John Yates Design Thinking for Innovation Carolina Chavez May 3, 2020

Reflection: The Mind Mapping Tool

1. Challenge

My consulting firm was tasked by our client, a health-care foundation board, to help them design an organizational strategy in light of all the rapidly moving developments in health-care. The board was at an impasse, uncertain on where to place its bets to best support health-care in this country without being able to predict where a number of current trends might lead. We used design thinking to present a few high-level, flexible, iterative, strategic options for the board that the foundation could pursue within the 2021-2024 time-frame.

2. Selection

This reflection will focus on the mind mapping tool, which was the most important phase of the project as it moved the process from the What Is? stage of ascertaining the current state of the organization and of health-care in the U.S., to the crucial What If? stage of beginning to draft new, possible realities for the foundation. This fulfilled the purpose of the board in hiring my firm.

I am defining mind mapping as the collective visualization by the board members of the sum of their knowledge, experiences, insights, interests, and visions of health-care, thereby establishing a snapshot or base upon which to build a series of possible strategic options for the foundation to pursue. As Lopez said in the Module 3 video:

“In the first phase of the design thinking process, we take a look at the current reality, at What Is? In doing so, we amass a huge amount of data. Before moving to the next phase, What If?, we need to distill all that data into information and insights that can be easily communicated. This is just what mind mapping does well.”

3. Application:

Following the completion of extensive health-care industry research and in-depth interviews with members of the board to collect data on the current reality in the What Is? stage of the design thinking approach, we started the mind mapping process. We began by asking the group to individually generate a set of planning assumptions about the likely future conditions that will impact the foundation and its work to help determine where members are aligned in beliefs about the future.

The group first noted these planning assumptions individually on Post-it Notes and pinned them on a large white board. After all the ideas were exhausted following several rounds of the question “what else?”, the team grouped the Post-It Noted ideas in the following themes: paying for health-care, “change” as a field, societal tone, politics, technology, process, and doing the work vs. paying for the work.

From this “map” of initial contributions, we asked the group to create an aligned-upon set of shared assumptions about the future context that the foundation will be acting in, starting in 2021. In the next step, the board revisited the What Is?

stage research and brainstormed what they have found works to catalyze transformational systemic change, and what the field is saying about what the foundation might or should try. Such ideas included creating new lines of business, partnering differently with localities, etc. These ideas were written on Post-it Notes and arranged on the white board.

The board then started anticipating potential future paths for the foundation by exploring two extremes: (1) be entirely organized as a think tank or (2) be completely focused on implementing current knowledge and practices. The group split in two to explore these two possible approaches in depth.

The two teams suggested four alternate organizational realities to explore based on this experience: an implementation organization with some R&D (called “Alice”); a think tank with some implementation power (following the Alice in Wonderland theme, called “Mad Hatter”); taking on a program-based initiative to scale (“Cheshire Cat”), and having a “Mad Hatter”-like model that targets groups of leaders across systems instead of leaders of institutions alone (“Mock Turtle”). Finally, the team closed out the mind mapping process by creating a summary chart to compare and contrast the four options to display how well each model could fulfill the foundation’s mission to further the state of health-care in the United States.

4. Insight

This, my first involvement in a design thinking process, was an illuminating experience and showed me the distinct difference to traditional strategy. In a traditional strategic planning process, the focus is on designing the future from the present and seeks to answer the question: from where we stand today, where do we want to be in five years? This approach in today’s fast-paced and highly changeable world now seems to me to be far too inflexible and brittle; as soon as one element changes internally or externally the entire infrastructure of the plan can be rendered moot. The beauty of the design thinking approach is that it is iterative, flexible, and serves as a guidepost for possible approaches, rather than committing an organization to a specific path. While informed by the current past from the What Is? Stage, the design thinking process isn’t limited by it, but allows for an expansive view of what could be. Rather than be constrained to one plan heading in one direction, design thinking allows for the creation of multiple possible plans and directions focusing on key organizational values and goals versus specific metrics. The foundation in question could easily choose one model and then combine it with or switch to another model midstream with minimal disruption - something not possible with a traditional strategic plan.

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:

This approach was highly effective and exactly what the client wanted. One difference for the next time, however, would be to employ more visualization techniques to better bring the models to life. While using the colorful Alice In Wonderland themed models and adding a number of details to each provided personalities to each model, a more graphic approach depicting each model would have provided a more compelling and vibrant picture of each possible scenario. Just as a picture tells a thousand words, a graphical representation, such as Lopez’s mind map in Module 3, would have served the client even better.


John Yates Design Thinking for Innovation Carolina Chavez May 3 , 2020 Reflection : The Mind Mapping Tool 1 . Challenge My consulting firm was tasked by our client , a health - care foundation board , to help them design an organizational strategy in light of all the rapidly moving developments in health - care . The board was at an impasse , uncertain on where to place its bets to best support health - care in this country without being able to predict where a number of current trends might lead . We used design thinking to present a few high - level , flexible , iterative , strategic options for the board that the foundation could pursue within the 2021 - 2024 time - frame . 2 . Selection This reflection will focus on the mind mapping tool , which was the most important phase of the project as it moved the process from the What Is ? stage of ascertaining the current state of the organization and of health - care in the U.S. , to the crucial What If ? stage of beginning to draft new , possible realities for the foundation . This fulfilled the purpose of the board in hiring my firm . I am defining mind mapping as the collective visualization by the board members of the sum of their knowledge , experiences , insights , interests , and visions of health - care , thereby establishing a snapshot or base upon which to build a series of possible strategic options for the foundation to pursue . As Lopez said in the Module 3 video : “ In the first phase of the design thinking process , we take a look at the current reality , at What Is ? In doing so , we amass a huge amount of data . Before moving to the next phase , What If ? , we need to distill all that data into information and insights that can be easily communicated . This is just what mind mapping does well . ” 3 . Application : Following the completion of extensive health - care industry research and in - depth interviews with members of the board to collect data on the current reality in the What Is ? stage of the design thinking approach , we started the mind mapping process . We began by asking the group to individually generate a set of planning assumptions about the likely future conditions that will impact the foundation and its work to help determine where members are aligned in beliefs about the future . The group first noted these planning assumptions individually on Post - it Notes and pinned them on a large white board . After all the ideas were exhausted following several rounds of the question “ what else ? ” , the team grouped the Post - It Noted ideas in the following themes : paying for health - care , “ change ” as a field , societal tone , politics , technology , process , and doing the work vs. paying for the work . From this “ map ” of initial contributions , we asked the group to create an aligned - upon set of shared assumptions about the future context that the foundation will be acting in , starting in 2021 . In the next step , the board revisited the What Is ? stage research and brainstormed what they have found works to catalyze transformational systemic change , and what the field is saying about what the foundation might or should try . Such ideas included creating new lines of business , partnering differently with localities , etc . These ideas were written on Post - it Notes and arranged on the white board . The board then started anticipating potential future paths for the foundation by exploring two extremes : ( 1 ) be entirely organized as a think tank or ( 2 ) be completely focused on implementing current knowledge and practices . The group split in two to explore these two possible approaches in depth . The two teams suggested four alternate organizational realities to explore based on this experience : an implementation organization with some R&D ( called “ Alice ” ) ; a think tank with some implementation power ( following the Alice in Wonderland theme , called “ Mad Hatter ” ) ; taking on a program - based initiative to scale ( “ Cheshire Cat ” ) , and having a “ Mad Hatter”-like model that targets groups of leaders across systems instead of leaders of institutions alone ( “ Mock Turtle ” ) . Finally , the team closed out the mind mapping process by creating a summary chart to compare and contrast the four options to display how well each model could fulfill the foundation ’s mission to further the state of health - care in the United States . 4 . Insight This , my first involvement in a design thinking process , was an illuminating experience and showed me the distinct difference to traditional strategy . In a traditional strategic planning process , the focus is on designing the future from the present and seeks to answer the question : from where we stand today , where do we want to be in five years ? This approach in today ’s fast - paced and highly changeable world now seems to me to be far too inflexible and brittle ; as soon as one element changes internally or externally the entire infrastructure of the plan can be rendered moot . The beauty of the design thinking approach is that it is iterative , flexible , and serves as a guidepost for possible approaches , rather than committing an organization to a specific path . While informed by the current past from the What Is ? Stage , the design thinking process is n’t limited by it , but allows for an expansive view of what could be . Rather than be constrained to one plan heading in one direction , design thinking allows for the creation of multiple possible plans and directions focusing on key organizational values and goals versus specific metrics . The foundation in question could easily choose one model and then combine it with or switch to another model midstream with minimal disruption - something not possible with a traditional strategic plan . 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 : This approach was highly effective and exactly what the client wanted . One difference for the next time , however , would be to employ more visualization techniques to better bring the models to life . While using the colorful Alice In Wonderland themed models and adding a number of details to each provided personalities to each model , a more graphic approach depicting each model would have provided a more compelling and vibrant picture of each possible scenario . Just as a picture tells a thousand words , a graphical representation , such as Lopez ’s mind map in Module 3 , would have served the client even better .