Challenge

Our learning programs are designed with a heavy faculty model. This structure ensures  senior individuals / leaders of the Firm are present for our learning programs and  allows for a faculty member to facilitate the small breakout group sessions. The breakout  group sessions have 5 participants each thereby creating a requirement for faculty to be  present for each group of 5 participants. This creates a requirement of 6 faculty to be  present for a group of 30 participants – our typical class size. As you can imagine,  scheduling this number of faculty for large numbers of programs throughout the year is  very challenging. Given this challenge, we developed a list of ideas to test reducing the  faculty number. These ideas included 1) increasing the size of the breakout groups, 2)  giving participants the responsibility to lead their own breakout groups and 3) rotating  faculty across multiple breakout groups.

Selection and Application

We selected the learning launch tool to test our ideas. We selected 20% of our programs  and tested the 3 ideas across the programs. We did not let the participants know there  was any change – hoping that they would not go into the program with any biases. We  implemented the guidance provided by Ed Hess in the Week 4 content. We thought  about

-  What we needed to confirm and disconfirm the idea and  -  The quantity and quality of the data.

We structured survey questions to understand the value and impact of the session in the  new format as compared to the old format. We tested for the impact on the participants’  ability to practice and develop the new skill at the end of the program. We also tested  the longer-term impact by surveying the group 100 days after the program. We  compared the results from the programs with the new faculty models with the results  from programs in the old format. The team implementing and evaluating the change  consisted of learning team members and experienced program faculty. It was important  to test the ideas and collect data and facts. The ‘old’ faculty format had been used for  years and we needed enough high-quality data to feel confident that a change could be  made without negatively effecting the experience and impact of the learning program.

Insight

By testing the different approaches, we were able to uncover what worked well and what  did not. Some key takeaways are as follows:

-  Slightly larger groups had no significant negative effect on experience or impact  at the end of program or 100 days out  -  The conversation during the participant led sessions was rich and felt more risk- free  -  Participants needed the most guidance at the start of a session as sometimes the  groups did not start off on strong footing  -  Once participants began a participant led session, it was hard for a faculty  member to enter the room – it did not feel natural

These insights helped us think about other new ideas and we questioned whether we  were being bold enough in our thinking. We asked ourselves

-  How large could the groups get before there was a real negative impact?  -  What are the key roles that the faculty need to play vs. remain in the room for the  entire time? For example, at kick-off to explain the activity.  -  Are their different models for how the sessions are scheduled (stagger sessions)  to maximize the time of the faculty?

The debriefs of the data included the learning team and faculty. We did not include the  learners except for collecting the feedback results. More engagement from the learners  would help to better understand and develop a learner driven solution.

Approach

The learning launch tool worked well to test our ideas. We were careful about the  quantity and quality of the data. We were focused on building data driven insights. All  these aspects of the learning launch approach worked well. Where I believe we could  improve on our implementation of design thinking is in the up-front stages and team  structure. Jasim’s comment about initial data collection can be small – not  to confirm an idea but to inspire idea generation – resonated with me. This idea  generation area is an area where I feel we could improve the next time. Additionally, I  also believe we could structure the team with a more diverse set of individuals. Our team  was largely staffed with learning team members. We should include the learners more in  the idea generation process and in understanding the impact of the results.


Challenge Our learning programs are designed with a heavy faculty model . This structure ensures senior individuals / leaders of the Firm are present for our learning programs and allows for a faculty member to facilitate the small breakout group sessions . The breakout group sessions have 5 participants each thereby creating a requirement for faculty to be present for each group of 5 participants . This creates a requirement of 6 faculty to be present for a group of 30 participants – our typical class size . As you can imagine , scheduling this number of faculty for large numbers of programs throughout the year is very challenging . Given this challenge , we developed a list of ideas to test reducing the faculty number . These ideas included 1 ) increasing the size of the breakout groups , 2 ) giving participants the responsibility to lead their own breakout groups and 3 ) rotating faculty across multiple breakout groups . Selection and Application We selected the learning launch tool to test our ideas . We selected 20 % of our programs and tested the 3 ideas across the programs . We did not let the participants know there was any change – hoping that they would not go into the program with any biases . We implemented the guidance provided by Ed Hess in the Week 4 content . We thought about - What we needed to confirm and disconfirm the idea and - The quantity and quality of the data . We structured survey questions to understand the value and impact of the session in the new format as compared to the old format . We tested for the impact on the participants ’ ability to practice and develop the new skill at the end of the program . We also tested the longer - term impact by surveying the group 100 days after the program . We compared the results from the programs with the new faculty models with the results from programs in the old format . The team implementing and evaluating the change consisted of learning team members and experienced program faculty . It was important to test the ideas and collect data and facts . The ‘ old ’ faculty format had been used for years and we needed enough high - quality data to feel confident that a change could be made without negatively effecting the experience and impact of the learning program . Insight By testing the different approaches , we were able to uncover what worked well and what did not . Some key takeaways are as follows : - Slightly larger groups had no significant negative effect on experience or impact at the end of program or 100 days out - The conversation during the participant led sessions was rich and felt more risk- free - Participants needed the most guidance at the start of a session as sometimes the groups did not start off on strong footing - Once participants began a participant led session , it was hard for a faculty member to enter the room – it did not feel natural These insights helped us think about other new ideas and we questioned whether we were being bold enough in our thinking . We asked ourselves - How large could the groups get before there was a real negative impact ? - What are the key roles that the faculty need to play vs. remain in the room for the entire time ? For example , at kick - off to explain the activity . - Are their different models for how the sessions are scheduled ( stagger sessions ) to maximize the time of the faculty ? The debriefs of the data included the learning team and faculty . We did not include the learners except for collecting the feedback results . More engagement from the learners would help to better understand and develop a learner driven solution . Approach The learning launch tool worked well to test our ideas . We were careful about the quantity and quality of the data . We were focused on building data driven insights . All these aspects of the learning launch approach worked well . Where I believe we could improve on our implementation of design thinking is in the up - front stages and team structure . Jasim ’s comment about initial data collection can be small – not to confirm an idea but to inspire idea generation – resonated with me . This idea generation area is an area where I feel we could improve the next time . Additionally , I also believe we could structure the team with a more diverse set of individuals . Our team was largely staffed with learning team members . We should include the learners more in the idea generation process and in understanding the impact of the results .