Challenge  The software company I work for has been wanting to introduce design thinking into the  software development process for the last two years. The introduction has been slow and  unconvincing. One big issue has been to create a common view around what the problems are  and how we should proceed with the introduction. Some favour a revolutionary approach while  others favour an evolutionary approach.    Conversations and meetings often go in circles around what each party involves wishes the  future design-driven organisation should look like. Very little time is spent on how we get there  or what should be the next step.     Selection  The mind mapping tool was selected to try and bring together all the ideas, observations, and  understanding of what has gone wrong around in the organisation. As the video on mind- mapping states “Mind mapping is more intuitive. It's more creative. It's more visual, and it's more  engaging.” The hope is that with a shared mind map the cooperative drawing will bring people  together around a common view of the what are the current problems as well as assets and  opportunities.    Creating a common view seems especially important in this case as one of the biggest issues is  that people are currently working independently from each other. They have different views and  information that would do well to be brought together.     Application  We applied mind-mapping in two ways. First we did a rather traditional mind mapping where we  accumulated an inventory of facts and observations. It created as is presented in module 2 a  sort of “yard sale” information.

We then took this collection of loosely related information and created a second mind map. This  one was a less traditional mind-map that tries to relate results/objectives we think we need to  accomplish to reach a better design-driven work environment.

The diagram tries to map the agreed key results we need to work on; the order in which we  think we should work on them; the value (improvement) each will deliver; and the critical path to  follow. It does not explain how or what we will do to reach each objective. This we think is what  we will do in the next phase of the process when we attack the “what if” phase of the design  thinking process.    Insight & Approach  The first mind map allowed all the issues to be unified into one single view. It also allowed to  establish common ground around understanding. Further it allowed for everyone to realise the  complexity of the problem at hand. Where as before each participant’s views were isolated, now  brought together the complexity and depth became clear.    The second mind map allowed us to agree on the value, the importance, and the priority of  different aspects of the problem to solve. It helped overcome some of the issues with traditional  mind-maps which only show information hierarchies.     This approach helps bringing a lot of information together very quickly, but it is hard to keep  everyone thinking only about “what is” and not already propose “what if” or solution-oriented  statements. The second mind map was an attempt to alleviate this frustration and make some  kind of statement about views already held about how we should go forward without going into  details.

Overall, the mind map approach forced collaboration into a single picture all the views that were  opposing each other before. There is a risk that this is a bit artificial, but we will find out in the  next phase if we manage to build on top of this new common view of what is.    In conclusion, I feel that mind mapping  tool are good to bring many people together around a  problem where it is important to collect information quickly without getting bogged down in  details or having to resolve any conflicting or competing ideas and information.


Challenge The software company I work for has been wanting to introduce design thinking into the software development process for the last two years . The introduction has been slow and unconvincing . One big issue has been to create a common view around what the problems are and how we should proceed with the introduction . Some favour a revolutionary approach while others favour an evolutionary approach . Conversations and meetings often go in circles around what each party involves wishes the future design - driven organisation should look like . Very little time is spent on how we get there or what should be the next step . Selection The mind mapping tool was selected to try and bring together all the ideas , observations , and understanding of what has gone wrong around in the organisation . As the video on mind- mapping states “ Mind mapping is more intuitive . It 's more creative . It 's more visual , and it 's more engaging . ” The hope is that with a shared mind map the cooperative drawing will bring people together around a common view of the what are the current problems as well as assets and opportunities . Creating a common view seems especially important in this case as one of the biggest issues is that people are currently working independently from each other . They have different views and information that would do well to be brought together . Application We applied mind - mapping in two ways . First we did a rather traditional mind mapping where we accumulated an inventory of facts and observations . It created as is presented in module 2 a sort of “ yard sale ” information . We then took this collection of loosely related information and created a second mind map . This one was a less traditional mind - map that tries to relate results / objectives we think we need to accomplish to reach a better design - driven work environment . The diagram tries to map the agreed key results we need to work on ; the order in which we think we should work on them ; the value ( improvement ) each will deliver ; and the critical path to follow . It does not explain how or what we will do to reach each objective . This we think is what we will do in the next phase of the process when we attack the “ what if ” phase of the design thinking process . Insight & Approach The first mind map allowed all the issues to be unified into one single view . It also allowed to establish common ground around understanding . Further it allowed for everyone to realise the complexity of the problem at hand . Where as before each participant ’s views were isolated , now brought together the complexity and depth became clear . The second mind map allowed us to agree on the value , the importance , and the priority of different aspects of the problem to solve . It helped overcome some of the issues with traditional mind - maps which only show information hierarchies . This approach helps bringing a lot of information together very quickly , but it is hard to keep everyone thinking only about “ what is ” and not already propose “ what if ” or solution - oriented statements . The second mind map was an attempt to alleviate this frustration and make some kind of statement about views already held about how we should go forward without going into details . Overall , the mind map approach forced collaboration into a single picture all the views that were opposing each other before . There is a risk that this is a bit artificial , but we will find out in the next phase if we manage to build on top of this new common view of what is . In conclusion , I feel that mind mapping tool are good to bring many people together around a problem where it is important to collect information quickly without getting bogged down in details or having to resolve any conflicting or competing ideas and information .