Craig Gonzalez  Design Thinking for Innovation

Mind Mapping for Product Planning

Challenge & Selection

As part of my role, I am a business analyst who works very closely with the Product Owners in my organisation and  our customers are large corporates or big banks from across the world. A large part of product lines which our  customers consume will have 80% core product features which are globally common and 20% is either  customisation per geography or any other specific regional compliance obligations. Other than rolling out new  features into our core product globally, we keep on updating the customisation layer also. Whenever we get into  discussions with our customers, there are variety of issues which are brought on to the table by them which could  be either in the core product or the customised layer and we will have to collate all of those and analyse the  commonality between them and pick the items which qualify for enhancements, bug fixing and new features on  the core product and how it will impact the global customer base, which in fact is the trickiest part. Now, it is not  always the same problem which the customers bring forward and the result of fixing for one could result in  creating a new problem for another customer who was unaffected earlier. Therefore, in order to resolve this  efficiently and effectively I have been making use of mind mapping concept with the help of some real-life tools  e.g. XMind. I find mind mapping as very powerful as it looks for patterns and insights which comes really handy  when there is variety of data and stakeholders in the mix. It becomes very handy from my job perspective as if I  relay it back to the course would be the ‘What If’ phase. It helps me a lot in getting the stakeholders engaged and  also help them understanding my process with respect to other customers who are contesting to get a change  agreed and get rolled into the product roadmap.

Application

I normally start the process by collating all the known data from the Product Owners and business customers into  one repository with an end goal clear to align the organisational goals and the customer goals and agree a product  goal by understanding the current reality. I usually club the participants into teams based on the geographical  synergies and take them to the design challenge in order to collectively identify the design criteria. In some cases,  we have clubbed the customers into teams based on who has requested a similar feature or where the impact is  on a similar component. This helped in streamlining the discussions when I go to the stage of drawing the mind  maps and to connect the concepts to one another or to construct the synergies between the features which  becomes very critical towards the end when we move towards aligning the organisational goals along with  customer goals and make commitment to what can be delivered during the product increment. The representation  of my mind comes out into play along with the customers to shape the representation to something which is  extremely relatable to everyone and easy to agree for conclusion.

I usually begin with a set template, selecting the area which has enough white board space around. I hand the  sticky notes to the stakeholders and do not split them into groups in the beginning of the session. I will bring the  complete backlog up for everyone’s review which will contain all the items raised by either the stakeholders or the  product owners or the business units within the company and any of the known bug fixes which we are aware off  across the product line and mark each of the line items to if it belongs to the product core or the product  customisation. As we go along, I give first few minutes to briefly touch base each item and the later 30 mins for  each customer to do a self-assessment of prioritisation of the line items from top to bottom before the  stakeholders are clubbed based on the synergies of their asks which helps in clustering and bundling the backlog to  realign the priority of items but this time it will be a collective exercise as compared to self-assessment of the  individuals. The mind map of the backlog is drawn (using XMinds in my case most of the times digitally and  presented along with white board) with the agreed features connected as clusters and agreed priorities marked

Craig Gonzalez  Design Thinking for Innovation

along with the key open questions called out to them as part of the exercise. It helps in identifying the design  criteria collectively which also is helpful towards the end of the exercise to wrap up backlog which is prioritised for  the current product increment and ticks the box for the ‘What Is’ state with the design criteria conditions  becoming clear for what the possible solution will/can be.

In most of the instances, this exercise does not get concluded in one session/day, it goes beyond that mostly as  there is a lot of discussion in getting to understand each other’s perspectives and strike commonality and to move  to the final state where things can be agreed as a group.

Insight

From my experience of conducting a backlog planning in this fashion a few times, and by extensively using Mind  Mapping exercises and tools during these meetings, what I have learnt is that it helps in achieving the end goal in a  more efficient way and also helps the stakeholders involved reach to the same level of understanding as a group. It  crystallised the prioritisation aspect for everyone involved when we split them into the groups of synergies and  from chats between them they were able to agree on the common priority levels for the features which were of  common impact and it was easier for the stakeholders to discard their self-assessment priority.

Approach

From what I learned from the lessons from this course, the overall approach here from mind maps perspective is  to agree the design criteria as design criteria is the actual transition from what is to what if stage. Therefore, from  approach point of view I will give more emphasis on the concept of design criteria and try to explain this  fundament to the stakeholders. In most cases, stakeholders would come from various aspects of the Business & IT  pipelines, hence, to start with, not everyone aligns to the idea of mind mapping and design criteria immediately. I  would continue to use the approach of self-assessment of prioritisation at individual level, and then grouping the  stakeholders to give a group priority as that has helped me a lot in achieving the goal of completing this stage so  the next stage of definition of solution can be started. Based on what I learned from the course, I will try to  collaborate visualisation and mind mapping as I felt that there is great potential to conduct an even more effective  and efficient stakeholder meeting if there is visualisation involved in terms of some demos of what the feature will  result like in form of a strawman. To agree the design criteria with visual thinking can be an efficient tool.


Craig Gonzalez Design Thinking for Innovation Mind Mapping for Product Planning Challenge & Selection As part of my role , I am a business analyst who works very closely with the Product Owners in my organisation and our customers are large corporates or big banks from across the world . A large part of product lines which our customers consume will have 80 % core product features which are globally common and 20 % is either customisation per geography or any other specific regional compliance obligations . Other than rolling out new features into our core product globally , we keep on updating the customisation layer also . Whenever we get into discussions with our customers , there are variety of issues which are brought on to the table by them which could be either in the core product or the customised layer and we will have to collate all of those and analyse the commonality between them and pick the items which qualify for enhancements , bug fixing and new features on the core product and how it will impact the global customer base , which in fact is the trickiest part . Now , it is not always the same problem which the customers bring forward and the result of fixing for one could result in creating a new problem for another customer who was unaffected earlier . Therefore , in order to resolve this efficiently and effectively I have been making use of mind mapping concept with the help of some real - life tools e.g. XMind . I find mind mapping as very powerful as it looks for patterns and insights which comes really handy when there is variety of data and stakeholders in the mix . It becomes very handy from my job perspective as if I relay it back to the course would be the ‘ What If ’ phase . It helps me a lot in getting the stakeholders engaged and also help them understanding my process with respect to other customers who are contesting to get a change agreed and get rolled into the product roadmap . Application I normally start the process by collating all the known data from the Product Owners and business customers into one repository with an end goal clear to align the organisational goals and the customer goals and agree a product goal by understanding the current reality . I usually club the participants into teams based on the geographical synergies and take them to the design challenge in order to collectively identify the design criteria . In some cases , we have clubbed the customers into teams based on who has requested a similar feature or where the impact is on a similar component . This helped in streamlining the discussions when I go to the stage of drawing the mind maps and to connect the concepts to one another or to construct the synergies between the features which becomes very critical towards the end when we move towards aligning the organisational goals along with customer goals and make commitment to what can be delivered during the product increment . The representation of my mind comes out into play along with the customers to shape the representation to something which is extremely relatable to everyone and easy to agree for conclusion . I usually begin with a set template , selecting the area which has enough white board space around . I hand the sticky notes to the stakeholders and do not split them into groups in the beginning of the session . I will bring the complete backlog up for everyone ’s review which will contain all the items raised by either the stakeholders or the product owners or the business units within the company and any of the known bug fixes which we are aware off across the product line and mark each of the line items to if it belongs to the product core or the product customisation . As we go along , I give first few minutes to briefly touch base each item and the later 30 mins for each customer to do a self - assessment of prioritisation of the line items from top to bottom before the stakeholders are clubbed based on the synergies of their asks which helps in clustering and bundling the backlog to realign the priority of items but this time it will be a collective exercise as compared to self - assessment of the individuals . The mind map of the backlog is drawn ( using XMinds in my case most of the times digitally and presented along with white board ) with the agreed features connected as clusters and agreed priorities marked Craig Gonzalez Design Thinking for Innovation along with the key open questions called out to them as part of the exercise . It helps in identifying the design criteria collectively which also is helpful towards the end of the exercise to wrap up backlog which is prioritised for the current product increment and ticks the box for the ‘ What Is ’ state with the design criteria conditions becoming clear for what the possible solution will / can be . In most of the instances , this exercise does not get concluded in one session / day , it goes beyond that mostly as there is a lot of discussion in getting to understand each other ’s perspectives and strike commonality and to move to the final state where things can be agreed as a group . Insight From my experience of conducting a backlog planning in this fashion a few times , and by extensively using Mind Mapping exercises and tools during these meetings , what I have learnt is that it helps in achieving the end goal in a more efficient way and also helps the stakeholders involved reach to the same level of understanding as a group . It crystallised the prioritisation aspect for everyone involved when we split them into the groups of synergies and from chats between them they were able to agree on the common priority levels for the features which were of common impact and it was easier for the stakeholders to discard their self - assessment priority . Approach From what I learned from the lessons from this course , the overall approach here from mind maps perspective is to agree the design criteria as design criteria is the actual transition from what is to what if stage . Therefore , from approach point of view I will give more emphasis on the concept of design criteria and try to explain this fundament to the stakeholders . In most cases , stakeholders would come from various aspects of the Business & IT pipelines , hence , to start with , not everyone aligns to the idea of mind mapping and design criteria immediately . I would continue to use the approach of self - assessment of prioritisation at individual level , and then grouping the stakeholders to give a group priority as that has helped me a lot in achieving the goal of completing this stage so the next stage of definition of solution can be started . Based on what I learned from the course , I will try to collaborate visualisation and mind mapping as I felt that there is great potential to conduct an even more effective and efficient stakeholder meeting if there is visualisation involved in terms of some demos of what the feature will result like in form of a strawman . To agree the design criteria with visual thinking can be an efficient tool .