Reflection : Mind Mapping for Legal Process Improvement 

 Challenge      I work in the legal department of a global organization , and my group was tasked with streamlining   the collection of electronic evidence , for the purpose of responding in a faster and more legally   defensible manner to court demands and government inquiries . Since the nature and value of   various sources of electronic information are constantly changing , and we work under tight deadlines   with limited information , we often find ourselves having to make difficult decisions about which   technology or procedural solutions are appropriate in order to serve the needs of our clients .   Mitigating risk is also inherently important in any legal process , making this a “ wicked ” problem   appropriate for a Design Thinking approach , rather than a linear analytic method , because ( 1 ) the   problem was human - centered , and required an understanding of the various stakeholder groups   involved ; ( 2 ) we did not have a clear understanding of the problem itself ; ( 3 ) the level of uncertainty   was high and past data was unlikely to help us ; and ( 4 ) there was relatively little existing data for us   to analyze ( see Week 1 , Lecture # 7 : Challenges Best - Suited for Design Thinking by Jeanne M.   Liedtka ) .      Selection     Given the lack of data and our diverse stakeholder group , which included litigators , records   managers , paralegals , technologists , operational analysts , and project managers , all owning   different pieces of a sequential puzzle , the tool we decided to deploy for this problem was Mind   Mapping . We chose this tool because we needed to better understand each stakeholder group ’s   individual problems before choosing a particular solution , and we thought that gathering formal data   in addition to empirical data via interviews of a member of each group would help paint the picture of   the “ What Is ” phase , before trying to build consensus around the “ What If ” phase . This would provide   us with “ Design Criteria ” , or the conditions our solutions must satisfy in order to eventually solve our   customers ’ problem ( see Week 3 , Lecture # 4 : Mind Mapping Tool by Michelle Smith ) .      Application     We began by interviewing members of each stakeholder group , collecting their inputs in Customer   Diaries about their experiences with the current collection process , in addition to gathering the   limited formal data to which we had access ( i.e. , a list of frequently - accessed information sources ,   historical outcomes , known problems , and basic metrics including monthly request volume ) . Using   the “ art gallery ” approach we then displayed all of this information on a collaboration board in a web   conference room , and invited several members of each stakeholder group to peruse it , leaving   virtual sticky notes to record any learning that they thought would inform new ideas amongst the   group ; for example , any information that they found most useful , or surprising , or potentially   impactful .     Following the “ tour ” , we gathered the stakeholders in a web conference and clustered all of the   sticky notes into themes , and from there we challenged the group to debate and agree upon “ Insight   Statements ” derived from each of those themes . These statements translated the group ’s   observations of facts into actionable business intelligence on which eventual solutions could be   based . These would eventually become our “ Design Criteria ” for the next phase , answering the   question : “ Knowing what we know now based on these insights , if anything were possible , what   criteria would our new design meet ? ” More than anything , these insights taught us what we could not   live without in a future state solution , and why . 

 Insights     Through extensive Q&A with at least one member of each stakeholder group present , as well as   using the “ Five Why s ” and the “ So What ” method , we were able to pull the business impacts out of   the facts and insights recorded by the stakeholders . For example , a lack of transparency around   controls related to data movement across borders caused a misunderstanding of legal risks related   to data collection in certain jurisdictions ; a lack of understanding of the urgency of some requests vs.   others had created a “ boy who cried wolf ” scenario , leading to confusion about request priority ; and   the lack of formal service level agreements ( to which most stakeholder groups were accustomed )   made roles , responsibilities , timelines , and request scope unclear across these disparate groups .   The connections between this particular cluster of insights told us , therefore , that a formal   governance and stakeholder education program would need to be included in our Design Criteria as   part of a more holistic solution .      Additionally , outlier insights related to seemingly arcane records management inputs unexpectedly   pushed the group toward putting more emphasis on the upstream process of identifying data   sources correctly , in order to avoid waste and rework as a result of incorrect request inputs .     Approach     While the Mind Mapping approach was an effective tool , Storytelling could have been equally   effective for this exercise , given its propensity to “ develop deeper empathy in the present , and create   more vivid images about the kind of new future , we 're trying to create ” ( see Week 2 , Lecture # 1 : The   Physics of Innovation by Cristina Abdallah ) . With such a diverse group of stakeholders involved in   various sequential points in a complex process , empathy for fellow participants as a result of a   clearer picture of each person ’s experience could have helped bridge gaps in understanding ,   improved the flow of information between parties , and ultimately helped the group achieve   consensus on the most impactful problems before deciding on eventual solutions . 


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 : Mind Mapping for Legal Process Improvement 

 Challenge      I work in the legal department of a global organization , and my group was tasked with streamlining   the collection of electronic evidence , for the purpose of responding in a faster and more legally   defensible manner to court demands and government inquiries . Since the nature and value of   various sources of electronic information are constantly changing , and we work under tight deadlines   with limited information , we often find ourselves having to make difficult decisions about which   technology or procedural solutions are appropriate in order to serve the needs of our clients .   Mitigating risk is also inherently important in any legal process , making this a “ wicked ” problem   appropriate for a Design Thinking approach , rather than a linear analytic method , because ( 1 ) the   problem was human - centered , and required an understanding of the various stakeholder groups   involved ; ( 2 ) we did not have a clear understanding of the problem itself ; ( 3 ) the level of uncertainty   was high and past data was unlikely to help us ; and ( 4 ) there was relatively little existing data for us   to analyze ( see Week 1 , Lecture # 7 : Challenges Best - Suited for Design Thinking by Jeanne M.   Liedtka ) .      Selection     Given the lack of data and our diverse stakeholder group , which included litigators , records   managers , paralegals , technologists , operational analysts , and project managers , all owning   different pieces of a sequential puzzle , the tool we decided to deploy for this problem was Mind   Mapping . We chose this tool because we needed to better understand each stakeholder group ’s   individual problems before choosing a particular solution , and we thought that gathering formal data   in addition to empirical data via interviews of a member of each group would help paint the picture of   the “ What Is ” phase , before trying to build consensus around the “ What If ” phase . This would provide   us with “ Design Criteria ” , or the conditions our solutions must satisfy in order to eventually solve our   customers ’ problem ( see Week 3 , Lecture # 4 : Mind Mapping Tool by Michelle Smith ) .      Application     We began by interviewing members of each stakeholder group , collecting their inputs in Customer   Diaries about their experiences with the current collection process , in addition to gathering the   limited formal data to which we had access ( i.e. , a list of frequently - accessed information sources ,   historical outcomes , known problems , and basic metrics including monthly request volume ) . Using   the “ art gallery ” approach we then displayed all of this information on a collaboration board in a web   conference room , and invited several members of each stakeholder group to peruse it , leaving   virtual sticky notes to record any learning that they thought would inform new ideas amongst the   group ; for example , any information that they found most useful , or surprising , or potentially   impactful .     Following the “ tour ” , we gathered the stakeholders in a web conference and clustered all of the   sticky notes into themes , and from there we challenged the group to debate and agree upon “ Insight   Statements ” derived from each of those themes . These statements translated the group ’s   observations of facts into actionable business intelligence on which eventual solutions could be   based . These would eventually become our “ Design Criteria ” for the next phase , answering the   question : “ Knowing what we know now based on these insights , if anything were possible , what   criteria would our new design meet ? ” More than anything , these insights taught us what we could not   live without in a future state solution , and why . 

 Insights     Through extensive Q&A with at least one member of each stakeholder group present , as well as   using the “ Five Why s ” and the “ So What ” method , we were able to pull the business impacts out of   the facts and insights recorded by the stakeholders . For example , a lack of transparency around   controls related to data movement across borders caused a misunderstanding of legal risks related   to data collection in certain jurisdictions ; a lack of understanding of the urgency of some requests vs.   others had created a “ boy who cried wolf ” scenario , leading to confusion about request priority ; and   the lack of formal service level agreements ( to which most stakeholder groups were accustomed )   made roles , responsibilities , timelines , and request scope unclear across these disparate groups .   The connections between this particular cluster of insights told us , therefore , that a formal   governance and stakeholder education program would need to be included in our Design Criteria as   part of a more holistic solution .      Additionally , outlier insights related to seemingly arcane records management inputs unexpectedly   pushed the group toward putting more emphasis on the upstream process of identifying data   sources correctly , in order to avoid waste and rework as a result of incorrect request inputs .     Approach     While the Mind Mapping approach was an effective tool , Storytelling could have been equally   effective for this exercise , given its propensity to “ develop deeper empathy in the present , and create   more vivid images about the kind of new future , we 're trying to create ” ( see Week 2 , Lecture # 1 : The   Physics of Innovation by Cristina Abdallah ) . With such a diverse group of stakeholders involved in   various sequential points in a complex process , empathy for fellow participants as a result of a   clearer picture of each person ’s experience could have helped bridge gaps in understanding ,   improved the flow of information between parties , and ultimately helped the group achieve   consensus on the most impactful problems before deciding on eventual solutions .
### Output: 