Mind Mapping – Reflection – Robert Walsh

1. Challenge: Describe your challenge, including all relevant information.

I wanted to apply design thinking for innovation to the internal business challenge of trying  to organise a group of circa 300 analysts within a large retail bank, all with varying levels of  skills, experience, and business knowledge, to form a high performing data & analytics  function, where everyone could thrive as it would be relatively easy for individuals to move  between teams to develop their skills and experience, as well as work on new, interesting  projects. At the same time the challenge is to minimise overlap, waste and inefficiency.

2. Selection: In your own words, briefly describe the tool you selected (e.g., what it is and why

you selected it for your challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture references).    I chose to try and apply the Mind Mapping tool to this exercise. I chose this because I  thought it could be a good way of capturing all the different dimensions, and elements that  impact such a wide and diverse group of individuals. I also wanted to try this tool as it is not  one I have used extensively and was therefore one I wanted to practice. It was definitely a  good tool for this particular problem, as it allowed me to brainstorm and get down on paper  all the various different facets of the challenge (be they big or small) and then start to cluster  and organise these thematically (e.g. training, location, business grade, promotion  prospects, etc.) My initial version was very messy, but with some polish, I think this could  also be turned into a good communication tool to help illustrate my thought process and  business recommendations in a more interactive and compelling way than a more traditional  PowerPoint slide deck.

3. Application: Describe how you applied the tool you selected to your challenge (e.g., what

you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively).

I began with a very large piece of A4 paper and lots of sketching of boxes of ideas, issues,  and data points in pencil (as I knew I would be doing a lot of rubbing out and re-writing as  the thought process developed). After this initial brainstorming process, key themes started  to emerge (e.g. technical skills – i.e. SQL database coding, Tableau data visualisation,  PowerPoint report writing skills, etc.); and took these macro themes and placed them on  post it notes, then I was able to interconnect these themes with lines, as well as group  individual sub-themes and data points beneath each of them. It was definitely a messy and  iterative process to begin with, but I was comfortable with this having seen the example in  the online video, and the freedom to sketch and make mistakes in this way helped capture a  more expansive set of thinking and hopefully reach a more complete final map. Towards the  latter stages, I spent time trimming down and refining the map a little. I didn’t draw it all out  neatly again, but someone could potentially do this, instead I just highlighted the key points  that I felt were most important to focus on in the short, medium and long term, as a form of  prioritisation (to help avoid a long laundry list of to dos that might never be achieved). I was  happy with the outcome and would definitely consider using this tool again in future.

4. Insight: Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your

challenge (e.g., how an insight affected your thinking about the challenge and about design  thinking more broadly).

The key insight that I think the Mind Mapping tool helped bring to the foreground was  around the need for colleague empathy during any restructure process. Initially I had been  very concerned with the functional success of the restructure – i.e. did it achieve an optimal  technical design, could it be implemented quickly and efficiently, did it remove inefficiency  and duplication? Etc. However, through a more expansive brainstorming approach using the

mind map I found myself giving more consideration to how colleagues would feel and be  impacted by the process (many have been with the company a long time; may have been  stuck doing just one thing during that time; some may be eager for change; others  apprehensive of it). This opened up a whole new line of thinking around colleague  engagement both as inputs into the organisational design process as well as in how to  communicate the outcomes effectively and secure the maximum buy-in to the new  approach.

5. Approach: Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool you

selected or a different one -- and the reason(s) why.

I think the Mind Map was the right tool to chose given the breadth of elements that could  impact a reorganisation of this magnitude. The only small thing I would do differently to  make the process more efficient next time would be to write all the sub-points on post-it  notes initially and then start to group them on the map (rather than writing things directly  onto the map, which then needed to be rubbed out and changed, etc.) Also, I think it would  definitely be good to seek a broader range of views and opinions (i.e. getting a small group  of colleagues to co-create a mind-map together), as this would be a good way to validate  thinking in real-time and minimise the chance of any blind-spots being missed. The caveat  to this is that this would need to be kept to a manageable number of colleagues (i.e. 6 to 8  key people like a focus group) in order to be able to manage the process effectively and still  be able to input fully yourself. Otherwise, if there are too many inputs there will simply be too  much ‘noise’ and my role would shift from thinking creatively about the problem to simply  managing the process of data capture and collation.


Mind Mapping – Reflection – Robert Walsh 1 . Challenge : Describe your challenge , including all relevant information . I wanted to apply design thinking for innovation to the internal business challenge of trying to organise a group of circa 300 analysts within a large retail bank , all with varying levels of skills , experience , and business knowledge , to form a high performing data & analytics function , where everyone could thrive as it would be relatively easy for individuals to move between teams to develop their skills and experience , as well as work on new , interesting projects . At the same time the challenge is to minimise overlap , waste and inefficiency . 2 . Selection : In your own words , briefly describe the tool you selected ( e.g. , what it is and why you selected it for your challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture references ) . I chose to try and apply the Mind Mapping tool to this exercise . I chose this because I thought it could be a good way of capturing all the different dimensions , and elements that impact such a wide and diverse group of individuals . I also wanted to try this tool as it is not one I have used extensively and was therefore one I wanted to practice . It was definitely a good tool for this particular problem , as it allowed me to brainstorm and get down on paper all the various different facets of the challenge ( be they big or small ) and then start to cluster and organise these thematically ( e.g. training , location , business grade , promotion prospects , etc . ) My initial version was very messy , but with some polish , I think this could also be turned into a good communication tool to help illustrate my thought process and business recommendations in a more interactive and compelling way than a more traditional PowerPoint slide deck . 3 . Application : Describe how you applied the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , what you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively ) . I began with a very large piece of A4 paper and lots of sketching of boxes of ideas , issues , and data points in pencil ( as I knew I would be doing a lot of rubbing out and re - writing as the thought process developed ) . After this initial brainstorming process , key themes started to emerge ( e.g. technical skills – i.e. SQL database coding , Tableau data visualisation , PowerPoint report writing skills , etc . ) ; and took these macro themes and placed them on post it notes , then I was able to interconnect these themes with lines , as well as group individual sub - themes and data points beneath each of them . It was definitely a messy and iterative process to begin with , but I was comfortable with this having seen the example in the online video , and the freedom to sketch and make mistakes in this way helped capture a more expansive set of thinking and hopefully reach a more complete final map . Towards the latter stages , I spent time trimming down and refining the map a little . I did n’t draw it all out neatly again , but someone could potentially do this , instead I just highlighted the key points that I felt were most important to focus on in the short , medium and long term , as a form of prioritisation ( to help avoid a long laundry list of to dos that might never be achieved ) . I was happy with the outcome and would definitely consider using this tool again in future . 4 . Insight : Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , how an insight affected your thinking about the challenge and about design thinking more broadly ) . The key insight that I think the Mind Mapping tool helped bring to the foreground was around the need for colleague empathy during any restructure process . Initially I had been very concerned with the functional success of the restructure – i.e. did it achieve an optimal technical design , could it be implemented quickly and efficiently , did it remove inefficiency and duplication ? Etc . However , through a more expansive brainstorming approach using the mind map I found myself giving more consideration to how colleagues would feel and be impacted by the process ( many have been with the company a long time ; may have been stuck doing just one thing during that time ; some may be eager for change ; others apprehensive of it ) . This opened up a whole new line of thinking around colleague engagement both as inputs into the organisational design process as well as in how to communicate the outcomes effectively and secure the maximum buy - in to the new approach . 5 . Approach : Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool you selected or a different one -- and the reason(s ) why . I think the Mind Map was the right tool to chose given the breadth of elements that could impact a reorganisation of this magnitude . The only small thing I would do differently to make the process more efficient next time would be to write all the sub - points on post - it notes initially and then start to group them on the map ( rather than writing things directly onto the map , which then needed to be rubbed out and changed , etc . ) Also , I think it would definitely be good to seek a broader range of views and opinions ( i.e. getting a small group of colleagues to co - create a mind - map together ) , as this would be a good way to validate thinking in real - time and minimise the chance of any blind - spots being missed . The caveat to this is that this would need to be kept to a manageable number of colleagues ( i.e. 6 to 8 key people like a focus group ) in order to be able to manage the process effectively and still be able to input fully yourself . Otherwise , if there are too many inputs there will simply be too much ‘ noise ’ and my role would shift from thinking creatively about the problem to simply managing the process of data capture and collation .