Design Thinking: Final Assignment

Challenge – I was leading a team before of technical people who are managing also their own individual  section’s operations composed of both relatively young scientists and personnel who are in the company  for a number of years. We were in a phase of several changes happening both in the organization’s  composition, regulatory requirements and scientific developments. My team’s challenge at that moment  was to identify actions to steer the whole team towards all these changes and developments, ensure  sustainability of operations in terms of manpower, compliance to both regulations and standards, and  technical developments.

Selection – For this particular challenge, we identified mind mapping tool to help us with the process of  sorting through all the available information with the team, identify interconnecting factors across the  different section operations and various changes and developments within the organization and outside  which may affect the team as well.  From the video lecture of Professor Moore, the mind map is not to show  your mind only but the minds of all your customers, look for patterns and themes in your data – in this case,  the mind map will show the minds of all stakeholders of the team.

Application – We applied the mind mapping tool in two phases to manage effectively the discussion in a  smaller team. The first phase involved all the stakeholders per section, 10 to 15 people which include  section manager, section scientists, section personnel.  My observation then was that the personnel were  usually more open and freer to voice out opinions and suggestions when in a smaller group and among  common team members, hence the two-phase approach to the activity. The second phase involved mind  map activity for 20-25 people representing per section and other stakeholders of the team. The second  phase included the output of each sections, provided by the section manager and two or three section  members, and the discussion among stakeholders present for the second phase. Each mind mapping  activity was structured for each stakeholder to identify available information (economic, political,  technology, legal, environment, institutional) and factors to consider that may affect the team’s financial,  customer, process, and learning and growth aspects.  All were provided with post-its and given ample time  to put “their minds with no restrictions” on the maps with identified “column-topics”.  A team discussion was  then conducted to find connections, bridge or clarify information/opinions shared, and group together  “common themes”.

Insight - From this mind mapping exercise, the team was able to put together “all the minds” of stakeholders  and create a wholistic map that better served us towards the next step of addressing the challenge.  When  faced with so many information and factors to consider in order to address a particular challenge, it tends  to become overwhelming with a tendency to focus only on one obvious aspect, and risk losing valuable  perspectives of other stakeholders of the team and of the process.  After the mind mapping activity, the  group was able to show more their engagement in coming up with suggested actions and programs to  address negative effects, sustain good areas and innovate amidst the various changes and developments  in the organization and its peripheries.

Approach – In the next application of mind mapping tool, I think it may be better to invite members of the  other division of the organization to have an “outsider” perspective during discussion or get advance  information/input/insights from others through interview in order to get “outsider perspectives” and then  incorporate these during mind mapping activity and discussion.


Design Thinking : Final Assignment Challenge – I was leading a team before of technical people who are managing also their own individual section ’s operations composed of both relatively young scientists and personnel who are in the company for a number of years . We were in a phase of several changes happening both in the organization ’s composition , regulatory requirements and scientific developments . My team ’s challenge at that moment was to identify actions to steer the whole team towards all these changes and developments , ensure sustainability of operations in terms of manpower , compliance to both regulations and standards , and technical developments . Selection – For this particular challenge , we identified mind mapping tool to help us with the process of sorting through all the available information with the team , identify interconnecting factors across the different section operations and various changes and developments within the organization and outside which may affect the team as well . From the video lecture of Professor Moore , the mind map is not to show your mind only but the minds of all your customers , look for patterns and themes in your data – in this case , the mind map will show the minds of all stakeholders of the team . Application – We applied the mind mapping tool in two phases to manage effectively the discussion in a smaller team . The first phase involved all the stakeholders per section , 10 to 15 people which include section manager , section scientists , section personnel . My observation then was that the personnel were usually more open and freer to voice out opinions and suggestions when in a smaller group and among common team members , hence the two - phase approach to the activity . The second phase involved mind map activity for 20 - 25 people representing per section and other stakeholders of the team . The second phase included the output of each sections , provided by the section manager and two or three section members , and the discussion among stakeholders present for the second phase . Each mind mapping activity was structured for each stakeholder to identify available information ( economic , political , technology , legal , environment , institutional ) and factors to consider that may affect the team ’s financial , customer , process , and learning and growth aspects . All were provided with post - its and given ample time to put “ their minds with no restrictions ” on the maps with identified “ column - topics ” . A team discussion was then conducted to find connections , bridge or clarify information / opinions shared , and group together “ common themes ” . Insight - From this mind mapping exercise , the team was able to put together “ all the minds ” of stakeholders and create a wholistic map that better served us towards the next step of addressing the challenge . When faced with so many information and factors to consider in order to address a particular challenge , it tends to become overwhelming with a tendency to focus only on one obvious aspect , and risk losing valuable perspectives of other stakeholders of the team and of the process . After the mind mapping activity , the group was able to show more their engagement in coming up with suggested actions and programs to address negative effects , sustain good areas and innovate amidst the various changes and developments in the organization and its peripheries . Approach – In the next application of mind mapping tool , I think it may be better to invite members of the other division of the organization to have an “ outsider ” perspective during discussion or get advance information / input / insights from others through interview in order to get “ outsider perspectives ” and then incorporate these during mind mapping activity and discussion .