Reflection – Mind Mapping 

 Challenge & Selection 

 The challenge that we faced was that exhibited by the staff of the health service , whom were one of   our clients . With the many different roles and responsibilities within the health service , we wanted   to create a product or tool that they could all use in order to increase the efficiency of their everyday   patient diagnosing tasks . An additional complexity that we ( the company ) had , was that we were   creating an all - in - one tool / technology product which we aimed to test out in the health service .   There were various components within this tool , and we were confident that every member of the   health service would find something useful in there , but we had no real assurance that they would   indeed find it useful , or even use the tool . 

 In order to determine whether or not we were thinking on the right level regarding the problems the   medical staff face on a day to day basis , we carried out the process of mind mapping . The goal was   to determine exactly the problems faced by the medical staff , and to draw some sort of structure   that we could then begin to tailor our solution around . This would help increase the tools usefulness   and applicability to the medical staff ’s problems . Mind mapping involves bringing together key   stakeholders and having them visually depict ( via post - it notes , drawings , scribbles of some kind )   problems which are currently being faced , barriers that currently exist , mentalities that present   amongst staff , etc . The process of mind mapping really helped us as a company understand the   “ what - is ” , the problems that the staff were facing currently , and allowed us to draw some form of a   structure around these problems , which increased our ability to tailor our tool / solution to be able to   meet these needs of the various clusters within the health service . 

 Application 

 The process of mind mapping was carried out by bringing many different key stakeholders into a   room for a full day workshop . This including senior clinicians who diagnose patients every day , senior   finance decision makers who are aware of the monetary limitations regarding changing the existing   technology used by clinicians , IT specialists who would be able to provide a clearer picture on the IT   limitations regarding a new proposed solution . All in all there were approximately 15 people present   in the workshop . 

 The workshop began by thanking each of the stakeholders for their time and then to remind them   why they were all there , and the problem that we ( as a company ) were trying to solve within the   health service . This gave context to each of the stakeholders and would help guide them in their   thinking for the remainder of the workshop . We then broke everyone up into 2 separate groups of 6- 7 people , with members of the company standing back and observing the discussions as they were   occurring . Each group was asked to draw or write on the walls ( not actually on the walls themselves   but on a whiteboard material we had places on the walls ) the problems that they currently were   having in their everyday diagnosis of patients . After approximately 15 - 20 minutes of discussions , we   asked both teams to relay the information to the full group to see if there was a general consensus ,   and also to allow discussion on any discrepancies or disagreements on the problem definitions . After   this discussion we ( the company ) identified several provisional clusters that seemed present in both   groups and we asked for feedback and agreement on these clusters . At this stage we had already   gained a lot of additional knowledge on the current state of the health service and problems they   face everyday . 

 Prior to attending the workshop , based on the limited knowledge we had of the issues that were   likely going to arise during the workshop , we drew up a diagram or simulation of the existing system , 

 as we saw it . This contained details including , key members of staff , key facilities , key decisions that   had to be made daily etc . During the workshop , we showed this diagram to the key stakeholders and   after drawing this up on the wall for them , we then broke them into groups again and asked them to   label ( using post - its ) any comments or criticisms they had with our view on the problem . This level of   feedback allowed us to greatly alter our simulation model and increased its usefulness moving into   the next stage of the process , the “ what - if ” stage . 

 Insight & Approach 

 What I have learned from conducting this mind - mapping exercise is that it was the single most   useful part of the design thinking process for me personally , in allowing me to understand the   problems faced by the key stakeholders and my general understanding of the current state of affairs   for each of the clinicians . I believe every member from the company that was present during the   workshop would all agree that this mind mapping exercise allowed us all to have a shared insight   into the problem and would , along with the visual mind maps generated , greatly help us to identify   potential what - if scenarios moving forward . This would allow us to tailor our software solution to   potentially meet the needs of the health care professionals . 

 Moving forward in my career , this exercise has made me greatly appreciate the process of mind   mapping , and the need to carry out this exercise as early as possible in the lifespan of a project .   Retrospectively I believe that the company drawing up a potential solution to a problem they do not   fully understand , prior to the mind mapping exercise is an inefficient management of resources , and   I would be keen to push mind mapping as an exercise to carry out much earlier , in any projects I am   involved in moving forward . Within healthcare , for such a complex problem , I would actually aim to   hold several mind mapping exercises , with each workshop building on the shared understanding and   learning gained from the previous workshop . Furthermore , moving forward , and looking again at the   healthcare problem , I believe in order to strengthen the benefit gained from the mind mapping   exercise , we should also carry out ethnographys , from each of the senior clinical stakeholders prior   to the mind mapping exercise , and then ask for general feedback from the group in the workshop .   This would allow us as a company to gain a better understand of current problems sooner , and   would help us prepare better for a mind mapping workshop . 


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 

 Challenge & Selection 

 The challenge that we faced was that exhibited by the staff of the health service , whom were one of   our clients . With the many different roles and responsibilities within the health service , we wanted   to create a product or tool that they could all use in order to increase the efficiency of their everyday   patient diagnosing tasks . An additional complexity that we ( the company ) had , was that we were   creating an all - in - one tool / technology product which we aimed to test out in the health service .   There were various components within this tool , and we were confident that every member of the   health service would find something useful in there , but we had no real assurance that they would   indeed find it useful , or even use the tool . 

 In order to determine whether or not we were thinking on the right level regarding the problems the   medical staff face on a day to day basis , we carried out the process of mind mapping . The goal was   to determine exactly the problems faced by the medical staff , and to draw some sort of structure   that we could then begin to tailor our solution around . This would help increase the tools usefulness   and applicability to the medical staff ’s problems . Mind mapping involves bringing together key   stakeholders and having them visually depict ( via post - it notes , drawings , scribbles of some kind )   problems which are currently being faced , barriers that currently exist , mentalities that present   amongst staff , etc . The process of mind mapping really helped us as a company understand the   “ what - is ” , the problems that the staff were facing currently , and allowed us to draw some form of a   structure around these problems , which increased our ability to tailor our tool / solution to be able to   meet these needs of the various clusters within the health service . 

 Application 

 The process of mind mapping was carried out by bringing many different key stakeholders into a   room for a full day workshop . This including senior clinicians who diagnose patients every day , senior   finance decision makers who are aware of the monetary limitations regarding changing the existing   technology used by clinicians , IT specialists who would be able to provide a clearer picture on the IT   limitations regarding a new proposed solution . All in all there were approximately 15 people present   in the workshop . 

 The workshop began by thanking each of the stakeholders for their time and then to remind them   why they were all there , and the problem that we ( as a company ) were trying to solve within the   health service . This gave context to each of the stakeholders and would help guide them in their   thinking for the remainder of the workshop . We then broke everyone up into 2 separate groups of 6- 7 people , with members of the company standing back and observing the discussions as they were   occurring . Each group was asked to draw or write on the walls ( not actually on the walls themselves   but on a whiteboard material we had places on the walls ) the problems that they currently were   having in their everyday diagnosis of patients . After approximately 15 - 20 minutes of discussions , we   asked both teams to relay the information to the full group to see if there was a general consensus ,   and also to allow discussion on any discrepancies or disagreements on the problem definitions . After   this discussion we ( the company ) identified several provisional clusters that seemed present in both   groups and we asked for feedback and agreement on these clusters . At this stage we had already   gained a lot of additional knowledge on the current state of the health service and problems they   face everyday . 

 Prior to attending the workshop , based on the limited knowledge we had of the issues that were   likely going to arise during the workshop , we drew up a diagram or simulation of the existing system , 

 as we saw it . This contained details including , key members of staff , key facilities , key decisions that   had to be made daily etc . During the workshop , we showed this diagram to the key stakeholders and   after drawing this up on the wall for them , we then broke them into groups again and asked them to   label ( using post - its ) any comments or criticisms they had with our view on the problem . This level of   feedback allowed us to greatly alter our simulation model and increased its usefulness moving into   the next stage of the process , the “ what - if ” stage . 

 Insight & Approach 

 What I have learned from conducting this mind - mapping exercise is that it was the single most   useful part of the design thinking process for me personally , in allowing me to understand the   problems faced by the key stakeholders and my general understanding of the current state of affairs   for each of the clinicians . I believe every member from the company that was present during the   workshop would all agree that this mind mapping exercise allowed us all to have a shared insight   into the problem and would , along with the visual mind maps generated , greatly help us to identify   potential what - if scenarios moving forward . This would allow us to tailor our software solution to   potentially meet the needs of the health care professionals . 

 Moving forward in my career , this exercise has made me greatly appreciate the process of mind   mapping , and the need to carry out this exercise as early as possible in the lifespan of a project .   Retrospectively I believe that the company drawing up a potential solution to a problem they do not   fully understand , prior to the mind mapping exercise is an inefficient management of resources , and   I would be keen to push mind mapping as an exercise to carry out much earlier , in any projects I am   involved in moving forward . Within healthcare , for such a complex problem , I would actually aim to   hold several mind mapping exercises , with each workshop building on the shared understanding and   learning gained from the previous workshop . Furthermore , moving forward , and looking again at the   healthcare problem , I believe in order to strengthen the benefit gained from the mind mapping   exercise , we should also carry out ethnographys , from each of the senior clinical stakeholders prior   to the mind mapping exercise , and then ask for general feedback from the group in the workshop .   This would allow us as a company to gain a better understand of current problems sooner , and   would help us prepare better for a mind mapping workshop .
### Output: 