John Yates Design Thinking for Innovation Carolina Chavez May 3 , 2020 

 Reflection : The Mind Mapping Tool 

 1 . Challenge 

 My consulting firm was tasked by our client , a health - care foundation board , to help them design an organizational strategy in light of all the rapidly moving developments in health - care . The board was at an impasse , uncertain on where to place its bets to best support health - care in this country without being able to predict where a number of current trends might lead . We used design thinking to present a few high - level , flexible , iterative , strategic options for the board that the foundation could pursue within the 2021 - 2024 time - frame . 

 2 . Selection 

 This reflection will focus on the mind mapping tool , which was the most important phase of the project as it moved the process from the What Is ? stage of ascertaining the current state of the organization and of health - care in the U.S. , to the crucial What If ? stage of beginning to draft new , possible realities for the foundation . This fulfilled the purpose of the board in hiring my firm . 

 I am defining mind mapping as the collective visualization by the board members of the sum of their knowledge , experiences , insights , interests , and visions of health - care , thereby establishing a snapshot or base upon which to build a series of possible strategic options for the foundation to pursue . As Lopez said in the Module 3 video : 

 “ In the first phase of the design thinking process , we take a look at the current reality , at What Is ? In doing so , we amass a huge amount of data . Before moving to the next phase , What If ? , we need to distill all that data into information and insights that can be easily communicated . This is just what mind mapping does well . ” 

 3 . Application : 

 Following the completion of extensive health - care industry research and in - depth interviews with members of the board to collect data on the current reality in the What Is ? stage of the design thinking approach , we started the mind mapping process . We began by asking the group to individually generate a set of planning assumptions about the likely future conditions that will impact the foundation and its work to help determine where members are aligned in beliefs about the future . 

 The group first noted these planning assumptions individually on Post - it Notes and pinned them on a large white board . After all the ideas were exhausted following several rounds of the question “ what else ? ” , the team grouped the Post - It Noted ideas in the following themes : paying for health - care , “ change ” as a field , societal tone , politics , technology , process , and doing the work vs. paying for the work . 

 From this “ map ” of initial contributions , we asked the group to create an aligned - upon set of shared assumptions about the future context that the foundation will be acting in , starting in 2021 . In the next step , the board revisited the What Is ? 

 stage research and brainstormed what they have found works to catalyze transformational systemic change , and what the field is saying about what the foundation might or should try . Such ideas included creating new lines of business , partnering differently with localities , etc . These ideas were written on Post - it Notes and arranged on the white board . 

 The board then started anticipating potential future paths for the foundation by exploring two extremes : ( 1 ) be entirely organized as a think tank or ( 2 ) be completely focused on implementing current knowledge and practices . The group split in two to explore these two possible approaches in depth . 

 The two teams suggested four alternate organizational realities to explore based on this experience : an implementation organization with some R&D ( called “ Alice ” ) ; a think tank with some implementation power ( following the Alice in Wonderland theme , called “ Mad Hatter ” ) ; taking on a program - based initiative to scale ( “ Cheshire Cat ” ) , and having a “ Mad Hatter”-like model that targets groups of leaders across systems instead of leaders of institutions alone ( “ Mock Turtle ” ) . Finally , the team closed out the mind mapping process by creating a summary chart to compare and contrast the four options to display how well each model could fulfill the foundation ’s mission to further the state of health - care in the United States . 

 4 . Insight 

 This , my first involvement in a design thinking process , was an illuminating experience and showed me the distinct difference to traditional strategy . In a traditional strategic planning process , the focus is on designing the future from the present and seeks to answer the question : from where we stand today , where do we want to be in five years ? This approach in today ’s fast - paced and highly changeable world now seems to me to be far too inflexible and brittle ; as soon as one element changes internally or externally the entire infrastructure of the plan can be rendered moot . The beauty of the design thinking approach is that it is iterative , flexible , and serves as a guidepost for possible approaches , rather than committing an organization to a specific path . While informed by the current past from the What Is ? Stage , the design thinking process is n’t limited by it , but allows for an expansive view of what could be . Rather than be constrained to one plan heading in one direction , design thinking allows for the creation of multiple possible plans and directions focusing on key organizational values and goals versus specific metrics . The foundation in question could easily choose one model and then combine it with or switch to another model midstream with minimal disruption - something not possible with a traditional strategic plan . 

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

 This approach was highly effective and exactly what the client wanted . One difference for the next time , however , would be to employ more visualization techniques to better bring the models to life . While using the colorful Alice In Wonderland themed models and adding a number of details to each provided personalities to each model , a more graphic approach depicting each model would have provided a more compelling and vibrant picture of each possible scenario . Just as a picture tells a thousand words , a graphical representation , such as Lopez ’s mind map in Module 3 , would have served the client even better . 


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: John Yates
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: John Yates Design Thinking for Innovation Carolina Chavez May 3 , 2020 

 Reflection : The Mind Mapping Tool 

 1 . Challenge 

 My consulting firm was tasked by our client , a health - care foundation board , to help them design an organizational strategy in light of all the rapidly moving developments in health - care . The board was at an impasse , uncertain on where to place its bets to best support health - care in this country without being able to predict where a number of current trends might lead . We used design thinking to present a few high - level , flexible , iterative , strategic options for the board that the foundation could pursue within the 2021 - 2024 time - frame . 

 2 . Selection 

 This reflection will focus on the mind mapping tool , which was the most important phase of the project as it moved the process from the What Is ? stage of ascertaining the current state of the organization and of health - care in the U.S. , to the crucial What If ? stage of beginning to draft new , possible realities for the foundation . This fulfilled the purpose of the board in hiring my firm . 

 I am defining mind mapping as the collective visualization by the board members of the sum of their knowledge , experiences , insights , interests , and visions of health - care , thereby establishing a snapshot or base upon which to build a series of possible strategic options for the foundation to pursue . As Lopez said in the Module 3 video : 

 “ In the first phase of the design thinking process , we take a look at the current reality , at What Is ? In doing so , we amass a huge amount of data . Before moving to the next phase , What If ? , we need to distill all that data into information and insights that can be easily communicated . This is just what mind mapping does well . ” 

 3 . Application : 

 Following the completion of extensive health - care industry research and in - depth interviews with members of the board to collect data on the current reality in the What Is ? stage of the design thinking approach , we started the mind mapping process . We began by asking the group to individually generate a set of planning assumptions about the likely future conditions that will impact the foundation and its work to help determine where members are aligned in beliefs about the future . 

 The group first noted these planning assumptions individually on Post - it Notes and pinned them on a large white board . After all the ideas were exhausted following several rounds of the question “ what else ? ” , the team grouped the Post - It Noted ideas in the following themes : paying for health - care , “ change ” as a field , societal tone , politics , technology , process , and doing the work vs. paying for the work . 

 From this “ map ” of initial contributions , we asked the group to create an aligned - upon set of shared assumptions about the future context that the foundation will be acting in , starting in 2021 . In the next step , the board revisited the What Is ? 

 stage research and brainstormed what they have found works to catalyze transformational systemic change , and what the field is saying about what the foundation might or should try . Such ideas included creating new lines of business , partnering differently with localities , etc . These ideas were written on Post - it Notes and arranged on the white board . 

 The board then started anticipating potential future paths for the foundation by exploring two extremes : ( 1 ) be entirely organized as a think tank or ( 2 ) be completely focused on implementing current knowledge and practices . The group split in two to explore these two possible approaches in depth . 

 The two teams suggested four alternate organizational realities to explore based on this experience : an implementation organization with some R&D ( called “ Alice ” ) ; a think tank with some implementation power ( following the Alice in Wonderland theme , called “ Mad Hatter ” ) ; taking on a program - based initiative to scale ( “ Cheshire Cat ” ) , and having a “ Mad Hatter”-like model that targets groups of leaders across systems instead of leaders of institutions alone ( “ Mock Turtle ” ) . Finally , the team closed out the mind mapping process by creating a summary chart to compare and contrast the four options to display how well each model could fulfill the foundation ’s mission to further the state of health - care in the United States . 

 4 . Insight 

 This , my first involvement in a design thinking process , was an illuminating experience and showed me the distinct difference to traditional strategy . In a traditional strategic planning process , the focus is on designing the future from the present and seeks to answer the question : from where we stand today , where do we want to be in five years ? This approach in today ’s fast - paced and highly changeable world now seems to me to be far too inflexible and brittle ; as soon as one element changes internally or externally the entire infrastructure of the plan can be rendered moot . The beauty of the design thinking approach is that it is iterative , flexible , and serves as a guidepost for possible approaches , rather than committing an organization to a specific path . While informed by the current past from the What Is ? Stage , the design thinking process is n’t limited by it , but allows for an expansive view of what could be . Rather than be constrained to one plan heading in one direction , design thinking allows for the creation of multiple possible plans and directions focusing on key organizational values and goals versus specific metrics . The foundation in question could easily choose one model and then combine it with or switch to another model midstream with minimal disruption - something not possible with a traditional strategic plan . 

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

 This approach was highly effective and exactly what the client wanted . One difference for the next time , however , would be to employ more visualization techniques to better bring the models to life . While using the colorful Alice In Wonderland themed models and adding a number of details to each provided personalities to each model , a more graphic approach depicting each model would have provided a more compelling and vibrant picture of each possible scenario . Just as a picture tells a thousand words , a graphical representation , such as Lopez ’s mind map in Module 3 , would have served the client even better .
### Output: 