Challenge   I work as a User Experience Designer at a large consulting corporation . One of our clients is a   gonvernmental facility responsible for pension here in Germany . The processes within that   organization are highly complex and grew over the last 30 or so years . We were tasked with   creating an application to let members of the call center ( mid - level consultants ) reply to   clients calling in more efficiently . The challenge was now to get an an understanding of the   processes in the institutions software overall as well as the special teams in the call center   ( KKC ) . The existing applications of this organization ( yes , there ’s about 5 of them ) are from   another generation , and every one serves a different purpose in keeping information on a   clients pension . So , besides assembling the requirements first , how do we get the employees   to specify their needs ? We talked to some superiors first , but the requirements always   remained blurry . So we asked to have a workshop with the KKC team itself .     Selection & Application   When we thought about how to quickly get input and approval from the KKC team members   we came to the conclusion , that they would probably be overwhelmed by purely structural   diagrams and architecture graphics . Luckily I was partnered with a very competent architect   that knew her way around the systems . So we could extract the data fields from the systems   we thought to be useful to the team .     I opted for the additional tool of Visualization . It helps me understand the problem better   and I had good client feedback several times before , when going this way . Also , since this   problem was especially abstract and the KKC team members were surely not developers or   software architects , an „ easy language “ could be helpful .   I took a glance at the corporate design and I made up a quick mockup of a web interface for   them to possibly use . The GUI ( Graphical User Interface ) layouts were without interaction ,   really purely for them to grasp the level of readability and what information could be placed   where in what order . Think of a Logo in the upper corner and the right set of colors and   corresponding typography , mostly screen elements captured from the institutions website ,   really .      In a workshop , we then were able to discuss the placement of information and data with   them from what we understood they meant . And as you can guess , we were wrong at   several opportunities . You have to know that the original „ architecture “ was made by IT- People back and some three decades ago , growing with new precedences over time and   becoming ever more complex .   So , we re - iterated the layouts according to input and in the   second workshop we were able to ask questions we did n’t even anticipate when we first   threw together our initial design . It took us three workshops in all to get from our intuition   and arrangements of certain items to a deeper understanding of what the items truly meant   and how they where related to each other .     Insight    Usually , in User Experience theory they tell you to start with Wireframe models , so   stakeholders are more free to provide feedback , because they are hesitant not to „ destroy “   the design work . But we were very relaxed with them in the workshop and told them several   times that the screens provided where merely thought of as a basis for discussion and that   anything could be changed rather quickly . 

 And it worked very well . The call center team later told us , that they felt very well cared for   in their needs . This was apparently new to them . Also they mentioned that the Layouts   helped them a lot to relax and „ get the idea “ rather than from the diagrams which tightened   them up beforehand . The information structure diagrams do have their place in this though .   They represented the reality , the „ solid business “ aspect of the project , where the layouts in   contrast were far more accessible to them . Had we only presented those , the team might   have taken the compositions for too „ playful “ , probably .      Also , for a government institution , whose structures I knew nothing about in the first place ,   we got to a good place in fairly short time . Involving only a fraction of cost compared to   other projects in that institution .     Approach   Only now I realize that this was my way to get stakeholder buy in all along . My background   enabled me to quickly imitate corporate designs and put a contextual frame around my   suggestive constructs to be able to discuss it more easily with stakeholders and clients , since   they could grasp where it was going . The design was just scaffolding and could be developed   later on , but the information and its position was easy to get a consensus for .   I think in this   graphical communication with stakeholders lies a tremendous power . Not just in terms of   on - screen designs . But also generally in creating visuals and hence give people the   opportunity to participate . Maybe not being in the middle of the design process in that exact   moment but to see the result , reflecting their input . 


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 as a User Experience Designer at a large consulting corporation . One of our clients is a   gonvernmental facility responsible for pension here in Germany . The processes within that   organization are highly complex and grew over the last 30 or so years . We were tasked with   creating an application to let members of the call center ( mid - level consultants ) reply to   clients calling in more efficiently . The challenge was now to get an an understanding of the   processes in the institutions software overall as well as the special teams in the call center   ( KKC ) . The existing applications of this organization ( yes , there ’s about 5 of them ) are from   another generation , and every one serves a different purpose in keeping information on a   clients pension . So , besides assembling the requirements first , how do we get the employees   to specify their needs ? We talked to some superiors first , but the requirements always   remained blurry . So we asked to have a workshop with the KKC team itself .     Selection & Application   When we thought about how to quickly get input and approval from the KKC team members   we came to the conclusion , that they would probably be overwhelmed by purely structural   diagrams and architecture graphics . Luckily I was partnered with a very competent architect   that knew her way around the systems . So we could extract the data fields from the systems   we thought to be useful to the team .     I opted for the additional tool of Visualization . It helps me understand the problem better   and I had good client feedback several times before , when going this way . Also , since this   problem was especially abstract and the KKC team members were surely not developers or   software architects , an „ easy language “ could be helpful .   I took a glance at the corporate design and I made up a quick mockup of a web interface for   them to possibly use . The GUI ( Graphical User Interface ) layouts were without interaction ,   really purely for them to grasp the level of readability and what information could be placed   where in what order . Think of a Logo in the upper corner and the right set of colors and   corresponding typography , mostly screen elements captured from the institutions website ,   really .      In a workshop , we then were able to discuss the placement of information and data with   them from what we understood they meant . And as you can guess , we were wrong at   several opportunities . You have to know that the original „ architecture “ was made by IT- People back and some three decades ago , growing with new precedences over time and   becoming ever more complex .   So , we re - iterated the layouts according to input and in the   second workshop we were able to ask questions we did n’t even anticipate when we first   threw together our initial design . It took us three workshops in all to get from our intuition   and arrangements of certain items to a deeper understanding of what the items truly meant   and how they where related to each other .     Insight    Usually , in User Experience theory they tell you to start with Wireframe models , so   stakeholders are more free to provide feedback , because they are hesitant not to „ destroy “   the design work . But we were very relaxed with them in the workshop and told them several   times that the screens provided where merely thought of as a basis for discussion and that   anything could be changed rather quickly . 

 And it worked very well . The call center team later told us , that they felt very well cared for   in their needs . This was apparently new to them . Also they mentioned that the Layouts   helped them a lot to relax and „ get the idea “ rather than from the diagrams which tightened   them up beforehand . The information structure diagrams do have their place in this though .   They represented the reality , the „ solid business “ aspect of the project , where the layouts in   contrast were far more accessible to them . Had we only presented those , the team might   have taken the compositions for too „ playful “ , probably .      Also , for a government institution , whose structures I knew nothing about in the first place ,   we got to a good place in fairly short time . Involving only a fraction of cost compared to   other projects in that institution .     Approach   Only now I realize that this was my way to get stakeholder buy in all along . My background   enabled me to quickly imitate corporate designs and put a contextual frame around my   suggestive constructs to be able to discuss it more easily with stakeholders and clients , since   they could grasp where it was going . The design was just scaffolding and could be developed   later on , but the information and its position was easy to get a consensus for .   I think in this   graphical communication with stakeholders lies a tremendous power . Not just in terms of   on - screen designs . But also generally in creating visuals and hence give people the   opportunity to participate . Maybe not being in the middle of the design process in that exact   moment but to see the result , reflecting their input .
### Output: 