Challenge 

 I work with Fortune 100 Retailers in helping them solve business problems through technology   solutions . One of them , a leading Off - price retailer based out of the U.S , faced a unique challenge . The   Retailer made most of their revenues from their physical stores , and their e - commerce revenues were   very minimal . The challenge they wanted to address is to determine if we can , in any way , leverage the   e - commerce channel for more revenues and to use that channel for creating consumer interest , and   subsequently drive traffic to stores . Another data point that was made available was that , when   compared to their competitors , their physical store sales are considerably high . That meant that they are   doing something very right in their physical stores . Hence , it was decided that the scope of the project   would be to truly understand what their physical stores mean to their consumers , and replicate that   experience online . As easy as it may sound , finding what the physical stores mean to the consumers is a   rather complicated exercise . On as - is analysis of their physical store experience by walking into stores ,   talking to consumers casually , and listening to the Merchandising managers , it was learnt on a   superficial level that the Retailer provides customers what they call as a ‘ treasure hunt experience ’ . A   simple explanation of that term is - as a consumer who had been to their Manhattan store before , will   not see the same assortment of merchandise when you walk - in next time . This creates a tangible   consumer interest / curiosity which makes them walk - in to their stores again and again . Hence , the   hypothesis was defined as follows : 

 To generate more revenues and drive more in - store traffic with the help of e - commerce channel , it is   imperative to re - create the treasure hunt experience online . 

 Selection 

 Retailing is a people - driven industry . The red scarf you see on a particular aisle on a particular day is a   resultant of a series of decisions made by actual people - buyer , planner , vendor , distributor , and the   store associate . All this is done to entice another person , in the form of a consumer , in the hopes to   make her buy . Hence , it is important to talk to all involved stakeholders to understand what the treasure   hunt experience means in their minds . In fact , within the broader definition of a customer , there are   several segments – millennials , Gen Y etc . and they will have different interpretations . 

 Hence , the appropriate tool to understand what a treasure hunt experience is by employing the Mind   Mapping tool . This tool captures the mind maps of the involved stakeholders , and helps them co - create   the design criteria that define this enigma called “ Treasure hunt experience ” . 

 Application 

 To conduct the mind mapping exercise , the first step we did was to identify the stakeholders across the   spectrum . The list included Merchandisers from varied departments , Buyers , Planners , Allocation   Analysts , Distributors , Store Managers , Store Associates , Customers in 18 - 34 age bracket , customers in   35 - 45 bracket , customers in 46 - 59 age bracket , and customers > 59 age brackets . The total size of the   group was around 15 - 20 , with customers being the majority of the group , followed by merchandisers ,   store associates , store managers , buyers , planners , allocation analysts and distributors . 

 Each participant was provided with a questionnaire on what treasure hunt experience means to them .   Participants were also encouraged to prepare collages with pictures , post - it notes etc . The information   gathered from these inputs was collated as sticky notes , posters and pasted in hall ways . 

 Insight 

 Then , we brought in UX experts , technology evangelists , Merchandisers , external consultants , store   associates to sift through the inputs gathered . As part of the mind mapping exercise , they were asked to   cluster similar insights . Some of the sample insights were – “ the front aisle should always have different   types of merchandise every 2 weeks ” , “ The entire store layout should be visible from the store front ” , “ I   visit the store every 4 weeks ” etc . The resultant of this exercise was that these insights translated into   the design criteria that the proposed solution should have . 

 One of the hurdles we faced came with the involvement of a varied set of stakeholders . This resulted in   rather broad and unrelated insights to the problem we were facing . So , our job was to make sure that   these are identified and eliminated . This resulted in unnecessary delay . If we were to redo this exercise ,   we will be more stringent in identifying the stakeholders . 

 Approach 

 The experts were given a brief about the problem statement , and informed about the hypothesis . They   then went back to their drawing rooms and thought creatively on what the various possibilities are ,   based on the design criteria . The experts were given a free hand to conceptualize anything , using any   format – tech tools , piece of paper etc . 

 The alternative approach to solve this problem was from top - down . Looking at what technological   options were available in the market , we identified those with strong resemblance to the problem   statement we had . One of them we identified was Tinder , a social dating website . In Tinder , the user is   presented with people who could be their potential matches . Based on whether they like that person or   not , they either swipe left or right . We thought of replacing people with merchandise , and voila – we   would get something closer to treasure hunt experience . But in the end , we decided not to pursue this   as we faced hurdles in deciding what the first set of SKUs should be . It also did not take into account the   other aspects of the store experience , namely the layout , fixtures etc . Hence , we decided to go ahead   with Mind Mapping tool as it will involve the right stakeholders who can provide a clear understanding   on the question we are trying to find answers for . 


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: Challenge 

 I work with Fortune 100 Retailers in helping them solve business problems through technology   solutions . One of them , a leading Off - price retailer based out of the U.S , faced a unique challenge . The   Retailer made most of their revenues from their physical stores , and their e - commerce revenues were   very minimal . The challenge they wanted to address is to determine if we can , in any way , leverage the   e - commerce channel for more revenues and to use that channel for creating consumer interest , and   subsequently drive traffic to stores . Another data point that was made available was that , when   compared to their competitors , their physical store sales are considerably high . That meant that they are   doing something very right in their physical stores . Hence , it was decided that the scope of the project   would be to truly understand what their physical stores mean to their consumers , and replicate that   experience online . As easy as it may sound , finding what the physical stores mean to the consumers is a   rather complicated exercise . On as - is analysis of their physical store experience by walking into stores ,   talking to consumers casually , and listening to the Merchandising managers , it was learnt on a   superficial level that the Retailer provides customers what they call as a ‘ treasure hunt experience ’ . A   simple explanation of that term is - as a consumer who had been to their Manhattan store before , will   not see the same assortment of merchandise when you walk - in next time . This creates a tangible   consumer interest / curiosity which makes them walk - in to their stores again and again . Hence , the   hypothesis was defined as follows : 

 To generate more revenues and drive more in - store traffic with the help of e - commerce channel , it is   imperative to re - create the treasure hunt experience online . 

 Selection 

 Retailing is a people - driven industry . The red scarf you see on a particular aisle on a particular day is a   resultant of a series of decisions made by actual people - buyer , planner , vendor , distributor , and the   store associate . All this is done to entice another person , in the form of a consumer , in the hopes to   make her buy . Hence , it is important to talk to all involved stakeholders to understand what the treasure   hunt experience means in their minds . In fact , within the broader definition of a customer , there are   several segments – millennials , Gen Y etc . and they will have different interpretations . 

 Hence , the appropriate tool to understand what a treasure hunt experience is by employing the Mind   Mapping tool . This tool captures the mind maps of the involved stakeholders , and helps them co - create   the design criteria that define this enigma called “ Treasure hunt experience ” . 

 Application 

 To conduct the mind mapping exercise , the first step we did was to identify the stakeholders across the   spectrum . The list included Merchandisers from varied departments , Buyers , Planners , Allocation   Analysts , Distributors , Store Managers , Store Associates , Customers in 18 - 34 age bracket , customers in   35 - 45 bracket , customers in 46 - 59 age bracket , and customers > 59 age brackets . The total size of the   group was around 15 - 20 , with customers being the majority of the group , followed by merchandisers ,   store associates , store managers , buyers , planners , allocation analysts and distributors . 

 Each participant was provided with a questionnaire on what treasure hunt experience means to them .   Participants were also encouraged to prepare collages with pictures , post - it notes etc . The information   gathered from these inputs was collated as sticky notes , posters and pasted in hall ways . 

 Insight 

 Then , we brought in UX experts , technology evangelists , Merchandisers , external consultants , store   associates to sift through the inputs gathered . As part of the mind mapping exercise , they were asked to   cluster similar insights . Some of the sample insights were – “ the front aisle should always have different   types of merchandise every 2 weeks ” , “ The entire store layout should be visible from the store front ” , “ I   visit the store every 4 weeks ” etc . The resultant of this exercise was that these insights translated into   the design criteria that the proposed solution should have . 

 One of the hurdles we faced came with the involvement of a varied set of stakeholders . This resulted in   rather broad and unrelated insights to the problem we were facing . So , our job was to make sure that   these are identified and eliminated . This resulted in unnecessary delay . If we were to redo this exercise ,   we will be more stringent in identifying the stakeholders . 

 Approach 

 The experts were given a brief about the problem statement , and informed about the hypothesis . They   then went back to their drawing rooms and thought creatively on what the various possibilities are ,   based on the design criteria . The experts were given a free hand to conceptualize anything , using any   format – tech tools , piece of paper etc . 

 The alternative approach to solve this problem was from top - down . Looking at what technological   options were available in the market , we identified those with strong resemblance to the problem   statement we had . One of them we identified was Tinder , a social dating website . In Tinder , the user is   presented with people who could be their potential matches . Based on whether they like that person or   not , they either swipe left or right . We thought of replacing people with merchandise , and voila – we   would get something closer to treasure hunt experience . But in the end , we decided not to pursue this   as we faced hurdles in deciding what the first set of SKUs should be . It also did not take into account the   other aspects of the store experience , namely the layout , fixtures etc . Hence , we decided to go ahead   with Mind Mapping tool as it will involve the right stakeholders who can provide a clear understanding   on the question we are trying to find answers for .
### Output: 