Create new services in banking branches 

 Challenge : Describe your challenge , including all relevant information . 

 Retail banking is an especially heavily regulated activity worldwide , and in France it is mostly   run by former civil servants . Major decisions are made by the ministry of finance and apply to   all banks nationwide . In this environment innovation is viewed with suspicion at best , and kept   under tight control by the regulator . However , banks are under increasing strain , with rock   bottom interest rates that undercut their economic model and an aggressive competition by   “ fintech ” start - ups . They have little choice but to innovate themselves out of their predicament   to survive . 

 My client is a French regional bank , a subsidiary of a major agricultural banking group . Apart   from its traditional commercial objectives , it is especially dedicated to financing farmers ( who   are heavily represented at the board ) , and to improve the local economy as a whole . It is a major   employer in the region , and it owns by far the biggest number of local branches among all retail   banks . Traffic in these branches goes down every year , making it difficult to justify such an   extensive physical presence . Yet the branches are viewed as an essential strategic and financial   asset : closing them in great numbers would trigger big market share losses , contradict the   mandate to sustain the local economy and be politically suicidal for most deciders . 

 In order to sustain the branches ‘ profitability , a group of young executives came up with new   ideas to create more services : they would improve the traditional banking services , but also   offer fresh locally grown food in the branches , invite clients to specially tailored conferences   and workshops , and even share their oversized offices as co - working space with local   businesses and entrepreneurs . The challenge was to anchor the bank in the local economic life   and to attract high value prospects to the branches . Profitability would be reached by following   up on the best contacts obtained through the new services . Three questions needed an answer : 

  Can the new services attract enough high value prospects to the branches , even in rural 

 areas ? 

  Can the bank follow up on contacts to transform these prospects into clients ?    Can the new services help sales advisors to sell more to existing clients ? 

 In order to answer these questions , the team decided to do a learning launch . 

 Selection : In your own words , briefly describe the tool you selected ( e.g. , what it is and   why you selected it for your challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture   references ) . 

 A learning launch is a process by which an idea is tested in the real world . The aim of the launch   is not to do a full market test , but to cheaply challenge a few main hypothesis to confirm or   disconfirm the value of an idea in terms of potential value creation , potential execution ,   defendability , scalability . It is the last design phase before actual market tests . 

 The learning launch process is composed of 5 main steps : 

 1 . Idea statement , 

 2 . Key assumptions statement ( what must be true for the idea to be a good idea ) ,   3 . Key assumption prioritization ,   4 . Test design for key assumptions ,   5 . Test execution . 

 If step 5 is conclusive , development can be carried on . Otherwise the idea needs to be reworked   or to be shelved . 

 The learning launch was chosen by the bank because it needed quick answers to its three main   questions , and it ( wisely … ) did n’t want to invest huge sums of money in an idea that could fail   and drain resources to develop other , potentially more promising ideas . 

 Application : Describe how you applied the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , what   you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively ) . 

 The bank decided to embark into a learning launch , and created an “ internal startup ” to carry it ,   all complete with a board , a CEO and a financial director to supervise its 10 000 € budget ! The   president was the bank ’s CEO . The team met a couple of times and quickly designed a vending   machine to sell locally grown products in the branches . Since the bank ’s shareholders are   mainly farmers , procuring goods for the test was no problem : the initiative was a very easy   political sale , as most shareholders viewed it as an opportunity to get into direct contact with   consumers . Since a real vending machine was well over budget for the startup , a mock - up was   built with shelves and installed in a few test branches . True , it needed to be operated manually   by a sales advisor , but this was regarded as a small problem since the vending machine was   supposed to be promoted by a human being from the beginning ( nobody seriously envisioned   that people would spontaneously purchase food from their bank … ) 

 After a few weeks it turned out that : 

  Although the machine raised curiosity , few people actually purchased anything from it .    The contacts initiated through the machine failed to generate profitable banking 

 business - true , some local associations did appreciate the initiative , but this is no   potentially profitable business even taking indirect fallouts into account . 

  The vending machines were located inside the branches , and they were not strongly 

 supported by a communication effort . Thus , they failed to attract prospects in numbers ,   only existing clients had an opportunity to try them . 

  The operating cost grew far beyond expectations , products getting past their use - by 

 date and needing constant replacement . 

  Regulatory hurdles to sell perishable goods at scale in a bank did n’t find a satisfactory 

 answer . 

 Other initiatives did n’t fare much better : it turned out that co - working space was not especially   needed in small French villages , and that specialised conferences and workshops attracted   mostly dynamic populations in urban areas , not the core target for the learning launch . They   did attract farmers and local storekeepers in rural areas , but the bank ’s market share among   these populations was already up to 60 % , so there was little for additional growth . 

 After a few experiments , the start - up ran out of budget without much success to show for ; it   was praised as an innovative experience that needed to be done for the sake of innovation , but   the members slowly returned to their more profitable daily activities . 

 Insight : Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your   challenge ( e.g. , how an insight affected your thinking about the challenge and about   design thinking more broadly ) . 

 Reflectively , the new offers failed to generate profitable growth because they did n’t meet a   potential need that the bank could meet at sufficient scale . The main reason was that the   initiative lacked a clear innovation process prior to the learning launch : “ what is ” was   perfunctorily implemented , “ what if ” and “ what wows ” were almost completely skipped in   favour of the most popular idea . However , it can be said that the learning launch saved us from   a potentially much worse outcome : since the personal and financial investment in the new ideas   were limited , nobody suggested that locally carried innovation needed to be stopped altogether .   The bank was free to learn a lesson they could make use of within the frame of their specific   “ process centred ” culture : that innovation should be managed as a complete process with all   steps implemented rigorously . In that sense , the learning launch perfectly delivered on its   promise to de - risk innovation : it did n’t deliver profits instantly , but it gave us an opportunity to   take our loss and to come back to fight another day ! 

 Approach : Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool   you selected or a different one -- and the reason(s ) why . 

 The bank will certainly need a more comprehensive approach to clients ‘ needs identification   and to idea generation : the project team rushed the most popular ideas to a learning launch   without sufficient preparation . Design thinking is a full process , and although steps should be   tailored for each specific organisation , none should be skipped or overly simplified . The next   time I would insist on implementing a full design thinking process , starting with a detailed   “ what is ” phase … And given the experience acquired through the learning launch , I hope I will   get attention on this issue ! Although , I would probably recommend the idea to be tested as a   prototype in house , rather than rushing to a highly exposed experiment in a banking branch :   exposure creates all sorts of political imperatives that muddy the conclusions . In this case , we   could have done a test in a training branch ( the bank has one at its headquarters ) with a few   volunteer clients or prospects , with complete , individual debriefings . This experiment would   have cost much less , without any exposure at all , and the debriefings could have led us to much   more detailed insight into clients’thinking and experience . For a detailed description of the   procedure to be implemented , see the final section of   Sprint : How to Solve Big Problems and   Test New Ideas in Just Five Days , by Jake Knapp , John Zeratsky and Breden Kowitz . 


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: Create new services in banking branches 

 Challenge : Describe your challenge , including all relevant information . 

 Retail banking is an especially heavily regulated activity worldwide , and in France it is mostly   run by former civil servants . Major decisions are made by the ministry of finance and apply to   all banks nationwide . In this environment innovation is viewed with suspicion at best , and kept   under tight control by the regulator . However , banks are under increasing strain , with rock   bottom interest rates that undercut their economic model and an aggressive competition by   “ fintech ” start - ups . They have little choice but to innovate themselves out of their predicament   to survive . 

 My client is a French regional bank , a subsidiary of a major agricultural banking group . Apart   from its traditional commercial objectives , it is especially dedicated to financing farmers ( who   are heavily represented at the board ) , and to improve the local economy as a whole . It is a major   employer in the region , and it owns by far the biggest number of local branches among all retail   banks . Traffic in these branches goes down every year , making it difficult to justify such an   extensive physical presence . Yet the branches are viewed as an essential strategic and financial   asset : closing them in great numbers would trigger big market share losses , contradict the   mandate to sustain the local economy and be politically suicidal for most deciders . 

 In order to sustain the branches ‘ profitability , a group of young executives came up with new   ideas to create more services : they would improve the traditional banking services , but also   offer fresh locally grown food in the branches , invite clients to specially tailored conferences   and workshops , and even share their oversized offices as co - working space with local   businesses and entrepreneurs . The challenge was to anchor the bank in the local economic life   and to attract high value prospects to the branches . Profitability would be reached by following   up on the best contacts obtained through the new services . Three questions needed an answer : 

  Can the new services attract enough high value prospects to the branches , even in rural 

 areas ? 

  Can the bank follow up on contacts to transform these prospects into clients ?    Can the new services help sales advisors to sell more to existing clients ? 

 In order to answer these questions , the team decided to do a learning launch . 

 Selection : In your own words , briefly describe the tool you selected ( e.g. , what it is and   why you selected it for your challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture   references ) . 

 A learning launch is a process by which an idea is tested in the real world . The aim of the launch   is not to do a full market test , but to cheaply challenge a few main hypothesis to confirm or   disconfirm the value of an idea in terms of potential value creation , potential execution ,   defendability , scalability . It is the last design phase before actual market tests . 

 The learning launch process is composed of 5 main steps : 

 1 . Idea statement , 

 2 . Key assumptions statement ( what must be true for the idea to be a good idea ) ,   3 . Key assumption prioritization ,   4 . Test design for key assumptions ,   5 . Test execution . 

 If step 5 is conclusive , development can be carried on . Otherwise the idea needs to be reworked   or to be shelved . 

 The learning launch was chosen by the bank because it needed quick answers to its three main   questions , and it ( wisely … ) did n’t want to invest huge sums of money in an idea that could fail   and drain resources to develop other , potentially more promising ideas . 

 Application : Describe how you applied the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , what   you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively ) . 

 The bank decided to embark into a learning launch , and created an “ internal startup ” to carry it ,   all complete with a board , a CEO and a financial director to supervise its 10 000 € budget ! The   president was the bank ’s CEO . The team met a couple of times and quickly designed a vending   machine to sell locally grown products in the branches . Since the bank ’s shareholders are   mainly farmers , procuring goods for the test was no problem : the initiative was a very easy   political sale , as most shareholders viewed it as an opportunity to get into direct contact with   consumers . Since a real vending machine was well over budget for the startup , a mock - up was   built with shelves and installed in a few test branches . True , it needed to be operated manually   by a sales advisor , but this was regarded as a small problem since the vending machine was   supposed to be promoted by a human being from the beginning ( nobody seriously envisioned   that people would spontaneously purchase food from their bank … ) 

 After a few weeks it turned out that : 

  Although the machine raised curiosity , few people actually purchased anything from it .    The contacts initiated through the machine failed to generate profitable banking 

 business - true , some local associations did appreciate the initiative , but this is no   potentially profitable business even taking indirect fallouts into account . 

  The vending machines were located inside the branches , and they were not strongly 

 supported by a communication effort . Thus , they failed to attract prospects in numbers ,   only existing clients had an opportunity to try them . 

  The operating cost grew far beyond expectations , products getting past their use - by 

 date and needing constant replacement . 

  Regulatory hurdles to sell perishable goods at scale in a bank did n’t find a satisfactory 

 answer . 

 Other initiatives did n’t fare much better : it turned out that co - working space was not especially   needed in small French villages , and that specialised conferences and workshops attracted   mostly dynamic populations in urban areas , not the core target for the learning launch . They   did attract farmers and local storekeepers in rural areas , but the bank ’s market share among   these populations was already up to 60 % , so there was little for additional growth . 

 After a few experiments , the start - up ran out of budget without much success to show for ; it   was praised as an innovative experience that needed to be done for the sake of innovation , but   the members slowly returned to their more profitable daily activities . 

 Insight : Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your   challenge ( e.g. , how an insight affected your thinking about the challenge and about   design thinking more broadly ) . 

 Reflectively , the new offers failed to generate profitable growth because they did n’t meet a   potential need that the bank could meet at sufficient scale . The main reason was that the   initiative lacked a clear innovation process prior to the learning launch : “ what is ” was   perfunctorily implemented , “ what if ” and “ what wows ” were almost completely skipped in   favour of the most popular idea . However , it can be said that the learning launch saved us from   a potentially much worse outcome : since the personal and financial investment in the new ideas   were limited , nobody suggested that locally carried innovation needed to be stopped altogether .   The bank was free to learn a lesson they could make use of within the frame of their specific   “ process centred ” culture : that innovation should be managed as a complete process with all   steps implemented rigorously . In that sense , the learning launch perfectly delivered on its   promise to de - risk innovation : it did n’t deliver profits instantly , but it gave us an opportunity to   take our loss and to come back to fight another day ! 

 Approach : Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool   you selected or a different one -- and the reason(s ) why . 

 The bank will certainly need a more comprehensive approach to clients ‘ needs identification   and to idea generation : the project team rushed the most popular ideas to a learning launch   without sufficient preparation . Design thinking is a full process , and although steps should be   tailored for each specific organisation , none should be skipped or overly simplified . The next   time I would insist on implementing a full design thinking process , starting with a detailed   “ what is ” phase … And given the experience acquired through the learning launch , I hope I will   get attention on this issue ! Although , I would probably recommend the idea to be tested as a   prototype in house , rather than rushing to a highly exposed experiment in a banking branch :   exposure creates all sorts of political imperatives that muddy the conclusions . In this case , we   could have done a test in a training branch ( the bank has one at its headquarters ) with a few   volunteer clients or prospects , with complete , individual debriefings . This experiment would   have cost much less , without any exposure at all , and the debriefings could have led us to much   more detailed insight into clients’thinking and experience . For a detailed description of the   procedure to be implemented , see the final section of   Sprint : How to Solve Big Problems and   Test New Ideas in Just Five Days , by Jake Knapp , John Zeratsky and Breden Kowitz .
### Output: 