Reflection - Learning Launch 

 Challenge 

 My role is within a large corporation ’s internal business development team and our role is to help   improve operational efficiency in regards to our project management . Our projects are typically for an   external audience , but involve several external vendors who are contracted to conduct and oversee the   projects . The project scope includes the internal business development working group of five colleagues   and the business technology department . The project should not exceed 180 business days and is   dependent on both internal and external resources , both limited by employee time and project budget .   The key stakeholders for the project are internal parties within the internal business development   leadership team and related functions . 

 Though the department frequently works with external vendors , there was no mechanism for evaluating   satisfaction after the project was completed . The business development team was unsure if colleagues   were satisfied with the current pool of vendors . The goal of the project was to assess internal   satisfaction with vendor services and to assess vendors ’ preparedness , quality , and scope of services for   ongoing and upcoming projects . 

 Selection 

 The team had decided to deploy a series of internal and external surveys assessing internal satisfaction   and external services . The survey tool was selected by default , since only one tool was approved for   external use by corporate polices . The learning launch is an experiment meant to test the base   assumption that colleagues were satisfied with vendor services . 

 Application 

 For the first part of the learning launch , the focus was on the internal colleagues . This phase focused on   the execution of the methods and approach determined during the Scrum phase . The first step was to   deploy the internal survey to test the hypothesis that colleagues were unhappy with certain vendor   services and to gather further feedback to determine next steps . Our hypothesis was proven correct that   certain service providers were considered sub - par when compared to other ongoing projects . 

 For the second part of the learning launch , the focus was on external vendor services . A series of existing   structured questionnaires developed for other business departments were customized and applied to   this type of projects . These extensive questionnaires included 200 + questions about vendor capabilities ,   current services , the scale of ongoing projects , and anticipated plans for scope changes and future   services . Further clarification was sought using structured interviews . This analysis led to a better   understanding of existing services and highlighted current gaps that could potentially lead to a decrease   in quality of service . 

 Insight 

 The primary insight from the first part of the learning launch was that cost constraints often led to   selection of lower quality vendor services . Another takeaway was the need to develop a new   workstream / project to develop a new mechanism to assess quality following the conclusion of each   project . The new workstream would have the goal of developing a mechanism ( e.g. a survey ) that would   allow finished projects to be described and any challenges / complaints documented . The ultimate goal   would be to provide future projects a description of the services with reviews to allow for a more   informed choice , while still taking into account cost constraints . 

 The primary insights from the second part of the learning launch was collection of information that was   previously lacking from the service providers themselves , primarily the identification of service gaps that   could lead to reduced quality . These gaps will be taken into consideration when choosing which vendors   became preferred service providers during the following year ’s review cycle . Additionally , it opened an   opportunity for future workstreams to help better understand these issues and how they impact the   business . 

 The overall takeaway was this exercise prompted further discussions with leadership and other   stakeholders about the tradeoffs between quantity of and quality of projects . 

 Approach 

 This stage of the project was following several design thinking activities , so the learning launch was the   appropriate tool . Insights generated from this process led to the need for further design thinking   activities . 


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 - Learning Launch 

 Challenge 

 My role is within a large corporation ’s internal business development team and our role is to help   improve operational efficiency in regards to our project management . Our projects are typically for an   external audience , but involve several external vendors who are contracted to conduct and oversee the   projects . The project scope includes the internal business development working group of five colleagues   and the business technology department . The project should not exceed 180 business days and is   dependent on both internal and external resources , both limited by employee time and project budget .   The key stakeholders for the project are internal parties within the internal business development   leadership team and related functions . 

 Though the department frequently works with external vendors , there was no mechanism for evaluating   satisfaction after the project was completed . The business development team was unsure if colleagues   were satisfied with the current pool of vendors . The goal of the project was to assess internal   satisfaction with vendor services and to assess vendors ’ preparedness , quality , and scope of services for   ongoing and upcoming projects . 

 Selection 

 The team had decided to deploy a series of internal and external surveys assessing internal satisfaction   and external services . The survey tool was selected by default , since only one tool was approved for   external use by corporate polices . The learning launch is an experiment meant to test the base   assumption that colleagues were satisfied with vendor services . 

 Application 

 For the first part of the learning launch , the focus was on the internal colleagues . This phase focused on   the execution of the methods and approach determined during the Scrum phase . The first step was to   deploy the internal survey to test the hypothesis that colleagues were unhappy with certain vendor   services and to gather further feedback to determine next steps . Our hypothesis was proven correct that   certain service providers were considered sub - par when compared to other ongoing projects . 

 For the second part of the learning launch , the focus was on external vendor services . A series of existing   structured questionnaires developed for other business departments were customized and applied to   this type of projects . These extensive questionnaires included 200 + questions about vendor capabilities ,   current services , the scale of ongoing projects , and anticipated plans for scope changes and future   services . Further clarification was sought using structured interviews . This analysis led to a better   understanding of existing services and highlighted current gaps that could potentially lead to a decrease   in quality of service . 

 Insight 

 The primary insight from the first part of the learning launch was that cost constraints often led to   selection of lower quality vendor services . Another takeaway was the need to develop a new   workstream / project to develop a new mechanism to assess quality following the conclusion of each   project . The new workstream would have the goal of developing a mechanism ( e.g. a survey ) that would   allow finished projects to be described and any challenges / complaints documented . The ultimate goal   would be to provide future projects a description of the services with reviews to allow for a more   informed choice , while still taking into account cost constraints . 

 The primary insights from the second part of the learning launch was collection of information that was   previously lacking from the service providers themselves , primarily the identification of service gaps that   could lead to reduced quality . These gaps will be taken into consideration when choosing which vendors   became preferred service providers during the following year ’s review cycle . Additionally , it opened an   opportunity for future workstreams to help better understand these issues and how they impact the   business . 

 The overall takeaway was this exercise prompted further discussions with leadership and other   stakeholders about the tradeoffs between quantity of and quality of projects . 

 Approach 

 This stage of the project was following several design thinking activities , so the learning launch was the   appropriate tool . Insights generated from this process led to the need for further design thinking   activities .
### Output: 