Reflection – Design Tool: Mind Mapping

Challenge

I work for the Continuous Improvement (CI) department of a Logistics company. Our department is  responsible for process improvement and innovation, strongly rooted in IT related changes.

Our company has a Brokerage division that sells off freight to other trucking companies, we call these  “Carriers”. Carriers come in all shapes and sizes, with varying needs and resources.

The CI and Brokerage division continued to struggle to understand how we could improve our  service/value offering, and how Carriers wanted to interact with us. We would dream up of new  concepts, services, and processes, and sometimes move these unvalidated ideas through to production  and roll-out, typically with much effort and failure.

We realized that we were sometimes investing in the wrong ideas and did not know enough about our  stakeholder. We did not understand what they valued and how they wanted us to interact with them.  We also realized that this group of Carriers has a diverse spectrum of needs and value different things.

Selection

After some lessons learned on failed projects, we decided to apply the Mind Mapping tool. We needed  to quickly collect large amounts of data from our diverse Carrier group and organize it in a way that we  could then use for decision making. The Mind Mapping tool was a perfect framework to help us with this  challenge. It would help us draw out the differences of our Carrier base so that we could then tailor our  approach and select the right projects to solve the right problems for the right group.

Application

We set out with a team of five, composed of members of the CI and Brokerage team. The CI team first  started by analyzing all the data they had on the existing Carrier base, slicing, and dicing the data a few  different ways, by volume, region, commodity, service type, etc. The CI and Brokerage team then came  up with a list of questions they would like to ask the Carriers (a set list of standard questions, plus some  additional questions based on the type of service the Carrier provided). The team then went out and  completed interviews with a sample of the Carrier population.

The team aggregated and organized the data into Personas. This took some effort as there was lots of  information to filter and organize. These new Carrier Personas are now used to help validate new and  existing projects.

Insight

Some of the feedback was quite shocking, once you got the Carriers talking there was considerable  insight to glen from them and a different perspective that was missing from our design step. We did not  realize Carriers were having challenges with specific processes making them very time consuming. We  believe much of this was due to processes that had changed overtime, but the technology and tools had  not been updated to accommodate the changes.

We found categorizing the feedback and data from Carriers was time consuming. It took time creating  the personas and grouping specific carriers together, but once the groups started forming it went much  faster.

Once we had the personas outlined, we then tested and applied it to our next project. We found it  easier to keep the project streamlined and on task, constantly reflecting if the changes would provide  value to the Carriers and cutting elements that did not provide value. This approach significantly  reduced waste in our design process.

Approach

I believe the Mind Mapping tool was extremely useful in this challenge, where we continued to lack  direction and understanding of our critical stakeholder. I believe next time we could add Storytelling as  an additional tool that may help draw out critical elements and facts about our Carriers. These stories  could provide important context to help with decision making for our projects (access priority of  projects and provide insight to specific features or tools that they may require).

Learning Launch may also prove to be a helpful tool with all project launches. We could design small  incremental changes and seek Carrier feedback for improvements versus the traditional method of over- designing and over-building for the need.


Reflection – Design Tool : Mind Mapping Challenge I work for the Continuous Improvement ( CI ) department of a Logistics company . Our department is responsible for process improvement and innovation , strongly rooted in IT related changes . Our company has a Brokerage division that sells off freight to other trucking companies , we call these “ Carriers ” . Carriers come in all shapes and sizes , with varying needs and resources . The CI and Brokerage division continued to struggle to understand how we could improve our service / value offering , and how Carriers wanted to interact with us . We would dream up of new concepts , services , and processes , and sometimes move these unvalidated ideas through to production and roll - out , typically with much effort and failure . We realized that we were sometimes investing in the wrong ideas and did not know enough about our stakeholder . We did not understand what they valued and how they wanted us to interact with them . We also realized that this group of Carriers has a diverse spectrum of needs and value different things . Selection After some lessons learned on failed projects , we decided to apply the Mind Mapping tool . We needed to quickly collect large amounts of data from our diverse Carrier group and organize it in a way that we could then use for decision making . The Mind Mapping tool was a perfect framework to help us with this challenge . It would help us draw out the differences of our Carrier base so that we could then tailor our approach and select the right projects to solve the right problems for the right group . Application We set out with a team of five , composed of members of the CI and Brokerage team . The CI team first started by analyzing all the data they had on the existing Carrier base , slicing , and dicing the data a few different ways , by volume , region , commodity , service type , etc . The CI and Brokerage team then came up with a list of questions they would like to ask the Carriers ( a set list of standard questions , plus some additional questions based on the type of service the Carrier provided ) . The team then went out and completed interviews with a sample of the Carrier population . The team aggregated and organized the data into Personas . This took some effort as there was lots of information to filter and organize . These new Carrier Personas are now used to help validate new and existing projects . Insight Some of the feedback was quite shocking , once you got the Carriers talking there was considerable insight to glen from them and a different perspective that was missing from our design step . We did not realize Carriers were having challenges with specific processes making them very time consuming . We believe much of this was due to processes that had changed overtime , but the technology and tools had not been updated to accommodate the changes . We found categorizing the feedback and data from Carriers was time consuming . It took time creating the personas and grouping specific carriers together , but once the groups started forming it went much faster . Once we had the personas outlined , we then tested and applied it to our next project . We found it easier to keep the project streamlined and on task , constantly reflecting if the changes would provide value to the Carriers and cutting elements that did not provide value . This approach significantly reduced waste in our design process . Approach I believe the Mind Mapping tool was extremely useful in this challenge , where we continued to lack direction and understanding of our critical stakeholder . I believe next time we could add Storytelling as an additional tool that may help draw out critical elements and facts about our Carriers . These stories could provide important context to help with decision making for our projects ( access priority of projects and provide insight to specific features or tools that they may require ) . Learning Launch may also prove to be a helpful tool with all project launches . We could design small incremental changes and seek Carrier feedback for improvements versus the traditional method of over- designing and over - building for the need .