each , with little collaboration . When   collaboration or additional resources are required , is can slow down the project while priorities are   rearranged and work is scheduled . All our contributors have more than one project , and managers are   burdened with balancing each person ’s time and tracking projects to determine if priorities need to be   shifted . Agile Scrum was identified as a new system that would speed up the work process , allow   everyone to have input into project planning and thereby improve outcomes , and enable managers to   establish clear priorities . Therefore , in this case , the product being designed is our project management   system . 

 The Learning Launch Tool and Its Application : 

 We first used a ‘ Learning Launch ’ of Agile Scrum , in a very simplified way , to help the team learn the   new project system and to get feedback from them about how this framework might be an effective   solution . We chose this design tool because we needed the results of an experiment to know whether   the team members could work quickly with Scrum tools . A team of individuals was chosen for an   internal 3 - week project that had very well - defined , straightforward goals , that would be the highest   priority for each person . I identified several key assumptions : the team would embrace the project   visualization tools , work would go faster due to clarity around task assignments and priorities ,   communication would be better through daily meetings and Scrum Master facilitation . During the   project and after it was finished , we used weekly retrospectives to get feedback about how the team felt   about this new project framework . The work had been done rapidly and the team members were able   to improve their work quality by collaborating . Generally , Learning Launch was considered a success and   the team was overall happy to continue working with that framework . 

 Learning Launch 2 : 

 Next , based on insights from the first Learning Launch , we used the new project system in a second   round with the same group of individuals , on a longer ( 3 - month ) project . This second experiment   involved interaction with a customer , and less concrete goals . The work required a broader set of   research skills and techniques , and more responsibility for project planning was placed on team   members . The improvements made from the first round were modifications to task visualization   techniques and identification of new Scrum Masters . Although the project was somewhat successful ,   the feedback from the team was less positive this time . For example , some team members did not like   having responsibility for determining project goals and some thought the project could have moved   faster . Overall , the team felt that having one project leader to define goals instead of team - defined   goals would have been more efficient . 

 Learning Launch 3 : 

 As a result , the next test of our new project framework with this group was a project in which the   customer provided very well - defined goals . The timeline of the project was longer , but more predictable   due to the type of work being done . In this experiment , the roles of product owner and Scrum Master   were assigned to different team members . Unfortunately , the third experiment was considered a   failure , because of personality conflicts caused by this change in roles . Competitiveness and lack of trust   in each other led to low team energy and poor communication . Due to the group tensions , the third   experiment with the Scrum framework had to be aborted in favor of traditional individual project work   assignments . It was clear that , despite the defined goals provided in this iteration and experience in the   project system , the team had failed to adopt the Agile philosophy . 

 Insight and Approach : 

 The use of Learning Launches was very effective for understanding how the Agile framework could be   used in our organization . We took feedback from all the team members during and after the ‘ project   framework ’ experiments and executed a plan to develop the implementation of Scrum with that team .   Unfortunately , in successive Learning Launches , the solution seemed to be less and less successful . In   retrospect , there was an unidentified assumption that was not addressed in successive development   steps . It was assumed that individual contributors would understand and accept the Agile philosophy   immediately after learning and practicing the mechanics of the Scrum framework . The design of the   second Learning Launch did not take into account that such an assumption was not validated by   feedback . However , when that assumption proved again to be false in the third Learning Launch , more   effort was placed on training our team members and integrating the Agile philosophy into their jobs .   Considering this experience in the context of Design Thinking , it showed the importance of listening very   carefully to customer feedback from the test launches . It showed that , in general , Design Thinking   requires maintaining an open mind to identify all assumptions . An alternative development approach   would have been to implement additional training and education before starting a new Learning Launch .   I believe it would also have been more useful to implement a Learning Launch with a different group of   people , to have data from a more diverse group . 


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: The Challenge : 

 The organization I work in as a lower level manager is focused on laboratory - based research and   development , with a diverse pool of individual contributors . One of the main challenges to our business   is to increase our speed of delivery while maintaining high quality standards for reports and outcomes .   As a solution , we would like to implement an Agile framework of project management to achieve this   increase in speed to delivery . In our current work , projects are planned without input from the   individual contributors and tasks are assigned to one or two people each , with little collaboration . When   collaboration or additional resources are required , is can slow down the project while priorities are   rearranged and work is scheduled . All our contributors have more than one project , and managers are   burdened with balancing each person ’s time and tracking projects to determine if priorities need to be   shifted . Agile Scrum was identified as a new system that would speed up the work process , allow   everyone to have input into project planning and thereby improve outcomes , and enable managers to   establish clear priorities . Therefore , in this case , the product being designed is our project management   system . 

 The Learning Launch Tool and Its Application : 

 We first used a ‘ Learning Launch ’ of Agile Scrum , in a very simplified way , to help the team learn the   new project system and to get feedback from them about how this framework might be an effective   solution . We chose this design tool because we needed the results of an experiment to know whether   the team members could work quickly with Scrum tools . A team of individuals was chosen for an   internal 3 - week project that had very well - defined , straightforward goals , that would be the highest   priority for each person . I identified several key assumptions : the team would embrace the project   visualization tools , work would go faster due to clarity around task assignments and priorities ,   communication would be better through daily meetings and Scrum Master facilitation . During the   project and after it was finished , we used weekly retrospectives to get feedback about how the team felt   about this new project framework . The work had been done rapidly and the team members were able   to improve their work quality by collaborating . Generally , Learning Launch was considered a success and   the team was overall happy to continue working with that framework . 

 Learning Launch 2 : 

 Next , based on insights from the first Learning Launch , we used the new project system in a second   round with the same group of individuals , on a longer ( 3 - month ) project . This second experiment   involved interaction with a customer , and less concrete goals . The work required a broader set of   research skills and techniques , and more responsibility for project planning was placed on team   members . The improvements made from the first round were modifications to task visualization   techniques and identification of new Scrum Masters . Although the project was somewhat successful ,   the feedback from the team was less positive this time . For example , some team members did not like   having responsibility for determining project goals and some thought the project could have moved   faster . Overall , the team felt that having one project leader to define goals instead of team - defined   goals would have been more efficient . 

 Learning Launch 3 : 

 As a result , the next test of our new project framework with this group was a project in which the   customer provided very well - defined goals . The timeline of the project was longer , but more predictable   due to the type of work being done . In this experiment , the roles of product owner and Scrum Master   were assigned to different team members . Unfortunately , the third experiment was considered a   failure , because of personality conflicts caused by this change in roles . Competitiveness and lack of trust   in each other led to low team energy and poor communication . Due to the group tensions , the third   experiment with the Scrum framework had to be aborted in favor of traditional individual project work   assignments . It was clear that , despite the defined goals provided in this iteration and experience in the   project system , the team had failed to adopt the Agile philosophy . 

 Insight and Approach : 

 The use of Learning Launches was very effective for understanding how the Agile framework could be   used in our organization . We took feedback from all the team members during and after the ‘ project   framework ’ experiments and executed a plan to develop the implementation of Scrum with that team .   Unfortunately , in successive Learning Launches , the solution seemed to be less and less successful . In   retrospect , there was an unidentified assumption that was not addressed in successive development   steps . It was assumed that individual contributors would understand and accept the Agile philosophy   immediately after learning and practicing the mechanics of the Scrum framework . The design of the   second Learning Launch did not take into account that such an assumption was not validated by   feedback . However , when that assumption proved again to be false in the third Learning Launch , more   effort was placed on training our team members and integrating the Agile philosophy into their jobs .   Considering this experience in the context of Design Thinking , it showed the importance of listening very   carefully to customer feedback from the test launches . It showed that , in general , Design Thinking   requires maintaining an open mind to identify all assumptions . An alternative development approach   would have been to implement additional training and education before starting a new Learning Launch .   I believe it would also have been more useful to implement a Learning Launch with a different group of   people , to have data from a more diverse group .
### Output: 