Reflection 

 Mind Mapping 

 A tool from this course that I have used before is Mind Mapping . I used Mind Mapping to help 

 solve a problem at a plant at which I previously worked . I was having trouble communicating specific   tasks to various cross - functional groups with enough time to support production . The task at hand was   the effort to find a new scheduling / planning tool that would be able to give all the cross - functional areas   the detail and notice they needed to complete their required activities . The tool that was currently being   used was not satisfactory and was causing issues . Since I am not an expert in what every cross - functional   area in a manufacturing plant specifically needs , I used Mind Mapping as a way to map out the wants   and needs of the final users of the tool . 

 Selection 

 Mind Mapping was the method I selected for several reasons , the first reason being this was not 

 my initial attempt at updating the scheduling process . Previous attempts had been met with push - back   from the stakeholders . I had tried to fix the tool in a way that I thought was positive but the change was   not adopted by the other stakeholders . Secondly , there was a large and diverse group of stakeholders at   the plant and I did not know exactly what every one of them required . Finally , I needed a way to think   this project through clearly with some kind of feedback before spending the large amount of time   necessary to redesign the tool . 

 Application 

 The application of the Mind Map to this problem was fairly straight - forward as outlined in the 

 course lectures . The process started by taking the old version of the tool and gathering a group of cross-   functional stakeholders . I held a weekly review meeting to follow up on issues and problems from the   group . The group was able to provide a long list of issues with the current tool that I had been tracking . I   also compiled some information from the stakeholders ’ requests and complaints from their emails . 

 I was able to sort through the issues and come up with a list of common issues . From this list , I 

 was able to start building my map . Using the common issues list as a guide , I was able to go back to   weekly meetings and start posing “ what if ” questions to the group . This was the start of the segue from   the “ what is ” phase to the “ what if ” phase of the design process . By posing these questions from the   group ’s feedback , I was able to diagnose the key points that needed to be updated or completely   changed . The mapping process gave me a list of possible changes that were of high value to the group of   stakeholders without costing me the time and effort it would have taken to build a completely new   model and repeatedly change it . 

 Change of Approach for Next Time 

 Here is where I would have liked an additional feedback loop like the one in the plan outlined by 

 Sandra Mata . Adding the step of working with users to make the jump from issues like , “ It ’s hard to   understand some of the long term data ” to “ Keep it more simple . That data is n’t really used , ” would   have been helpful . I feel there could have been additional layers of understanding added in that step   that I may have missed , making those jumps on my own based on the most commonly pointed - out   issues that came up in my cross - functional meetings . 

 This takeaway learned from the formal process would be a new addition to what I have used in 

 the past . Even though the process I implemented was fundamentally the same as the one outlined by   Sandra Mata , there is always room to grow and expand . Points of additional feedback can help grow   the Mind Map and expand the criteria that could be a big time - saver once I got into the actual design   process of the overall scheduling format . 

 Insights from the process 

 From this process I did find some major takeaways that were different than I had expected . I 

 assumed details would be key but simplicity was overwhelmingly what was requested .   I also assumed   reducing changes was important but live information was what was desired . The process made it clear   that I did not know everything I needed to know at the outset and by jumping right to the design step , I   would have wasted time and money for the plant . Taking the additional time to map out a plan and   better understand the design is totally worth it . 


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: Reflection 

 Mind Mapping 

 A tool from this course that I have used before is Mind Mapping . I used Mind Mapping to help 

 solve a problem at a plant at which I previously worked . I was having trouble communicating specific   tasks to various cross - functional groups with enough time to support production . The task at hand was   the effort to find a new scheduling / planning tool that would be able to give all the cross - functional areas   the detail and notice they needed to complete their required activities . The tool that was currently being   used was not satisfactory and was causing issues . Since I am not an expert in what every cross - functional   area in a manufacturing plant specifically needs , I used Mind Mapping as a way to map out the wants   and needs of the final users of the tool . 

 Selection 

 Mind Mapping was the method I selected for several reasons , the first reason being this was not 

 my initial attempt at updating the scheduling process . Previous attempts had been met with push - back   from the stakeholders . I had tried to fix the tool in a way that I thought was positive but the change was   not adopted by the other stakeholders . Secondly , there was a large and diverse group of stakeholders at   the plant and I did not know exactly what every one of them required . Finally , I needed a way to think   this project through clearly with some kind of feedback before spending the large amount of time   necessary to redesign the tool . 

 Application 

 The application of the Mind Map to this problem was fairly straight - forward as outlined in the 

 course lectures . The process started by taking the old version of the tool and gathering a group of cross-   functional stakeholders . I held a weekly review meeting to follow up on issues and problems from the   group . The group was able to provide a long list of issues with the current tool that I had been tracking . I   also compiled some information from the stakeholders ’ requests and complaints from their emails . 

 I was able to sort through the issues and come up with a list of common issues . From this list , I 

 was able to start building my map . Using the common issues list as a guide , I was able to go back to   weekly meetings and start posing “ what if ” questions to the group . This was the start of the segue from   the “ what is ” phase to the “ what if ” phase of the design process . By posing these questions from the   group ’s feedback , I was able to diagnose the key points that needed to be updated or completely   changed . The mapping process gave me a list of possible changes that were of high value to the group of   stakeholders without costing me the time and effort it would have taken to build a completely new   model and repeatedly change it . 

 Change of Approach for Next Time 

 Here is where I would have liked an additional feedback loop like the one in the plan outlined by 

 Sandra Mata . Adding the step of working with users to make the jump from issues like , “ It ’s hard to   understand some of the long term data ” to “ Keep it more simple . That data is n’t really used , ” would   have been helpful . I feel there could have been additional layers of understanding added in that step   that I may have missed , making those jumps on my own based on the most commonly pointed - out   issues that came up in my cross - functional meetings . 

 This takeaway learned from the formal process would be a new addition to what I have used in 

 the past . Even though the process I implemented was fundamentally the same as the one outlined by   Sandra Mata , there is always room to grow and expand . Points of additional feedback can help grow   the Mind Map and expand the criteria that could be a big time - saver once I got into the actual design   process of the overall scheduling format . 

 Insights from the process 

 From this process I did find some major takeaways that were different than I had expected . I 

 assumed details would be key but simplicity was overwhelmingly what was requested .   I also assumed   reducing changes was important but live information was what was desired . The process made it clear   that I did not know everything I needed to know at the outset and by jumping right to the design step , I   would have wasted time and money for the plant . Taking the additional time to map out a plan and   better understand the design is totally worth it .
### Output: 