Design Thinking for Innovation   Learning Launch Reflection   Ravneet Williams   May 5 , 2018 

 Challenge 

 I have worked as a Senior Project Manager in the engineering and construction industry for over fifteen   years . Most recently , my work has been managing large scale façade projects for skyscrapers and large- scale medical or commercial campuses . A typical project budget would average around $ 40 M with a   project duration of roughly eighteen months . The three key phases of a project would , in order , include   1 ) design engineering ( where our engineers would turn the architect ’s vision into hundreds of detail   drawings ) , 2 ) production ( where the detail drawings would be converted so the product could be   fabricated and assembled at one of our production facilities ) , and 3 ) field installation ( where the   assembled product would be installed onto the building ) . A near constant that occurs once a project team   has been assembled is that many of the team members across departments have not worked together   before . Also , the mindset of individuals from each department is different simply because their job duties   are vastly diverse . The monetary scale of a given project , the risk that comes with such a long project   duration , and the possible issues within the project team makes , among many other things , the challenge   of fostering and constantly improving efficient communication of the utmost importance . For this   assignment , I am going to reflect on such a design thinking challenge I encountered while managing a 4- building biotech campus south of San Francisco , California . 

 Selection 

 After taking this course , I realized that I was using the “ learning launch ” tool on a regular basis . For the   reflection I am going to describe a situation where I encountered an appreciable communication challenge   at the forefront of a project . As conveyed in Week 4 , particularly in Ed Hesse ’s “ Learning Launch Tool ”   video , a learning launch is essentially a quick - fire experiment performed when trying to flesh out “ What   Works ? ” . 

 Application 

 I held a series of weekly meetings that included a check - in meeting with key stakeholders from each of   the three key departments . In this meeting we would attempt to identify and analyze the structure of the   project and brainstorm solutions to further improve its process , as well as returns on team member   commitments . After taking this course , I realized this was essentially an ongoing general analysis of “ What   Is ? ” and What If ? ” At one of the first of these meetings for the San Francisco project , I encountered a   significant disconnect between project team members from each of the different key departments . I met   with team members in private in order to figure out how to right the ship . It came to light that the   disconnect was derived from the fact that the majority of project team members lacked knowledge about   the other departments and how they operated .   For example , the structural engineers had been working   in their field for several years but had never visited a production facility or live construction site . 

 I organized a quick experiment ( what I now identify as a learning launch ) in the form of a field trip for a   group of the team ’s engineers to visit a production facility as well as a live construction site the following   week . I took great measures to carefully craft the event in a way I thought would be the most efficient   and beneficial learning experience for all attendees . In particular , I made it a comprehensive “ tour ” with   key staff from the department giving brief presentations on the ground followed by Q / A. Also , and   perhaps most important , I organized dinner and social interaction so that the team members could   become better acquainted . The response was overwhelmingly positive . I then crafted and organized a   program of field trips where key players from each of the major sectors visited each other in rounds over   a 3 - month period . 

 Insight 

 In just three months , managers noticed an appreciable increase in efficiency of the project process , as   well as an increase in the overall morale and empathy between departments . Empathy increased because   team members from each department now better understood the mindset of the other ( having seen their   job duties in real - time ) as well as the implications of their actions on the other . Morale spiked due to   newly fashioned comradery amongst the project team after getting a chance to engage socially . This   program of field trips was thereafter attempted on other projects with success . Minor difficulties   encountered included ( as is common in the business world ): time and money . It is difficult to remove   employees from their busy schedules . Also , there was no line item in the budget for these events and   Corporate was unwilling to absorb the costs as overhead expenses – forcing me to draw from the sparse   contingency line . However , I felt strongly that the new value brought to the project well out - weighed such   difficulties . 

 Approach 

 Thinking back on this experience , some of tools learned in this course might have brought greater success   to the program . The full adoption of the program at a company - wide level did not pan out as I would have   liked . I wish I had more a formal recording of people ’s experience to provide something tangible to   corporate to further sell the program ; perhaps something similar to what Marion Moore conveyed in the   Week Three “ Mind Mapping Tool ” video , where people ’s thoughts and reactions were well drawn out . In   summary , I feel I determined “ What Is ? ” and “ What Wows ? ” in the bi - weekly meeting with “ What   Wows ? ” being determined in the first field trip experiment . “ What Works ? ” ultimately did not pan out as   the program was not determined scalable on a company - wide basis . 


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: Ravneet Williams
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 for Innovation   Learning Launch Reflection   Ravneet Williams   May 5 , 2018 

 Challenge 

 I have worked as a Senior Project Manager in the engineering and construction industry for over fifteen   years . Most recently , my work has been managing large scale façade projects for skyscrapers and large- scale medical or commercial campuses . A typical project budget would average around $ 40 M with a   project duration of roughly eighteen months . The three key phases of a project would , in order , include   1 ) design engineering ( where our engineers would turn the architect ’s vision into hundreds of detail   drawings ) , 2 ) production ( where the detail drawings would be converted so the product could be   fabricated and assembled at one of our production facilities ) , and 3 ) field installation ( where the   assembled product would be installed onto the building ) . A near constant that occurs once a project team   has been assembled is that many of the team members across departments have not worked together   before . Also , the mindset of individuals from each department is different simply because their job duties   are vastly diverse . The monetary scale of a given project , the risk that comes with such a long project   duration , and the possible issues within the project team makes , among many other things , the challenge   of fostering and constantly improving efficient communication of the utmost importance . For this   assignment , I am going to reflect on such a design thinking challenge I encountered while managing a 4- building biotech campus south of San Francisco , California . 

 Selection 

 After taking this course , I realized that I was using the “ learning launch ” tool on a regular basis . For the   reflection I am going to describe a situation where I encountered an appreciable communication challenge   at the forefront of a project . As conveyed in Week 4 , particularly in Ed Hesse ’s “ Learning Launch Tool ”   video , a learning launch is essentially a quick - fire experiment performed when trying to flesh out “ What   Works ? ” . 

 Application 

 I held a series of weekly meetings that included a check - in meeting with key stakeholders from each of   the three key departments . In this meeting we would attempt to identify and analyze the structure of the   project and brainstorm solutions to further improve its process , as well as returns on team member   commitments . After taking this course , I realized this was essentially an ongoing general analysis of “ What   Is ? ” and What If ? ” At one of the first of these meetings for the San Francisco project , I encountered a   significant disconnect between project team members from each of the different key departments . I met   with team members in private in order to figure out how to right the ship . It came to light that the   disconnect was derived from the fact that the majority of project team members lacked knowledge about   the other departments and how they operated .   For example , the structural engineers had been working   in their field for several years but had never visited a production facility or live construction site . 

 I organized a quick experiment ( what I now identify as a learning launch ) in the form of a field trip for a   group of the team ’s engineers to visit a production facility as well as a live construction site the following   week . I took great measures to carefully craft the event in a way I thought would be the most efficient   and beneficial learning experience for all attendees . In particular , I made it a comprehensive “ tour ” with   key staff from the department giving brief presentations on the ground followed by Q / A. Also , and   perhaps most important , I organized dinner and social interaction so that the team members could   become better acquainted . The response was overwhelmingly positive . I then crafted and organized a   program of field trips where key players from each of the major sectors visited each other in rounds over   a 3 - month period . 

 Insight 

 In just three months , managers noticed an appreciable increase in efficiency of the project process , as   well as an increase in the overall morale and empathy between departments . Empathy increased because   team members from each department now better understood the mindset of the other ( having seen their   job duties in real - time ) as well as the implications of their actions on the other . Morale spiked due to   newly fashioned comradery amongst the project team after getting a chance to engage socially . This   program of field trips was thereafter attempted on other projects with success . Minor difficulties   encountered included ( as is common in the business world ): time and money . It is difficult to remove   employees from their busy schedules . Also , there was no line item in the budget for these events and   Corporate was unwilling to absorb the costs as overhead expenses – forcing me to draw from the sparse   contingency line . However , I felt strongly that the new value brought to the project well out - weighed such   difficulties . 

 Approach 

 Thinking back on this experience , some of tools learned in this course might have brought greater success   to the program . The full adoption of the program at a company - wide level did not pan out as I would have   liked . I wish I had more a formal recording of people ’s experience to provide something tangible to   corporate to further sell the program ; perhaps something similar to what Marion Moore conveyed in the   Week Three “ Mind Mapping Tool ” video , where people ’s thoughts and reactions were well drawn out . In   summary , I feel I determined “ What Is ? ” and “ What Wows ? ” in the bi - weekly meeting with “ What   Wows ? ” being determined in the first field trip experiment . “ What Works ? ” ultimately did not pan out as   the program was not determined scalable on a company - wide basis .
### Output: 