Jakeline Lunardi

DESIGN THINKING FOR INNOVATION

VISUALIZATION APPLICATION EXAMPLE

MAI 2017

CHALLENGE  (Describe your challenge, including all relevant information.)    The challenge was to think of an IT solution to a new business process that would allow to propose pricing  conditions for proposed products to potential clients. A potential client can not become a real client, if it  was not transparent which pricing conditions were proposed to him and got approved by the respective  approval body.   The basis to propose prices is the list of products that are proposed to the potential client.   The new process spreads across three different business units (client management, product management,  price management) and will have to integrate several underlying sub processes (currently executed  independently).   The change is pushed by the Pricing business and each business units have their own priorities/goals and  own roadmap/deadline towards achieving these goals.   A close collaboration, shared understanding of the importance of the change and implementation  alignment and agreement is a pre-requisite for the success of this initiative.     TOOL SELECTION  (In own words, brief description of the tool selected, e.g., what it is and why you selected it for your  challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture references)    The first tool used was visualization. Visualization was selected because the problem statement had to be  shared among three different teams and ‘a picture is worth thousands words’. So this way, we wanted to  ensure that everybody involved could get on the same page in a quick and easy way (seeing something is  better than having it described).   For the visualization itself, we selected a tool called MIRO.    MIRO is a visual collaborative whiteboard platform for team work.   This tool was chosen for several reasons:

1. It is a collaborative ‘white board’ platform, suitable for work to be shared across teams.    2. It is a powerful tool that enables to do various things like: meetings and workshops, ideation and

brainstorming, mapping and diagramming, etc. So it would possible to use the same tool for other  design thinking purposes/phases (brainstorming, mind mapping, etc.) and everything would is  available in one central place.

3. The tool allows to group elements, link different elements, etc. in a completely free way  4. It allows sharing and central access to artefacts/elements of the board.   5. It allows several people to work in the same time on the same board.   6. The tool is simple and intuitive. For someone who has not worked with it before, it was easy to

jump in and start using it, at least for a basic usage.

7. Changes can be ‘live’: changes are immediately visible to all to have access to the board. My

company is starting to use this tool in a broader way, so I want to use every opportunity to learn  the about tool as much as I can.

Link to MIRO: https://miro.com      APPLICATION

(How the tool was applied , e.g., what you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively)    The whole activity was planned as a set of four subsequent workshops (two more business-focussed and  two more IT focused workshops). The participants were not divided into different groups because there  was no need: the challenge topic was not to big and there were not too many participants (approx. 10).   With every workshop, the participants were diving deeper and deeper into solution finding and its  refinement.   For the first session, a basic picture of the new business flow was prepared and loaded into the MIRO  board. Access was granted to all participants and the link provided a couple of days before the workshop  in case the participants wanted to look and prepare themselves for the workshop.   The first draft of the new flow was generated based on information that was gathered from the end users  (the ones for whom the solution is targeted) but also by taking the relevant part of the company strategy  into consideration. This preparation work was executed by a smaller number of persons – let’s call them  ‘the core team’ (not all involved participants). The draft of the new flow did not contain too many details.  We also put a couple of boxes with ‘errors’ or wrong wording in order to trigger discussions.   In the first workshop, we started to discuss the draft of the new flow. After setting the scene and  explaining the goal of the first workshop, active discussion started immediately.   We started to ask questions like:

1) Do you understand why we put the picture exactly like this?   2) How does this fit into your goals and roadmap?   3) Is something missing?   4) What would you ‘draw’ differently? Why?   5) Did we forget something important?

Having a picture in front of people immediately starts the thinking process and triggers comments,  feedbacks, inputs, etc.   As questions arisen and answers were provided, we started to adapt the ‘picture’: change the wording of  the boxes, add missing boxes and move them around. Thanks to the tool capabilities, the persons that felt  ‘called to do the changes’ were able to this themselves, directly in the tool. The changes were live and  immediately visible to all.   After the workshop, the core team did the last updates to add the changes the changes that were not yet  reflected in the board. This was done based on notes recorded by the ‘core team’.   Participants got informed that the MIRO board is now finally updated with workshop #1 results and  further changes can be added.   The second workshop started based on the last version of the picture. We first did a recap of workshop #1  results and all changes done between the two workshops were made clear and explained to the group.   We then asked the group to dive into the boxes. We went one by one and asked following questions:

1) To  refine the box description  2) Are the dependencies between the boxes correct?   3) What should we add?   4) Imagine this scenario: when x would do y, what would you line to happen?

Similar as in workshop #1, answers, inputs to the questions resulted in changes and refinement of the  boxes and the changes were immediately reflected in the board.   The proceeding for the IT focused worskhops (#3 and #4) was exactly the same, only the boxes were no  business process boxes but It system and IT subsystem boxes …   After workshop #4, we got a good representation of what will the new flow look like and which IT systems  will enable the new flow and what needs to be implemented first.       INSIGHT & APPROACH   (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).  (Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool you selected or a different one - - and the reason(s) why).

- The new flow spreads across three different business units and the knowledge about the single business  areas is different. This fact had a couple of very positive effects:

-  The non-experts were asking questions about, sometimes also very simple, things. The answers  helped to bring everybody on the same page and make sure that all in the ‘room’ are on the same  page, have the same understanding and speak the same language.

- Intentional usage of ‘errors’ and wrong wording showed good results: it looks like people notice fast  when something is not correct or does not suit them.   - The tool that allows that everybody can write – change, thus actively contribute, increases the motivation  and engagement of the persons involved.   - The real time changes allowed the participants to immediately get a new picture that then triggered a  new or different thinking process.   - Everybody was on the same page during the whole time and everybody had the same level of  information; information was shared equally among all.   - Early and transparent involvement of all parties was very beneficial. A shared understanding and  commitment was achieved thanks to this fact.     Next time I would use a very similar approach – we had very good results that were achieved in a fast and  efficient way. One thing could eventually be improved: the specific questions to the exerts could be  prepared even better (e.g. more questions).


Jakeline Lunardi DESIGN THINKING FOR INNOVATION VISUALIZATION APPLICATION EXAMPLE MAI 2017 CHALLENGE ( Describe your challenge , including all relevant information . ) The challenge was to think of an IT solution to a new business process that would allow to propose pricing conditions for proposed products to potential clients . A potential client can not become a real client , if it was not transparent which pricing conditions were proposed to him and got approved by the respective approval body . The basis to propose prices is the list of products that are proposed to the potential client . The new process spreads across three different business units ( client management , product management , price management ) and will have to integrate several underlying sub processes ( currently executed independently ) . The change is pushed by the Pricing business and each business units have their own priorities / goals and own roadmap / deadline towards achieving these goals . A close collaboration , shared understanding of the importance of the change and implementation alignment and agreement is a pre - requisite for the success of this initiative . TOOL SELECTION ( In own words , brief description of the tool selected , e.g. , what it is and why you selected it for your challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture references ) The first tool used was visualization . Visualization was selected because the problem statement had to be shared among three different teams and ‘ a picture is worth thousands words ’ . So this way , we wanted to ensure that everybody involved could get on the same page in a quick and easy way ( seeing something is better than having it described ) . For the visualization itself , we selected a tool called MIRO . MIRO is a visual collaborative whiteboard platform for team work . This tool was chosen for several reasons : 1 . It is a collaborative ‘ white board ’ platform , suitable for work to be shared across teams . 2 . It is a powerful tool that enables to do various things like : meetings and workshops , ideation and brainstorming , mapping and diagramming , etc . So it would possible to use the same tool for other design thinking purposes / phases ( brainstorming , mind mapping , etc . ) and everything would is available in one central place . 3 . The tool allows to group elements , link different elements , etc . in a completely free way 4 . It allows sharing and central access to artefacts / elements of the board . 5 . It allows several people to work in the same time on the same board . 6 . The tool is simple and intuitive . For someone who has not worked with it before , it was easy to jump in and start using it , at least for a basic usage . 7 . Changes can be ‘ live ’ : changes are immediately visible to all to have access to the board . My company is starting to use this tool in a broader way , so I want to use every opportunity to learn the about tool as much as I can . Link to MIRO : https://miro.com APPLICATION ( How the tool was applied , e.g. , what you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively ) The whole activity was planned as a set of four subsequent workshops ( two more business - focussed and two more IT focused workshops ) . The participants were not divided into different groups because there was no need : the challenge topic was not to big and there were not too many participants ( approx . 10 ) . With every workshop , the participants were diving deeper and deeper into solution finding and its refinement . For the first session , a basic picture of the new business flow was prepared and loaded into the MIRO board . Access was granted to all participants and the link provided a couple of days before the workshop in case the participants wanted to look and prepare themselves for the workshop . The first draft of the new flow was generated based on information that was gathered from the end users ( the ones for whom the solution is targeted ) but also by taking the relevant part of the company strategy into consideration . This preparation work was executed by a smaller number of persons – let ’s call them ‘ the core team ’ ( not all involved participants ) . The draft of the new flow did not contain too many details . We also put a couple of boxes with ‘ errors ’ or wrong wording in order to trigger discussions . In the first workshop , we started to discuss the draft of the new flow . After setting the scene and explaining the goal of the first workshop , active discussion started immediately . We started to ask questions like : 1 ) Do you understand why we put the picture exactly like this ? 2 ) How does this fit into your goals and roadmap ? 3 ) Is something missing ? 4 ) What would you ‘ draw ’ differently ? Why ? 5 ) Did we forget something important ? Having a picture in front of people immediately starts the thinking process and triggers comments , feedbacks , inputs , etc . As questions arisen and answers were provided , we started to adapt the ‘ picture ’ : change the wording of the boxes , add missing boxes and move them around . Thanks to the tool capabilities , the persons that felt ‘ called to do the changes ’ were able to this themselves , directly in the tool . The changes were live and immediately visible to all . After the workshop , the core team did the last updates to add the changes the changes that were not yet reflected in the board . This was done based on notes recorded by the ‘ core team ’ . Participants got informed that the MIRO board is now finally updated with workshop # 1 results and further changes can be added . The second workshop started based on the last version of the picture . We first did a recap of workshop # 1 results and all changes done between the two workshops were made clear and explained to the group . We then asked the group to dive into the boxes . We went one by one and asked following questions : 1 ) To refine the box description 2 ) Are the dependencies between the boxes correct ? 3 ) What should we add ? 4 ) Imagine this scenario : when x would do y , what would you line to happen ? Similar as in workshop # 1 , answers , inputs to the questions resulted in changes and refinement of the boxes and the changes were immediately reflected in the board . The proceeding for the IT focused worskhops ( # 3 and # 4 ) was exactly the same , only the boxes were no business process boxes but It system and IT subsystem boxes … After workshop # 4 , we got a good representation of what will the new flow look like and which IT systems will enable the new flow and what needs to be implemented first . INSIGHT & APPROACH ( 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 ) . ( Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool you selected or a different one - - and the reason(s ) why ) . - The new flow spreads across three different business units and the knowledge about the single business areas is different . This fact had a couple of very positive effects : - The non - experts were asking questions about , sometimes also very simple , things . The answers helped to bring everybody on the same page and make sure that all in the ‘ room ’ are on the same page , have the same understanding and speak the same language . - Intentional usage of ‘ errors ’ and wrong wording showed good results : it looks like people notice fast when something is not correct or does not suit them . - The tool that allows that everybody can write – change , thus actively contribute , increases the motivation and engagement of the persons involved . - The real time changes allowed the participants to immediately get a new picture that then triggered a new or different thinking process . - Everybody was on the same page during the whole time and everybody had the same level of information ; information was shared equally among all . - Early and transparent involvement of all parties was very beneficial . A shared understanding and commitment was achieved thanks to this fact . Next time I would use a very similar approach – we had very good results that were achieved in a fast and efficient way . One thing could eventually be improved : the specific questions to the exerts could be prepared even better ( e.g. more questions ) .