DESIGN THINKING │ REFLECTION │ MIND MAPPING 

 CHALLENGE     The challenge I chose to apply my now gained knowledge about design thinking to is mainly based around the   topic of internal perception versus external perception . In further detail : The challenge is about a big media com- pany , which manages a huge portfolio of magazines , digital products and media services . The company is mostly   known for its big selection of print magazines , which makes it the country ’s leading magazine publishing house . A   large proportion of the revenues are generated through advertisements and advertorials , which are acquired di- rectly by companies or , most often the case , their representative agencies . Because of the strongly decreasing   importance of print magazines , the company is more and more - but at a slow pace - shifting its focus towards   digital magazines . Within the company , the top management as well as the staff perceive themselves and their   work as innovative . Outside the company : Increasingly less so . This is mostly obvious in meetings with agencies ,   who usually have a much younger , digitally savvy staff which grew up with digital magazines rather than print   magazines . The problem : The agencies perceive the company as not in touch with the latest digital trends , the   company ( from the agencies ’ point of view ) lacks modern - day credibility and the company and agencies less and   less connect at eye level . Even though - and this is important - the company manages a big and very successful   portfolio of digital magazines and could easily cater for the agencies ’ needs .        SELECTION     The tool I used for my design thinking process to approach the above - mentioned challenge was the tool of Mind   Mapping . I chose to use Mind Mapping , because the assessment or exploration phase of the process ( with what   if ? being the leading question ) resulted in a large quantity of data , which as a consequence needed to be grouped   ( mind mapped ) to look for patterns and insights . Those patterns and insights - first and foremost the dominant and   promising ones - formed the basis respectively created the criteria for the idea generation phase ( with what if ?   being the leading question ) .       APPLICATION     To address my challenge , I initiated a workshop with representatives of both the media company and an agency .   I carefully selected the participants according to varying socio - demographic details and across all hierarchy levels .   For the activity , I divided all the agency representatives as well as all the representatives of the media company   into two groups each , which resulted in four groups of three people each . I then told both groups of agency repre- sentatives to put themselves in the role of the media company and - accordingly - both groups of the media com- pany ’s representatives to put themselves in the role of the agency . Two groups ( one in the role of the media   company , one in the role of the agency ) I then told that they should discuss how the embodied organisation possibly   perceives itself internally , whereas the other two groups ( one in the role of the media company , one in the role of   the agency ) should discuss how the embodied organisation is possibly perceived by external stakeholders . I gave   those four groups about 20 minutes to discuss and note their different thoughts and ideas on slips of paper . 

 The next task was to assemble the Mind Map , for which I had clustered a big board into two sections : Strengths   and Weaknesses . Beyond that , I deliberately not gave the participants any advice or recommendation on how to   cluster the Mind Map . With this , I wanted to allow this very diverse group of stakeholders to learn from each other   in the process of defining the scope of the Mind Map , the key elements as well as the relationships between the   individual elements . Throughout this process , I acted as a moderator by - for example - asking them to further   elaborate on their thoughts , triggering discussions or sharing thought - provoking impulses .      While clustering the Mind Map together and listening to the thoughts and statements generated in the assessment   process , I quickly realised that the main issue revolves around the humans involved and not the products itself .   For example : An elderly representative from the media company admitted to a lack of self - confidence in situations   when she has to present digital magazines to young agency representatives , because she perceives them as   being more knowledgeable regarding digitalisation - even though she feels confident about her knowledge of the   product and is convinced by the quality of it and its possible positive impact . This results - from her point of view -   in a worse presentation of the product , which leads to the agency doubting the quality of the product .      I chose this design of the activity , because I wanted both sides to put themselves in the role of the other organisa- tion , reflect on their strengths and weaknesses and eventually create empathy and a deeper understanding of the   other organisation ’s needs and demands . After the workshop , I digitized the different pillars and categories of the   Mind Map and highlighted the statements and aspects that I perceived as the most valuable and useful for the idea   generation phase .        INSIGHT     The most interesting insight I have gained from applying the tool of Mind Mapping to this specific challenge is that   the most valuable aspects were not shared in written form ( slips of paper / notes from the assessment phase ) but   in verbal form , when I asked the participating stakeholders to explain their notes and the reason why they posi- tioned them at a specific spot on the Mind Map . In this process of reflecting and elaborating , the participants were   more precise and even more open and honest in regard to what they originally had wanted to communicate . My   interpretation of this insight is that - by this time of the workshop - the stakeholders felt more comfortable in this   surrounding and had internalised the fact that this process might really help them rather than solely expose per- sonal as well as company related issues and problems .       APPROACH     Since I discovered the most valuable insights for the following idea generation phase through the stakeholders ’   verbal elaboration on their notes , next time I would chose a design thinking activity which is less focused on putting   thoughts into written words but more about ( spontaneous ) verbal explanations by the participants . I would like to   use the tool of visualization and make the stakeholders put together a collage , which they then have to present to   the other participants , as I would expect more openness and honesty through drawing or putting together a collage   rather than writing . 


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: DESIGN THINKING │ REFLECTION │ MIND MAPPING 

 CHALLENGE     The challenge I chose to apply my now gained knowledge about design thinking to is mainly based around the   topic of internal perception versus external perception . In further detail : The challenge is about a big media com- pany , which manages a huge portfolio of magazines , digital products and media services . The company is mostly   known for its big selection of print magazines , which makes it the country ’s leading magazine publishing house . A   large proportion of the revenues are generated through advertisements and advertorials , which are acquired di- rectly by companies or , most often the case , their representative agencies . Because of the strongly decreasing   importance of print magazines , the company is more and more - but at a slow pace - shifting its focus towards   digital magazines . Within the company , the top management as well as the staff perceive themselves and their   work as innovative . Outside the company : Increasingly less so . This is mostly obvious in meetings with agencies ,   who usually have a much younger , digitally savvy staff which grew up with digital magazines rather than print   magazines . The problem : The agencies perceive the company as not in touch with the latest digital trends , the   company ( from the agencies ’ point of view ) lacks modern - day credibility and the company and agencies less and   less connect at eye level . Even though - and this is important - the company manages a big and very successful   portfolio of digital magazines and could easily cater for the agencies ’ needs .        SELECTION     The tool I used for my design thinking process to approach the above - mentioned challenge was the tool of Mind   Mapping . I chose to use Mind Mapping , because the assessment or exploration phase of the process ( with what   if ? being the leading question ) resulted in a large quantity of data , which as a consequence needed to be grouped   ( mind mapped ) to look for patterns and insights . Those patterns and insights - first and foremost the dominant and   promising ones - formed the basis respectively created the criteria for the idea generation phase ( with what if ?   being the leading question ) .       APPLICATION     To address my challenge , I initiated a workshop with representatives of both the media company and an agency .   I carefully selected the participants according to varying socio - demographic details and across all hierarchy levels .   For the activity , I divided all the agency representatives as well as all the representatives of the media company   into two groups each , which resulted in four groups of three people each . I then told both groups of agency repre- sentatives to put themselves in the role of the media company and - accordingly - both groups of the media com- pany ’s representatives to put themselves in the role of the agency . Two groups ( one in the role of the media   company , one in the role of the agency ) I then told that they should discuss how the embodied organisation possibly   perceives itself internally , whereas the other two groups ( one in the role of the media company , one in the role of   the agency ) should discuss how the embodied organisation is possibly perceived by external stakeholders . I gave   those four groups about 20 minutes to discuss and note their different thoughts and ideas on slips of paper . 

 The next task was to assemble the Mind Map , for which I had clustered a big board into two sections : Strengths   and Weaknesses . Beyond that , I deliberately not gave the participants any advice or recommendation on how to   cluster the Mind Map . With this , I wanted to allow this very diverse group of stakeholders to learn from each other   in the process of defining the scope of the Mind Map , the key elements as well as the relationships between the   individual elements . Throughout this process , I acted as a moderator by - for example - asking them to further   elaborate on their thoughts , triggering discussions or sharing thought - provoking impulses .      While clustering the Mind Map together and listening to the thoughts and statements generated in the assessment   process , I quickly realised that the main issue revolves around the humans involved and not the products itself .   For example : An elderly representative from the media company admitted to a lack of self - confidence in situations   when she has to present digital magazines to young agency representatives , because she perceives them as   being more knowledgeable regarding digitalisation - even though she feels confident about her knowledge of the   product and is convinced by the quality of it and its possible positive impact . This results - from her point of view -   in a worse presentation of the product , which leads to the agency doubting the quality of the product .      I chose this design of the activity , because I wanted both sides to put themselves in the role of the other organisa- tion , reflect on their strengths and weaknesses and eventually create empathy and a deeper understanding of the   other organisation ’s needs and demands . After the workshop , I digitized the different pillars and categories of the   Mind Map and highlighted the statements and aspects that I perceived as the most valuable and useful for the idea   generation phase .        INSIGHT     The most interesting insight I have gained from applying the tool of Mind Mapping to this specific challenge is that   the most valuable aspects were not shared in written form ( slips of paper / notes from the assessment phase ) but   in verbal form , when I asked the participating stakeholders to explain their notes and the reason why they posi- tioned them at a specific spot on the Mind Map . In this process of reflecting and elaborating , the participants were   more precise and even more open and honest in regard to what they originally had wanted to communicate . My   interpretation of this insight is that - by this time of the workshop - the stakeholders felt more comfortable in this   surrounding and had internalised the fact that this process might really help them rather than solely expose per- sonal as well as company related issues and problems .       APPROACH     Since I discovered the most valuable insights for the following idea generation phase through the stakeholders ’   verbal elaboration on their notes , next time I would chose a design thinking activity which is less focused on putting   thoughts into written words but more about ( spontaneous ) verbal explanations by the participants . I would like to   use the tool of visualization and make the stakeholders put together a collage , which they then have to present to   the other participants , as I would expect more openness and honesty through drawing or putting together a collage   rather than writing .
### Output: 