Tool    of    Choice :    Visualization 

 Challenge 

 1 . The   challenge   I   faced   is   about   organisational   design :   how   to   identify   and   understand   our 

 target   customers ,   define   a   product   model ,   then   marrying   the   two   holistically   in   order   to 

 enable   the   company   to   deliver   against   the   real   needs   of   the   customers   in   the   most 

 efficient   way   possible ,   also   achieving   consensus   between   every   stakeholder   in   the 

 company ? 

 2 . In   addition ,   people   involved   in   this   exercise   ( a   total   of   10 ,   plus   myself ,   including   C - Suite 

 members )   came   from   a   variety   of   backgrounds :   one   hand ,   this   ensured   a   wide   range   of 

 different   and   valuable   inputs   but ,   at   the   same   time ,   implied   that   each   of   them   used   a 

 slightly   different   language   and   had   in   mind   different   concepts .   This ,   in   turn ,   implied   that 

 stakeholders   were n’t   able   to   agree   on   what   the   “ ask ”   of   the   task   was   really   about   or   what 

 the   problem   we   were   trying   to   solve   exactly   was .   In   this   context ,   I   was   tasked   to   allow 

 these    stakeholders    -    me    included    -    to    reach    a    positive    conclusion . 

 Selection 

 3 . The   environment   was   clearly   multidimensional :   the   variety   of   mindsets   involved ;   the   fact 

 that   stakeholders   were n’t   clearly   able   to   articulate   what   the   problem   really   was ;   the   huge 

 amount   of   data   available   ( in   the   form   of   technology   components ,   financial   analysis , 

 personas   and   quantitative   analysis   on   customer   behaviours ) .   All   these   aspects   made   me 

 believe   that   this   challenge   fit   the   definition   of   “ wicked   problem ”   ( according   to   the   definition 

 given   in   week   1 ,   “ Challenges   best - suited   for   Design   Thinking “ CBSDT ” , 1’31 ” ) , 

 corroborated   also   by   the   fact   that   it   was   really   hard   to   filter   the   data   available   to   draw   a 

 clear    cause / effect    relationship    (    compatible    with     CBSDT ,    1’58 ” ) . 

 4 . Hence ,   I   opted   to   deploy   one   of   the   tools   of   Design   Thinking :   Visualization .   The   rationale 

 behind   this   choice   was   related   to   the   diverse   mindsets   that   needed   to   a )   have   the   same 

 view   on   the   problem   in   order   to   b )   reach   consensus .   Visualization ,   I   thought ,   could   help   to 

 clarify   the   concepts   and   align   thinking .   Additionally ,   another   key   driver   was   the   need   for   a 

 deep   understanding   of   both   the   people   involved   ( to   reach   consensus   between   the 

 stakeholders )   and   the   customers   ( to   best   satisfy   their   needs   through   the   most 

 appropriate   product   model ) .   In   particular ,   this   driver   seems   to   be   well   aligned   with   what 

 has   been   discussed   in   the   course   ( “ design   thinking   is   appropriate   if   a   deep   understanding 

 of    the    actual    people    or    users    involved    is    essentia l ”     CBSDT ,    1’58 ” ) . 

 Application 

 5 . An   “ alignment   session ”   was   scheduled   in   order   to   iron   out   all   the   concerns   emerged 

 between   the   various   stakeholders .   Before   the   session ,   I   shared   the   list   of   Products   we 

 had   and   I   asked   everyone   to   write   on   post - its   who   their   “ key   customers ”   were .   In   the 

 session   we   began   by   sticking   the   “ key   customers ”   post - its   on   a   whiteboard   and ,   once   the 

 exercise   was   completed ,   we   found   4   main   clusters   representing   “ key   customers ” .   Their 

 needs   ( “ customer   needs ” )   were   also   agreed   during   the   dsicussion .   To   my   surprise , 

 alignment   was   quick   once   the   patterns   emerged   on   the   whiteboard .   These   “ key 

 customers ”   and   their   “ customer   needs ” ,   now   placed   at   the   top   of   the   whiteboard ,   became 

 the    basis    for    the    Product    Model    Strawman . 

 6 . The   next   step   was   to   draw   rectangular   boxes   scattered   across   the   board ,   each   box 

 representing   a   product   we   have   ( the   “ Product   Model   Strawman ” ) .   Then ,   I   asked   the 

 stakeholders   to   volunteer   to   draw   arrows   in   order   to   connect   Customers   to   Products ,   and 

 then   Products   to   other   Products   that   were   related   to   them .   I   also   asked   stakeholders   ( me 

 included ! )   to   write   down   the   outcome   for   each   of   the   Product   on   post - its :   I   then   stuck 

 Giorgia Piccolo           Design   Thinking   Assignment 

 them   near   the   most   appropriate   Product   and   we   began   to   test   each   Outcome   against   the 

 “ customer   needs ” :   I   allowed   45   minutes   of   discussion   in   order   to   iron   out   any 

 misunderstanding ,   re - crafting   the   outcomes   to   reach   consensus .   The   visualization   of   the 

 relationships   between   Customers   and   the   various   Products   -   the   Product   Model   -   as   well 

 as   the   outcomes ,   all   clearly   shown   on   the   whiteboard ,   generated   a   fruitful   discussion   that 

 allowed   the   group   to   reach   consensus   really   quickly ,   turning   the   meeting   in   a   great 

 success . 

 Insight 

 7 . The   insight   I   gained   from   this   experience   was   on   two   levels :   specific   to   the   session   and 

 more   generic ,   applicable   to   any   context .   With   regards   to   the   session ,   the   Visualization   of 

 abstract   concepts   on   a   whiteboard   as   well   as   the   opportunity   for   everyone   to   give   their 

 input   through   post - its   enabled   a )   the   creation   of   a   common   semantics   that   everyone 

 agreed   upon   thus   b )   enabling   a   meaningful   discussion .   Furthermore ,   active   participation 

 enabled   everyone   to   buy - in   very   quickly   as   the   work   was   also   considered   “ theirs ”   and   not 

 just   “ belonging ”   to   the   presenter .   I   believe   this   element   of   “ shared   learning ”   applies   also 

 on   a   general   level .   Furthermore ,   on   a   more   abstract   level ,   this   experience   taught   me   that 

 Visualization   can   be   applied   independently   on   the   background   of   the   people   involved ,   the 

 problem   to   be   addressed   and   that ,   in   fact ,   it   can   be   a   powerful   tool   to   reach   consensus 

 as    it   allows/”forces ”    people    to    focus    on    “ what    is    drawn    on    the    whiteboard ” . 

 Approach 

 8 . In   this   experience ,   I   recognised   that   the   most   important   element   is   the   possibility   for 

 everyone   in   the   room   to   visualise   concepts   via   simple   and   unequivocal   representations . 

 As   such ,   another   option   to   get   to   the   same   conclusion   that   I   considered   was   to   start   from 

 “ outcomes ”   rather   than   “ products ”   so   that   we   had   a   set   of    “ rectangular   boxes ” 

 representing   an   “ outcome   model ” .   This   approach   could   have   allowed   to   a )   better 

 understand   Customer   needs   and   b )   validate   our   current   list   of   Products ,   although 

 probably    it   could    have    required    more    time    to    complete . 

 9 . Nevertheless , I   decided   to   apply   Visualisation   again   but   using   this   “ outcome   first ” 

 approach   in   the   next   step   of   this   work   where   we   wanted   to   drill   down   into   Customers , 

 defining   a   set   of   lower   level“Sub - Customers ” .   I   scheduled   another   “ alignment   session ” 

 and ,   instead   of   starting   from   a   predetermined   list   of   “ sub - Customers ”   I   decided   to   ask   the 

 stakeholders   to   list   what   was ,   in   their   view ,   the   job   to   be   done ,   writing   them   down   into 

 statements   ( “ job - to - be - done   statements ” )   on   the   whiteboard .   Then ,   I   guided   the 

 discussion   to   cluster   the   ” job - to - be - done   statements ”   under   each   of   the   pre - existing 

 Customers ,   mapping   their   interrelations .   Each   set   of   interconnected   “ job - to - be - done 

 statements ”   became   a   new   “ Sub - Customer ” .   This   approach   enabled   us   to   quickly   identify 

 a   set   of   12   key   Sub - Customers   in   a   third   of   the   time   we   took   to   complete   the   Product 

 Model    work . 

 Page   2            Giorgia Piccolo 


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: Giorgia Piccolo, Giorgia Piccolo
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: Tool    of    Choice :    Visualization 

 Challenge 

 1 . The   challenge   I   faced   is   about   organisational   design :   how   to   identify   and   understand   our 

 target   customers ,   define   a   product   model ,   then   marrying   the   two   holistically   in   order   to 

 enable   the   company   to   deliver   against   the   real   needs   of   the   customers   in   the   most 

 efficient   way   possible ,   also   achieving   consensus   between   every   stakeholder   in   the 

 company ? 

 2 . In   addition ,   people   involved   in   this   exercise   ( a   total   of   10 ,   plus   myself ,   including   C - Suite 

 members )   came   from   a   variety   of   backgrounds :   one   hand ,   this   ensured   a   wide   range   of 

 different   and   valuable   inputs   but ,   at   the   same   time ,   implied   that   each   of   them   used   a 

 slightly   different   language   and   had   in   mind   different   concepts .   This ,   in   turn ,   implied   that 

 stakeholders   were n’t   able   to   agree   on   what   the   “ ask ”   of   the   task   was   really   about   or   what 

 the   problem   we   were   trying   to   solve   exactly   was .   In   this   context ,   I   was   tasked   to   allow 

 these    stakeholders    -    me    included    -    to    reach    a    positive    conclusion . 

 Selection 

 3 . The   environment   was   clearly   multidimensional :   the   variety   of   mindsets   involved ;   the   fact 

 that   stakeholders   were n’t   clearly   able   to   articulate   what   the   problem   really   was ;   the   huge 

 amount   of   data   available   ( in   the   form   of   technology   components ,   financial   analysis , 

 personas   and   quantitative   analysis   on   customer   behaviours ) .   All   these   aspects   made   me 

 believe   that   this   challenge   fit   the   definition   of   “ wicked   problem ”   ( according   to   the   definition 

 given   in   week   1 ,   “ Challenges   best - suited   for   Design   Thinking “ CBSDT ” , 1’31 ” ) , 

 corroborated   also   by   the   fact   that   it   was   really   hard   to   filter   the   data   available   to   draw   a 

 clear    cause / effect    relationship    (    compatible    with     CBSDT ,    1’58 ” ) . 

 4 . Hence ,   I   opted   to   deploy   one   of   the   tools   of   Design   Thinking :   Visualization .   The   rationale 

 behind   this   choice   was   related   to   the   diverse   mindsets   that   needed   to   a )   have   the   same 

 view   on   the   problem   in   order   to   b )   reach   consensus .   Visualization ,   I   thought ,   could   help   to 

 clarify   the   concepts   and   align   thinking .   Additionally ,   another   key   driver   was   the   need   for   a 

 deep   understanding   of   both   the   people   involved   ( to   reach   consensus   between   the 

 stakeholders )   and   the   customers   ( to   best   satisfy   their   needs   through   the   most 

 appropriate   product   model ) .   In   particular ,   this   driver   seems   to   be   well   aligned   with   what 

 has   been   discussed   in   the   course   ( “ design   thinking   is   appropriate   if   a   deep   understanding 

 of    the    actual    people    or    users    involved    is    essentia l ”     CBSDT ,    1’58 ” ) . 

 Application 

 5 . An   “ alignment   session ”   was   scheduled   in   order   to   iron   out   all   the   concerns   emerged 

 between   the   various   stakeholders .   Before   the   session ,   I   shared   the   list   of   Products   we 

 had   and   I   asked   everyone   to   write   on   post - its   who   their   “ key   customers ”   were .   In   the 

 session   we   began   by   sticking   the   “ key   customers ”   post - its   on   a   whiteboard   and ,   once   the 

 exercise   was   completed ,   we   found   4   main   clusters   representing   “ key   customers ” .   Their 

 needs   ( “ customer   needs ” )   were   also   agreed   during   the   dsicussion .   To   my   surprise , 

 alignment   was   quick   once   the   patterns   emerged   on   the   whiteboard .   These   “ key 

 customers ”   and   their   “ customer   needs ” ,   now   placed   at   the   top   of   the   whiteboard ,   became 

 the    basis    for    the    Product    Model    Strawman . 

 6 . The   next   step   was   to   draw   rectangular   boxes   scattered   across   the   board ,   each   box 

 representing   a   product   we   have   ( the   “ Product   Model   Strawman ” ) .   Then ,   I   asked   the 

 stakeholders   to   volunteer   to   draw   arrows   in   order   to   connect   Customers   to   Products ,   and 

 then   Products   to   other   Products   that   were   related   to   them .   I   also   asked   stakeholders   ( me 

 included ! )   to   write   down   the   outcome   for   each   of   the   Product   on   post - its :   I   then   stuck 

 Giorgia Piccolo           Design   Thinking   Assignment 

 them   near   the   most   appropriate   Product   and   we   began   to   test   each   Outcome   against   the 

 “ customer   needs ” :   I   allowed   45   minutes   of   discussion   in   order   to   iron   out   any 

 misunderstanding ,   re - crafting   the   outcomes   to   reach   consensus .   The   visualization   of   the 

 relationships   between   Customers   and   the   various   Products   -   the   Product   Model   -   as   well 

 as   the   outcomes ,   all   clearly   shown   on   the   whiteboard ,   generated   a   fruitful   discussion   that 

 allowed   the   group   to   reach   consensus   really   quickly ,   turning   the   meeting   in   a   great 

 success . 

 Insight 

 7 . The   insight   I   gained   from   this   experience   was   on   two   levels :   specific   to   the   session   and 

 more   generic ,   applicable   to   any   context .   With   regards   to   the   session ,   the   Visualization   of 

 abstract   concepts   on   a   whiteboard   as   well   as   the   opportunity   for   everyone   to   give   their 

 input   through   post - its   enabled   a )   the   creation   of   a   common   semantics   that   everyone 

 agreed   upon   thus   b )   enabling   a   meaningful   discussion .   Furthermore ,   active   participation 

 enabled   everyone   to   buy - in   very   quickly   as   the   work   was   also   considered   “ theirs ”   and   not 

 just   “ belonging ”   to   the   presenter .   I   believe   this   element   of   “ shared   learning ”   applies   also 

 on   a   general   level .   Furthermore ,   on   a   more   abstract   level ,   this   experience   taught   me   that 

 Visualization   can   be   applied   independently   on   the   background   of   the   people   involved ,   the 

 problem   to   be   addressed   and   that ,   in   fact ,   it   can   be   a   powerful   tool   to   reach   consensus 

 as    it   allows/”forces ”    people    to    focus    on    “ what    is    drawn    on    the    whiteboard ” . 

 Approach 

 8 . In   this   experience ,   I   recognised   that   the   most   important   element   is   the   possibility   for 

 everyone   in   the   room   to   visualise   concepts   via   simple   and   unequivocal   representations . 

 As   such ,   another   option   to   get   to   the   same   conclusion   that   I   considered   was   to   start   from 

 “ outcomes ”   rather   than   “ products ”   so   that   we   had   a   set   of    “ rectangular   boxes ” 

 representing   an   “ outcome   model ” .   This   approach   could   have   allowed   to   a )   better 

 understand   Customer   needs   and   b )   validate   our   current   list   of   Products ,   although 

 probably    it   could    have    required    more    time    to    complete . 

 9 . Nevertheless , I   decided   to   apply   Visualisation   again   but   using   this   “ outcome   first ” 

 approach   in   the   next   step   of   this   work   where   we   wanted   to   drill   down   into   Customers , 

 defining   a   set   of   lower   level“Sub - Customers ” .   I   scheduled   another   “ alignment   session ” 

 and ,   instead   of   starting   from   a   predetermined   list   of   “ sub - Customers ”   I   decided   to   ask   the 

 stakeholders   to   list   what   was ,   in   their   view ,   the   job   to   be   done ,   writing   them   down   into 

 statements   ( “ job - to - be - done   statements ” )   on   the   whiteboard .   Then ,   I   guided   the 

 discussion   to   cluster   the   ” job - to - be - done   statements ”   under   each   of   the   pre - existing 

 Customers ,   mapping   their   interrelations .   Each   set   of   interconnected   “ job - to - be - done 

 statements ”   became   a   new   “ Sub - Customer ” .   This   approach   enabled   us   to   quickly   identify 

 a   set   of   12   key   Sub - Customers   in   a   third   of   the   time   we   took   to   complete   the   Product 

 Model    work . 

 Page   2            Giorgia Piccolo
### Output: 