Example Reflection – Mind Mapping

Challenge   Our company was hired to help a pharmaceutical company to generate innovative  ideas for developing a new product or service “beyond the pill”. They had some  strategic segments they want to serve but not which customer job or need to serve.  They want it to be aligned to the new tendencies on technology, customer behaviors  and business models (uberification, sharing economy, etc.).

It was a subsidiary of a multinational company, worldwide leader on generic  medicines. Their managers have more of 10 years in the company with no innovation  process run at the subsidiary. Their business was very stable with very few innovations  in the market, not by them nor their competitors. So, the culture was of ‘business as  usual’.

On this cultural and business context, we need to develop an activity of no more than  1 day to define on which job or pain to work to generate innovative ideas.

Selection   Because of the non-innovative culture, we decided they need some information on  what were the tendencies on health-care and how these will impact customers of the  selected segments. Also, it would help for inspiration to ignite their creativity. We  decided it would be a presentation.

After that, we decided to run the STEMP exercise so the team can develop a 20-year  forward vision on their own and engage with that future.

Finally, we needed a tool that could help the team identify ideas of new jobs o new  ways to solve jobs for customers of the selected segments departing from the  information they have from marketing, the tendencies and that they generate with  the STEMP exercise. We decided we’ll make them generate ideas in groups of new  products of services and then identify the jobs/ needs that were behind ideas. We  didn’t know it in that moment but it happens to be an adaptation of Mind Mapping.

Application

I’ll focus on this section in the application of the Mind Mapping.

We divided the group in teams of 5. Each member of the team had to generate at  least 15 ideas of new products or services that could solve a new job or could solve in  a better way a current job for the customers of the selected segments. We gave them  10 minutes for this.

Then, each member must identify which job  or need was solving each of its ideas. We gave  them 5 minutes.

Once they finished, a facilitator worked with  each team drawing a matrix in a Flipchart.  The X axis were the jobs/ needs and the Y  axis were the selected segments. All together  filled the matrix and group the ideas by

need/job and segment intersection.

After filling the matrix, we gave each  member 10 minutes to observe the whole  map and, if they want, redefine the original  ideas or generate a new one. After they  finished these exercise, they listed and rated  all the ideas the team generated. They rate  them with a set of 5 predefined variables we  gave them from 1 to 10.

Afterwards, each team ordered all the ideas according with  the group rate to detect which were the 3 ideas better rated  and had 5 min to revise the rate of any idea if they want to.

Then, each team told it’s 3 ‘winning’ ideas to the rest of the  teams. There were 5 teams, so we had 15 winning ideas.

Then, each participant rated the 15 ideas with the same  criteria than before.

Finally, the project team, 5 people, analyzed the 5 winning  ideas and extracted insights about the jobs or needs that they  address to conduct an ethnographic research.

Insight

During this course, I understood that we make an adaptation of the Mind Mapping  Tool. Not also we changed some steps but also avoid others. Avoiding this steps  implied generating a significant asymmetry of information between the project team  and the people that assisted to the workshop.

This asymmetry generated extra work for the project team but more important, make  them unsecure about the results of the workshop. Let me explain you.

At the end of the exercise the project team believe the selection of the winning ideas  had low analytical basis and felt insecure. That’s why the team took the liberty of

analyzing the needs/ jobs that were not only in the top 3 winning ideas of the day but  in the complete 15 winning ideas of the whole group to take insights and define which  needs/ jobs to study.

They put in risk a whole day of work of 30 people and the trust of the client for not  using the methodology the right way.

Approach

The next time will be critical to give the people involved in the process, even if it will  for only a workshop, all the information the project team has. That’s why if I must  repeat the experience described, I would add the gallery tour step of the Mind  Mapping methodology. Even better, I would prepare the gallery one week before the  workshop and ask the people to deliver their insights before the workshop.

If it’s done this way I identify two benefits:

1. Gain people preparedness for the workshop  2. Gain time during the workshop, the tendencies presentation could be replaced

by a reflections session

3. Gain project team on the results of the workshop, reducing the risk of

impacting client confidence on us


Example Reflection – Mind Mapping Challenge Our company was hired to help a pharmaceutical company to generate innovative ideas for developing a new product or service “ beyond the pill ” . They had some strategic segments they want to serve but not which customer job or need to serve . They want it to be aligned to the new tendencies on technology , customer behaviors and business models ( uberification , sharing economy , etc . ) . It was a subsidiary of a multinational company , worldwide leader on generic medicines . Their managers have more of 10 years in the company with no innovation process run at the subsidiary . Their business was very stable with very few innovations in the market , not by them nor their competitors . So , the culture was of ‘ business as usual ’ . On this cultural and business context , we need to develop an activity of no more than 1 day to define on which job or pain to work to generate innovative ideas . Selection Because of the non - innovative culture , we decided they need some information on what were the tendencies on health - care and how these will impact customers of the selected segments . Also , it would help for inspiration to ignite their creativity . We decided it would be a presentation . After that , we decided to run the STEMP exercise so the team can develop a 20 - year forward vision on their own and engage with that future . Finally , we needed a tool that could help the team identify ideas of new jobs o new ways to solve jobs for customers of the selected segments departing from the information they have from marketing , the tendencies and that they generate with the STEMP exercise . We decided we ’ll make them generate ideas in groups of new products of services and then identify the jobs/ needs that were behind ideas . We did n’t know it in that moment but it happens to be an adaptation of Mind Mapping . Application I ’ll focus on this section in the application of the Mind Mapping . We divided the group in teams of 5 . Each member of the team had to generate at least 15 ideas of new products or services that could solve a new job or could solve in a better way a current job for the customers of the selected segments . We gave them 10 minutes for this . Then , each member must identify which job or need was solving each of its ideas . We gave them 5 minutes . Once they finished , a facilitator worked with each team drawing a matrix in a Flipchart . The X axis were the jobs/ needs and the Y axis were the selected segments . All together filled the matrix and group the ideas by need / job and segment intersection . After filling the matrix , we gave each member 10 minutes to observe the whole map and , if they want , redefine the original ideas or generate a new one . After they finished these exercise , they listed and rated all the ideas the team generated . They rate them with a set of 5 predefined variables we gave them from 1 to 10 . Afterwards , each team ordered all the ideas according with the group rate to detect which were the 3 ideas better rated and had 5 min to revise the rate of any idea if they want to . Then , each team told it ’s 3 ‘ winning ’ ideas to the rest of the teams . There were 5 teams , so we had 15 winning ideas . Then , each participant rated the 15 ideas with the same criteria than before . Finally , the project team , 5 people , analyzed the 5 winning ideas and extracted insights about the jobs or needs that they address to conduct an ethnographic research . Insight During this course , I understood that we make an adaptation of the Mind Mapping Tool . Not also we changed some steps but also avoid others . Avoiding this steps implied generating a significant asymmetry of information between the project team and the people that assisted to the workshop . This asymmetry generated extra work for the project team but more important , make them unsecure about the results of the workshop . Let me explain you . At the end of the exercise the project team believe the selection of the winning ideas had low analytical basis and felt insecure . That ’s why the team took the liberty of analyzing the needs/ jobs that were not only in the top 3 winning ideas of the day but in the complete 15 winning ideas of the whole group to take insights and define which needs/ jobs to study . They put in risk a whole day of work of 30 people and the trust of the client for not using the methodology the right way . Approach The next time will be critical to give the people involved in the process , even if it will for only a workshop , all the information the project team has . That ’s why if I must repeat the experience described , I would add the gallery tour step of the Mind Mapping methodology . Even better , I would prepare the gallery one week before the workshop and ask the people to deliver their insights before the workshop . If it ’s done this way I identify two benefits : 1 . Gain people preparedness for the workshop 2 . Gain time during the workshop , the tendencies presentation could be replaced by a reflections session 3 . Gain project team on the results of the workshop , reducing the risk of impacting client confidence on us