Design Thinking for Innovation  Learning Launch Reflection  Ravneet Williams  May 5, 2018

Challenge

I have worked as a Senior Project Manager in the engineering and construction industry for over fifteen  years. Most recently, my work has been managing large scale façade projects for skyscrapers and large- scale medical or commercial campuses. A typical project budget would average around $40M with a  project duration of roughly eighteen months. The three key phases of a project would, in order, include  1) design engineering (where our engineers would turn the architect’s vision into hundreds of detail  drawings), 2) production (where the detail drawings would be converted so the product could be  fabricated and assembled at one of our production facilities), and 3) field installation (where the  assembled product would be installed onto the building). A near constant that occurs once a project team  has been assembled is that many of the team members across departments have not worked together  before. Also, the mindset of individuals from each department is different simply because their job duties  are vastly diverse. The monetary scale of a given project, the risk that comes with such a long project  duration, and the possible issues within the project team makes, among many other things, the challenge  of fostering and constantly improving efficient communication of the utmost importance. For this  assignment, I am going to reflect on such a design thinking challenge I encountered while managing a 4- building biotech campus south of San Francisco, California.

Selection

After taking this course, I realized that I was using the “learning launch” tool on a regular basis. For the  reflection I am going to describe a situation where I encountered an appreciable communication challenge  at the forefront of a project. As conveyed in Week 4, particularly in Ed Hesse’s “Learning Launch Tool”  video, a learning launch is essentially a quick-fire experiment performed when trying to flesh out “What  Works?”.

Application

I held a series of weekly meetings that included a check-in meeting with key stakeholders from each of  the three key departments. In this meeting we would attempt to identify and analyze the structure of the  project and brainstorm solutions to further improve its process, as well as returns on team member  commitments. After taking this course, I realized this was essentially an ongoing general analysis of “What  Is?” and What If?” At one of the first of these meetings for the San Francisco project, I encountered a  significant disconnect between project team members from each of the different key departments. I met  with team members in private in order to figure out how to right the ship. It came to light that the  disconnect was derived from the fact that the majority of project team members lacked knowledge about  the other departments and how they operated.  For example, the structural engineers had been working  in their field for several years but had never visited a production facility or live construction site.

I organized a quick experiment (what I now identify as a learning launch) in the form of a field trip for a  group of the team’s engineers to visit a production facility as well as a live construction site the following  week. I took great measures to carefully craft the event in a way I thought would be the most efficient  and beneficial learning experience for all attendees. In particular, I made it a comprehensive “tour” with  key staff from the department giving brief presentations on the ground followed by Q/A. Also, and  perhaps most important, I organized dinner and social interaction so that the team members could  become better acquainted. The response was overwhelmingly positive. I then crafted and organized a  program of field trips where key players from each of the major sectors visited each other in rounds over  a 3-month period.

Insight

In just three months, managers noticed an appreciable increase in efficiency of the project process, as  well as an increase in the overall morale and empathy between departments. Empathy increased because  team members from each department now better understood the mindset of the other (having seen their  job duties in real-time) as well as the implications of their actions on the other. Morale spiked due to  newly fashioned comradery amongst the project team after getting a chance to engage socially. This  program of field trips was thereafter attempted on other projects with success. Minor difficulties  encountered included (as is common in the business world): time and money. It is difficult to remove  employees from their busy schedules. Also, there was no line item in the budget for these events and  Corporate was unwilling to absorb the costs as overhead expenses – forcing me to draw from the sparse  contingency line. However, I felt strongly that the new value brought to the project well out-weighed such  difficulties.

Approach

Thinking back on this experience, some of tools learned in this course might have brought greater success  to the program. The full adoption of the program at a company-wide level did not pan out as I would have  liked. I wish I had more a formal recording of people’s experience to provide something tangible to  corporate to further sell the program; perhaps something similar to what Marion Moore conveyed in the  Week Three “Mind Mapping Tool” video, where people’s thoughts and reactions were well drawn out. In  summary, I feel I determined “What Is?” and “What Wows?” in the bi-weekly meeting with “What  Wows?” being determined in the first field trip experiment. “What Works?” ultimately did not pan out as  the program was not determined scalable on a company-wide basis.

