In the near future I am tasked with planning a long school trip for roughly a dozen college   students across middle America . There are many different types of tourism events we can   imagine visiting , such as museums , landmarks , natural parks , amusement parks , shopping , etc .   As designers we want to know what is of most interest to the travelers , and any connections or if   a particular series would be of special value .   I envision the mind mapping tool as a good way to   collate our brainstorms on a wide variety of activities available to us . I chose it especially   because I do not want to impose a schedule on people without first attempting some communal   consensus .      Mind mapping is a tool in which customers ( or in this place each of the travelers ) has an   opportunity to weigh in on the many possibilities discovered in the “ What is ” phase of the design   cycle . Typically a mind mapping session involves each participant or stakeholder being shown a   gallery that includes every possible option . We then ask them each to prioritize the various   options , and then cluster similar topics together . Finally , these same stakeholders form small   groups to assign simple or brief themes to the clusters , and discuss insights that link topics within   clusters and link one cluster to others .   Given these insights the designers ( or trip   planners / supervisors ) can shape our “ What if ? ” scenarios to the most important criteria   highlighted by the stakeholders . An important question at hand here ( which I now paraphrase   from the lecture videos ) is : “ if anything were possible what criteria would our design meet ? ”     When I attempted mind mapping with the group at hand I found they were more interested in   variety than in clustering by topic . So I think the insight is that they wished to cluster and then   select the “ cream of the crop ” , i.e. pick the best option in a “ nature ” category , “ museum ”   category , etc and include that as part of the trip . They were also more deferential to each other   than I expected and accepted a general premise that a trip with a large group of people should   include a diverse set of experiences . I wonder if instead I had tried a “ learning launch ” instead   and asked them to explore various itineraries , the results would have been different . I think   probably it is better to get input as early as possible , as in a learning launch a designer has   already rejected a lot of possible scenarios .   It is easy to brainstorm a ton of options , and to plan   itineraries given certain criteria , the best place for stakeholder input is in prioritizing options and   building consensus at that middle stage .     In future I might try to include some additional constraints as the stakeholders cluster and   prioritize ( distances to sites , costs associated with certain sites ) . I do not know if this takes away   from the elegant simplicity of mind mapping but I do think it fits with the theme of asking   stakeholders to offer their own analyses and conclusions without much bias from the   questioner / designer . 


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: In the near future I am tasked with planning a long school trip for roughly a dozen college   students across middle America . There are many different types of tourism events we can   imagine visiting , such as museums , landmarks , natural parks , amusement parks , shopping , etc .   As designers we want to know what is of most interest to the travelers , and any connections or if   a particular series would be of special value .   I envision the mind mapping tool as a good way to   collate our brainstorms on a wide variety of activities available to us . I chose it especially   because I do not want to impose a schedule on people without first attempting some communal   consensus .      Mind mapping is a tool in which customers ( or in this place each of the travelers ) has an   opportunity to weigh in on the many possibilities discovered in the “ What is ” phase of the design   cycle . Typically a mind mapping session involves each participant or stakeholder being shown a   gallery that includes every possible option . We then ask them each to prioritize the various   options , and then cluster similar topics together . Finally , these same stakeholders form small   groups to assign simple or brief themes to the clusters , and discuss insights that link topics within   clusters and link one cluster to others .   Given these insights the designers ( or trip   planners / supervisors ) can shape our “ What if ? ” scenarios to the most important criteria   highlighted by the stakeholders . An important question at hand here ( which I now paraphrase   from the lecture videos ) is : “ if anything were possible what criteria would our design meet ? ”     When I attempted mind mapping with the group at hand I found they were more interested in   variety than in clustering by topic . So I think the insight is that they wished to cluster and then   select the “ cream of the crop ” , i.e. pick the best option in a “ nature ” category , “ museum ”   category , etc and include that as part of the trip . They were also more deferential to each other   than I expected and accepted a general premise that a trip with a large group of people should   include a diverse set of experiences . I wonder if instead I had tried a “ learning launch ” instead   and asked them to explore various itineraries , the results would have been different . I think   probably it is better to get input as early as possible , as in a learning launch a designer has   already rejected a lot of possible scenarios .   It is easy to brainstorm a ton of options , and to plan   itineraries given certain criteria , the best place for stakeholder input is in prioritizing options and   building consensus at that middle stage .     In future I might try to include some additional constraints as the stakeholders cluster and   prioritize ( distances to sites , costs associated with certain sites ) . I do not know if this takes away   from the elegant simplicity of mind mapping but I do think it fits with the theme of asking   stakeholders to offer their own analyses and conclusions without much bias from the   questioner / designer .
### Output: 