Example Reflection – Learning Launch

Challenge       I come from pharmaceutical background and a member of my organization’s Quality department and  my challenge is to optimize the productivity on activities and projects within the department in order to  increase quality in the manufacturing and supply and to optimize the budgets on the right campaigns.  The project scope includes the Quality department composed of 50 employees, as well as the larger  global department and cross-functional department, with whom we work closely. The project is limited  to internal resources (i.e., quality, budget and employee time). The project should not exceed 60  business days and the solution should include an even distribution of working hours amongst the team  members. We will focus on trying to uncover what our team members, as well as key stakeholders  within the global Quality department and cross-functional department, consider to be ineffective or  problematic with regard to the productivity.      Selection     We have gone through the design thinking tools and also the team has already gone through several  design thinking activities/tools, so we are ready to try the learning launch tool.   Broadly speaking, the learning launch is an experiment meant to quickly test an idea and prototype.      Application       For our first learning launch, we focused on the structure/execution of our Quality tasks. In particular,  we wanted to see if we could structure our tasks, projects, and processes to adapt the methods of  Scrum project management for our work (e.g., time boxed, daily, specific meetings, reviews, etc.) in an  effort to become more agile. This tested our assumption that the structure and execution were the main  causes of our workflow challenge. Our team went through a two-day training with a Scrum project  management coach. Next, we went through five workshops to structure our tasks and processes in a  more agile way. These two sessions occurred within in a three-week timeframe. We expected to  produce a document with a clear description of our new, more agile processes/workflow.       For our second learning launch, we focused on gaining clarity about our tasks and priorities. This tested  our assumption that our prioritization of tasks was the main cause of our workflow challenge. Our team  completed an anonymous survey. Additionally, five key stakeholders from the larger global Quality  department and cross-functional department also completed an anonymous survey. The surveys  included questions about our new, proposed process, understanding the process and the prioritization  of tasks, and feelings about the change, and were conducted within a one-week timeframe.      Insight      By applying the learning launch tool, our team identified our assumptions and designed launches to test  these assumptions. Additionally, we thought through anticipated results, expecting to find that a more  agile approach would improve our productivity, and that both our team and the key stakeholders would  be fairly open to the new prioritization of tasks and process. Our actual results were slightly different

from what we anticipated: while our team was open to the prioritization of tasks and process, the key  stakeholders in the global quality department and cross-functional department expressed some  concerns. Moving forward, our team will review this insight and incorporate it into future launch  designs. The ongoing incorporation of insight is particularly important at this stage, as launches come  before a full rollout in the design thinking timeline.      Approach      Given that our team has already gone through several design thinking activities/tools and are at this  stage in the timeline, the learning launch is the appropriate tool. As previously mentioned, our team  needs to review the insight gained from our first two launches and incorporate this insight into future  launch designs. Future launch designs should reflect insight gained, progress made, and come closer to a  compelling solution ready for full rollout. We reached to the approach after various failures within  routine however came to conclude on the results within the timeline.

