Example Reﬂection - Learning Launch 

 Challenge 

 In 2009 , the bank I work for , embarked on a major digital transformation program . A stream   in that program , was dedicated to the re - design and digitisation of the ‘ Account Planning ’    approach and process in the bank . Complete reimagining of how the bank ’s relationship   managers ( RMs ) plan for , and develop their client - relationships , in order to achieve their   ambitious targets . I was appointed the project manager of that stream . 

 ‘ Account Planning ’ ( AP ) is an annual process ( with quarterly / monthly follow - ups ) , during   which the RMs are thinking , and planning rather strategically , about their assigned portfolio   of clients . It is done via set of interactions b / w the RMs and , both , internal ( i.e. risk ,   compliance , product specialists , etc . ) , and external ( i.e. the clients themselves ) stakeholders .   The purpose is to deﬁne set of targets , product offerings , client - interactions ( meetings , calls ,   events ) , for each client in the portfolio , with reviews throughout the year . Think of it as a   client proﬁling and journaling at the same time ; turning insights into value . 

 The issue was , until 2009 , the entire process was done rather off - line , with the support of   conventional tools - i.e. emails , frantic exchange of excel , power - point and doc ﬁles , kept in   PC ﬁle - folders - and with no real structure . This kind of approach ( “ what - is ” ) had the   inherent risk for client - insights to remain ‘ hidden ’ in the RMs ’ heads and archives ( at best )   with no accountability , or even worst - to be completely lost in case the RM has left the bank ,   or change position . This impedes building clients - intelligence on bank level . 

 In order to tackle this , the idea was to come up with completely redesigned , and more   structured AP process ﬂow . But even more importantly - develop ( in - house ) , from scratch , a   new AP web - app , designed to reenforce the planning process ( “ what - if ” ) . The web - app was   designed to keep all interactions standard , and all related ﬁles under the hood of a single   application . 

 The main challenge - get the ‘ buy - in ’ from the RMs . Bank RMs are famous for their   reluctance of using “ yet another ” bank application . They are also jealously guarding their   clients ’ insights . On the other hand , the new AP approach + web - app had the attributes of a   muscle - the more you use it , the better it gets . That is why it was absolutely crucial to design   the web - app ’s UI / UX * to be as simple , intuitive and easy to use , as possible ( “ what - wows ” &   “ what works ” ) , in order to get the RMs ’ buy - in . 

 Selection 

 In hindsight , having gone through the course now , I ’ve come to realise we have been using   number of Design Thinking tools unknowingly . For example - Visualisation - during the   initial stages of the AP approach / web - app re - design . Even , Storytelling - when we ﬁrst   presented the new approach / web - app to the RMs and the broader stakeholders . But perhaps   most crucially , in order to get the said RMs ’ buy - in , we resorted to experimenting with the   web - app - or what we called the ‘ Account Planning Prototype ’ . Similarly to the IBM story ,   we launched a “ Learning Launch ” in a selected market with number of RMs , in order to test   the AP web - app ’s UI / UX * in a real environment , and see what works . 

 * User Interface / User Experience 1 

 Application 

 We ’ve asked our internal team of code - developers to create a prototype of the AP web - app ,   based on the initial designs . Then we ’ve selected and invited 40 relationship managers , from   a certain market area , to participate in the ‘ Learning launch ’ . After a short presentation and   training , we have given the 40 RMs access to the prototype . And invited them , in the course   of two weeks , to complete the Account Planning process for all their clients in their   portfolios , using solely the prototype app . In parallel , we have created also a web - based   feedback form ( similar to surveymonkey ) , that was accessible directly through the prototype   app . We used it to collect any feedback , suggestions , insights , comments from the RMs   during the 2 weeks of testing / experimenting with the app . 

 The response was overwhelming . We have received hundreds of suggestions from the RMs :   what they did and did n’t like , suggestions for improvements , what they ’d do differently , etc . 

 Insight 

 The response from the 40 RMs , during the testing / experimenting , helped us conﬁrm some of   the app design features . While others had to be changed or improved . This prototyping helped   also our developers gather further insights for the next phase - from prototype to the   industrialisation of the web - app . 

 I particularly liked the ‘ Learning launch ’ tool , because it brings the end - users ( the RMs )   directly into the design process . As in our case , the RMs were a direct participant in shaping   the AP approach and web - app . And this was very important for me , as it ensured seemingly   their ‘ buy - in ’ . 

 Approach 

 I ’ve come to realise , in such a project the ‘ Learning launch ’ ( or broadly experimenting/ prototyping ) in combination with ‘ Storytelling ’ tools can be a particularly powerful pair . The   latter is used for telling a compelling story of why the changes to the approach were needed ,   and communicate , to all stakeholders ,   a common understanding of the ‘ bigger picture ’ .   While the former brings the end - users ( i.e. RMs ) directly into the design process , and   elevates them to co - creators . Both deliver the so often required ‘ buy - ins ’ . Thus I will try to   always resort to those two techniques , where applicable . 

 * User Interface / User Experience 2 


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: Example Reﬂection - Learning Launch 

 Challenge 

 In 2009 , the bank I work for , embarked on a major digital transformation program . A stream   in that program , was dedicated to the re - design and digitisation of the ‘ Account Planning ’    approach and process in the bank . Complete reimagining of how the bank ’s relationship   managers ( RMs ) plan for , and develop their client - relationships , in order to achieve their   ambitious targets . I was appointed the project manager of that stream . 

 ‘ Account Planning ’ ( AP ) is an annual process ( with quarterly / monthly follow - ups ) , during   which the RMs are thinking , and planning rather strategically , about their assigned portfolio   of clients . It is done via set of interactions b / w the RMs and , both , internal ( i.e. risk ,   compliance , product specialists , etc . ) , and external ( i.e. the clients themselves ) stakeholders .   The purpose is to deﬁne set of targets , product offerings , client - interactions ( meetings , calls ,   events ) , for each client in the portfolio , with reviews throughout the year . Think of it as a   client proﬁling and journaling at the same time ; turning insights into value . 

 The issue was , until 2009 , the entire process was done rather off - line , with the support of   conventional tools - i.e. emails , frantic exchange of excel , power - point and doc ﬁles , kept in   PC ﬁle - folders - and with no real structure . This kind of approach ( “ what - is ” ) had the   inherent risk for client - insights to remain ‘ hidden ’ in the RMs ’ heads and archives ( at best )   with no accountability , or even worst - to be completely lost in case the RM has left the bank ,   or change position . This impedes building clients - intelligence on bank level . 

 In order to tackle this , the idea was to come up with completely redesigned , and more   structured AP process ﬂow . But even more importantly - develop ( in - house ) , from scratch , a   new AP web - app , designed to reenforce the planning process ( “ what - if ” ) . The web - app was   designed to keep all interactions standard , and all related ﬁles under the hood of a single   application . 

 The main challenge - get the ‘ buy - in ’ from the RMs . Bank RMs are famous for their   reluctance of using “ yet another ” bank application . They are also jealously guarding their   clients ’ insights . On the other hand , the new AP approach + web - app had the attributes of a   muscle - the more you use it , the better it gets . That is why it was absolutely crucial to design   the web - app ’s UI / UX * to be as simple , intuitive and easy to use , as possible ( “ what - wows ” &   “ what works ” ) , in order to get the RMs ’ buy - in . 

 Selection 

 In hindsight , having gone through the course now , I ’ve come to realise we have been using   number of Design Thinking tools unknowingly . For example - Visualisation - during the   initial stages of the AP approach / web - app re - design . Even , Storytelling - when we ﬁrst   presented the new approach / web - app to the RMs and the broader stakeholders . But perhaps   most crucially , in order to get the said RMs ’ buy - in , we resorted to experimenting with the   web - app - or what we called the ‘ Account Planning Prototype ’ . Similarly to the IBM story ,   we launched a “ Learning Launch ” in a selected market with number of RMs , in order to test   the AP web - app ’s UI / UX * in a real environment , and see what works . 

 * User Interface / User Experience 1 

 Application 

 We ’ve asked our internal team of code - developers to create a prototype of the AP web - app ,   based on the initial designs . Then we ’ve selected and invited 40 relationship managers , from   a certain market area , to participate in the ‘ Learning launch ’ . After a short presentation and   training , we have given the 40 RMs access to the prototype . And invited them , in the course   of two weeks , to complete the Account Planning process for all their clients in their   portfolios , using solely the prototype app . In parallel , we have created also a web - based   feedback form ( similar to surveymonkey ) , that was accessible directly through the prototype   app . We used it to collect any feedback , suggestions , insights , comments from the RMs   during the 2 weeks of testing / experimenting with the app . 

 The response was overwhelming . We have received hundreds of suggestions from the RMs :   what they did and did n’t like , suggestions for improvements , what they ’d do differently , etc . 

 Insight 

 The response from the 40 RMs , during the testing / experimenting , helped us conﬁrm some of   the app design features . While others had to be changed or improved . This prototyping helped   also our developers gather further insights for the next phase - from prototype to the   industrialisation of the web - app . 

 I particularly liked the ‘ Learning launch ’ tool , because it brings the end - users ( the RMs )   directly into the design process . As in our case , the RMs were a direct participant in shaping   the AP approach and web - app . And this was very important for me , as it ensured seemingly   their ‘ buy - in ’ . 

 Approach 

 I ’ve come to realise , in such a project the ‘ Learning launch ’ ( or broadly experimenting/ prototyping ) in combination with ‘ Storytelling ’ tools can be a particularly powerful pair . The   latter is used for telling a compelling story of why the changes to the approach were needed ,   and communicate , to all stakeholders ,   a common understanding of the ‘ bigger picture ’ .   While the former brings the end - users ( i.e. RMs ) directly into the design process , and   elevates them to co - creators . Both deliver the so often required ‘ buy - ins ’ . Thus I will try to   always resort to those two techniques , where applicable . 

 * User Interface / User Experience 2
### Output: 