Challenge 

 I was assigned to a working group that represented a three main functions within the Company .    The company was struggling with how to address the issues created by new technologies that   spanned those functions .   Representatives were subject matter experts in their functions , but   collectively the working group could not move forward because there was no consensus on the   problems that had to be solved .   Working group meetings devolved into unguided discussions ,   and there was not any progress .   The prompt for my work came from one of the senior   executives who chartered the working group by asking how all of the functions worked together .    Since I represented the senior executive in the working group , the task came to me . 

 Selection 

 The challenges that I had were many .   First , I was only an expert in one of the functions and   knew far less about the other fields .   To be successful , it was important to work with the other   experts to gain their inputs and create consensus .   Second , I could not ask the senior executive to   read a lengthy report , or even an executive summary of one , due to restrictions on his time . 

 I selected the tool of visualization , similar to the idea of journey mapping presented in the video ,   “ Good Kitchen Story . ”   To be a success , the visualization would have to be generalized ( i.e. , no   specific examples ) but detailed enough across the functions to create understanding . 

 Application 

 Using the representatives ’ statements gained from one - on - one and group conversations , I created   a visualization that showed the functions and the challenges at the boundaries between functions   and inside of the functions .   The first several drafts were wrong , of course , but I continued to   iterate until there was general agreement that the overall system was correctly depicted .   Overall ,   the visualization was an effective technique in meeting my executive ’s information requirements ,   but it turned out to also be an effective technique generating consensus within the working   group . 

 Insights 

 I learned several things by using this approach .   The first was that changing the overall system   required some level of empathy and trust with the subject matter experts .   Rather than relying on   my go - to technique of examining documentation , I had to create an overall picture of the system   using the subject matter experts ’ verbal and written descriptions . 

 Second , this approach itself also posed a problem ; while these individuals were doubtlessly   experts in their own fields , they also did n’t hesitate to attribute problems to other functions   which I could not accept unconditionally .   Rather than dismiss these statements , I attempted to   confirm or deny them with the functional experts .   In cases where the statements were denied , I   highlighted the dissonance for the group so that the experts could discuss the issue and gain   consensus .   In almost all of the cases , the problems that were attributed by others were caused by   simple misunderstandings of each other . 

 Third , this approach actually helped achieve working group consensus on the problems that we   were facing , which was not my original goal .   My executive appreciated the visualization and it   created the understanding that he needed .   However , the process of creating the visualization and   presenting the final product to the working group created consensus and mutual understanding ! 

 Instead of politely listening to each other before asserting our own problems , we could now see   each other ’s problems and how those problems were interrelated . 

 Approach 

 The visualization approach worked well in this situation by helping to form a mutual   understanding of a very ambiguous problem .   While the main purpose was to demonstrate how   the three functions were interrelated , visualization also helped us draw boundaries around the   overall system which helped keep the group focused .   Additionally , the level of abstraction was   effective in identifying the major problems without getting bogged down in the details of each   individual function . 

 I have continued to use these types of visualizations , mostly in situations where there is some   ambiguity about system definitions or processes .   In my current job as a data scientist , I   occasionally have to work with customers whose processes are not well - defined .   In order to   work with them effectively , visualizations are critical to achieving mutual understanding . 

 This approach could be less effective in other situations .   In systems or processes that are already   well understood by all stakeholders , there ’s no need to use resources to create a visualization .    The level of abstraction used in this case may also be ineffective elsewhere .   A rule of thumb that   I try to use ( from the system modeling world ) is to use a level of abstraction that can describe the   phenomenon of interest and not lower . 


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 

 I was assigned to a working group that represented a three main functions within the Company .    The company was struggling with how to address the issues created by new technologies that   spanned those functions .   Representatives were subject matter experts in their functions , but   collectively the working group could not move forward because there was no consensus on the   problems that had to be solved .   Working group meetings devolved into unguided discussions ,   and there was not any progress .   The prompt for my work came from one of the senior   executives who chartered the working group by asking how all of the functions worked together .    Since I represented the senior executive in the working group , the task came to me . 

 Selection 

 The challenges that I had were many .   First , I was only an expert in one of the functions and   knew far less about the other fields .   To be successful , it was important to work with the other   experts to gain their inputs and create consensus .   Second , I could not ask the senior executive to   read a lengthy report , or even an executive summary of one , due to restrictions on his time . 

 I selected the tool of visualization , similar to the idea of journey mapping presented in the video ,   “ Good Kitchen Story . ”   To be a success , the visualization would have to be generalized ( i.e. , no   specific examples ) but detailed enough across the functions to create understanding . 

 Application 

 Using the representatives ’ statements gained from one - on - one and group conversations , I created   a visualization that showed the functions and the challenges at the boundaries between functions   and inside of the functions .   The first several drafts were wrong , of course , but I continued to   iterate until there was general agreement that the overall system was correctly depicted .   Overall ,   the visualization was an effective technique in meeting my executive ’s information requirements ,   but it turned out to also be an effective technique generating consensus within the working   group . 

 Insights 

 I learned several things by using this approach .   The first was that changing the overall system   required some level of empathy and trust with the subject matter experts .   Rather than relying on   my go - to technique of examining documentation , I had to create an overall picture of the system   using the subject matter experts ’ verbal and written descriptions . 

 Second , this approach itself also posed a problem ; while these individuals were doubtlessly   experts in their own fields , they also did n’t hesitate to attribute problems to other functions   which I could not accept unconditionally .   Rather than dismiss these statements , I attempted to   confirm or deny them with the functional experts .   In cases where the statements were denied , I   highlighted the dissonance for the group so that the experts could discuss the issue and gain   consensus .   In almost all of the cases , the problems that were attributed by others were caused by   simple misunderstandings of each other . 

 Third , this approach actually helped achieve working group consensus on the problems that we   were facing , which was not my original goal .   My executive appreciated the visualization and it   created the understanding that he needed .   However , the process of creating the visualization and   presenting the final product to the working group created consensus and mutual understanding ! 

 Instead of politely listening to each other before asserting our own problems , we could now see   each other ’s problems and how those problems were interrelated . 

 Approach 

 The visualization approach worked well in this situation by helping to form a mutual   understanding of a very ambiguous problem .   While the main purpose was to demonstrate how   the three functions were interrelated , visualization also helped us draw boundaries around the   overall system which helped keep the group focused .   Additionally , the level of abstraction was   effective in identifying the major problems without getting bogged down in the details of each   individual function . 

 I have continued to use these types of visualizations , mostly in situations where there is some   ambiguity about system definitions or processes .   In my current job as a data scientist , I   occasionally have to work with customers whose processes are not well - defined .   In order to   work with them effectively , visualizations are critical to achieving mutual understanding . 

 This approach could be less effective in other situations .   In systems or processes that are already   well understood by all stakeholders , there ’s no need to use resources to create a visualization .    The level of abstraction used in this case may also be ineffective elsewhere .   A rule of thumb that   I try to use ( from the system modeling world ) is to use a level of abstraction that can describe the   phenomenon of interest and not lower .
### Output: 