Recently, my institution made a decision to stop asking students to identify a minor at the time of  application.  While the university would still offer minors, the application process would be more  efficient if the student only needed to select a major.  The problem was how to handle the downstream  effects of the business decision in a way that mitigated the impact to the student, as students still  needed a way to add, or change, a minor if they desired.

The solution would need to allow units who served the student a process to make these types of  requests more efficient.  The solution needed to be identified quickly and had to work within the current  technology.

We used the tool of Visualization to identify what we presumed we already knew; why students make  this request and the current process.  We started by identifying the stakeholders – those units directly  working with the student and most able to understand the impact of the business decision.

We began by understanding why students may decide to edit a minor – money, time to completion,  career, etc.  Using post-it notes each person, using only one word per note, identified why a student  would make this type of decision.  We then asked each stakeholder to flow out the process as they  currently complete it or understood it to happen.  The group looked at each version, of the same  process, and worked together to identify the potential pit falls and pain points; always now considering  how the student may be being impacted.  It was enlightening for the group, upon being asked to look at  their own processes, to see how only seeing the process from one perspective was problematic to the  solution as a whole.  Because each view was unit driven, and specific to that person’s role, it was not  specific to what the student ultimately needed.

We then asked each stakeholder to create the process as they would want it to look – using what we  understood of why student’s make a change and where we saw problems with the current process.   Each person was asked to explain their ideal process – and as a group we evaluated what we liked and  what was still a concern.  Great ideas were highlighted with specific “dots” on those process notes;  concerns were removed to be re-evaluated later.

In the end, the agreed upon process – and the one submitted for pilot testing – was a combination of all  stakeholders’ thoughts.  It was recognized that previously a request from a student to edit their minor  was seen only as a transaction – an action to be taken on the part of an employee.  The solution was a  holistic process that included the student as its central focus as the solution determined the need to ask  better questions up front, such as: Why do you want to make this change?  Based on these questions,  employees could determine if the change would result in what was wanted.  If the student wanted to  complete faster, would that happen?  If they wanted to change the minor for career purposes, was the  minor being requested appropriate.

We identified, through this solution process, a chance to gather data not previously available and a  better way ensure the unstated needs of the student were met.   The original words the group identified  as reasons for why a student would want to make this type of degree change had become the building  blocks of the process, as we recognized students who edit a minor do it for very personal and very real  reasons.  It is not a transaction, it is a personal decision.

As a department we have since used Visualization to look at other processes we have identified as  needing to be more efficient and more student focused.  Because Visualization allows multiple people to  look at a process as it is, and overlay pain points, concerns, and area of opportunities, it has proven to  be an efficient design tool for us as we look to make immediate but significant improvements to the  student experience.

