Challenge:

I am a consultant and was brought in by a client to improve their new product development testing  process. They had issues with three key areas in the development process. They had trouble forecasting  resources, tracking test samples and reporting test lab performance. Many departments were involved  in the testing process including design engineering, project management, information technology (IT)  and test engineering. There were already established processes that were sub-optimized.  Most of the  processes were not documented and people could describe their role but not the entire process.  I had  one month to define the overall problem they were facing and gain cross-functional approval for  potential solutions.

Selection:

I selected the visualization tool to address this challenge because of the complexity. There were so many  steps to the process it was hard to follow verbally. Most of the users of the process did not understand  the complete scope. They knew the parts they were involved with but not the entire system. In the  visualization video from week 1, Angela Myer suggested using this tool as non-verbal way show people  what you are thinking. Once people know what you are thinking, you are more likely to achieve a sense  of agreement.  Agreement is key to gaining approval for the potential solutions.

Application:

To create the visualizations, I needed to understand the new product development testing process  myself.  I met with key stakeholders and used MS Visio on a screen and started creating a process flow  diagram using their input. When the process went beyond the knowledge of the stakeholders, I  scheduled meetings with subject matter experts for those areas. Once the entire process was mapped, I  shared it and made updates accordingly.

Once the current state process was mapped, I used the process map visualization to identify issues.  I  numbered each step in the process. We then walked through each step and listed issues encountered to  get a complete picture of the problems.

Insights:

Mapping the process and sharing it with the team opened a lot of people’s eyes on how big and complex  the process was.  It also made us realize there was more to the problem than fixing the initial issues  identified. It also got IT more involved in the problem-solving process since they were never involved  with testing new products. They supported the software but did not know how it was used and its  positive and negative impacts. Having a visual also created a common reference point and alignment  that allowed people to communicate more effectively.  Finally, it helped create a common purpose to  move forward with solutions.

Approach:

Next time I would use the same visualization tools because it did an excellent job gaining agreement on  how the process worked. To improve on this, I would get more people involved early in the mapping

process. I had to continually correct/refine the map every time someone was added to the team. If they  were involved at the onset, it would have taken fewer iterations and less time.


Challenge : I am a consultant and was brought in by a client to improve their new product development testing process . They had issues with three key areas in the development process . They had trouble forecasting resources , tracking test samples and reporting test lab performance . Many departments were involved in the testing process including design engineering , project management , information technology ( IT ) and test engineering . There were already established processes that were sub - optimized . Most of the processes were not documented and people could describe their role but not the entire process . I had one month to define the overall problem they were facing and gain cross - functional approval for potential solutions . Selection : I selected the visualization tool to address this challenge because of the complexity . There were so many steps to the process it was hard to follow verbally . Most of the users of the process did not understand the complete scope . They knew the parts they were involved with but not the entire system . In the visualization video from week 1 , Angela Myer suggested using this tool as non - verbal way show people what you are thinking . Once people know what you are thinking , you are more likely to achieve a sense of agreement . Agreement is key to gaining approval for the potential solutions . Application : To create the visualizations , I needed to understand the new product development testing process myself . I met with key stakeholders and used MS Visio on a screen and started creating a process flow diagram using their input . When the process went beyond the knowledge of the stakeholders , I scheduled meetings with subject matter experts for those areas . Once the entire process was mapped , I shared it and made updates accordingly . Once the current state process was mapped , I used the process map visualization to identify issues . I numbered each step in the process . We then walked through each step and listed issues encountered to get a complete picture of the problems . Insights : Mapping the process and sharing it with the team opened a lot of people ’s eyes on how big and complex the process was . It also made us realize there was more to the problem than fixing the initial issues identified . It also got IT more involved in the problem - solving process since they were never involved with testing new products . They supported the software but did not know how it was used and its positive and negative impacts . Having a visual also created a common reference point and alignment that allowed people to communicate more effectively . Finally , it helped create a common purpose to move forward with solutions . Approach : Next time I would use the same visualization tools because it did an excellent job gaining agreement on how the process worked . To improve on this , I would get more people involved early in the mapping process . I had to continually correct / refine the map every time someone was added to the team . If they were involved at the onset , it would have taken fewer iterations and less time .