Design Thinking  Reflection   Siew Santamaria      Challenge  One of the challenges we chose to address in 2017 was how to provide more immediate performance  feedback to our consultants in the field.  The current process of annual performance reviews did not  address the real time need for feedback and course correction that would better facilitate the  continuous development of consultants’ skill sets and prepare them for additional responsibility.    Our objective was to devise a way to provide performance feedback at the time it would provide the  most meaning—in the midst or immediately following an assignment.  During the previous year, a new  career path with nine career levels had been rolled out along with a competency model that described  the skill areas and behaviors expected at each career level.  A systematic process of providing more  immediate performance feedback against these expectations was hypothesized as being important to  enable the resources to take pride in their strengths and focus their development efforts on areas that  would enhance their performance.    Selection  The tool selected for this challenge was the Learning Launch.  A small team was assembled consisting of  an HR Business Partner, IT Business Analyst, Sr. HR Director and HRIS Senior Analyst.  There were several  ideas about how to accomplish the objectives.  Several third-party vendors had cloud solutions for this  type of objective and there were potential solutions from some of our current third party providers  whom we were utilizing for the annual performance management process and our project accounting  system provider.  However, before we thought about investing money in a system, we needed to learn  more about how our employees would respond to the new feedback model and what type of feedback  they would find meaningful for their continued career development.    The team initially got bogged down in requirements gathering, but came to the realization that  experimenting was the best way to get out of the gate quickly and cheaply and thus the Learning Launch  was selected.  The Learning Launch was inexpensive and fostered an iterative process whereby the team  could Test, Learn, Adapt, and then Test, Learn, Adapt again, building upon those assumptions that were  confirmed and pivoting from those assumptions that were disproved.  It also put us in closer contact  with our ultimate customers from whom we needed to gather important data.    While our goal was to provide a non-threatening feedback mechanism that fostered development rather  than judgment, we needed to learn from our customers how they perceived the exercise and what value  the feedback provided to them.    Application  For our first Launch 1.1, we developed a brief feedback form that could be manually launched from our  performance management system.  The form was tied closely to the competency model categories as  well as the technical skills the consultants were required to perform at the client.  Next, we needed to  select a test group.  We reached out to the operations team for data on a project team that had recently  completed a project and had logged a minimum number of hours.  They provided us with the project  name, list of consultants that charged time to the project along with their role on the project, hours  charged and the name of the project manager.

We contacted the test group in advance via email.  We told them they had been selected to participate  in a pilot of the feedback process and explained the objectives of the pilot and what we needed from  them.  We launched the forms to the test group and gave them two weeks to respond.  Unfortunately,  no one responded.    It was time to pivot to Launch 1.2.  We learned a valuable lesson from the failure of Launch 1.1; we  needed to get some leaders involved and we needed to explain what we were trying to do live before  launching into the test.  This time around we selected a project team that was delivering a project in one  of our biggest accounts.  We met with the project lead first to discuss our objectives, share the process  and feedback form and get his input prior to launching the test.  He recommended who should provide  feedback on whom based on their role on the project.  We made some adjustments to the form and  process based on his feedback and proceeded to meet with his whole team.  During this meeting he did  most of the talking, explaining the purpose of the pilot test and his expectations.  One of the changes we  made for this launch was the routing of the feedback.  Whenever the feedback was provided by anyone  other than the project lead, it was routed to the project leader for review first before going to the  recipient.  This time we had 100% participation.    Insight  Testing our ideas on a small scale was extremely valuable.  We were able to identify kinks in the process,  such as planning for the following situations:  1) what to do when the reviewer does not complete the  feedback form in the time allotted, 2) the cycle time to initiate and close the process, and 3) what to do  when the project leader is the bottleneck.  We were also able to obtain feedback on the form itself such  as:  1) was there too much information or not enough information, 2) were the instructions clear, and 3)  was the feedback actionable.      The Learning Launch was also inexpensive.  We were able to utilize our existing system to facilitate the  test and it enabled us to iterate as we gained additional insights from our test group without incurring  additional cost.  The entire process enabled us to prove and/or disprove the assumptions we made at  the beginning.      The Learning Launch was a true learning event.  It allowed us to test our hypothesis that our resources  desired more immediate feedback on their performance that they could then take action on to continue  their own development.  Despite failing on Launch 1.1, we were able to regroup and try again after  making some changes to the testing process.  We also learned something that we had not anticipated  during Launch 1.2; some of the reviewers were not very good at providing actionable feedback.  This  was brought to our attention by the project leader during Launch 1.2.  This insight alone identified a  need for training resources in the art of providing feedback.    Approach  The Learning Launch is a powerful tool.  It provides a platform for small scale, inexpensive test runs that  can be launched quickly and provide valuable insight into the assumptions as well as revealing areas that  may have been blind spots for the team.  I would definitely recommend using this tool again when  confronted with similar circumstances.      Based on some lessons learned, I would recommend making the following changes to how we employed  this tool.  First, be mindful that the tool is just that, a tool and not all powerful in and of itself.  Bringing  the right people to the table up front to collaborate is equally as important.  The failure of our first  launch illuminated a couple of key oversights, namely the need to involve a business leader in the

change process who can champion the change to the team and inviting a skeptic into the planning team  to challenge our assumptions and protect us from confirmation bias.  Secondly, our small test was only  the beginning.  We need to run more small tests and gather more data in order to confirm or disprove  our hypotheses.  And finally, we need to continuously ask ourselves the following questions, what do we  know, what don’t we know, and what do we need to know.  Then go figure out how to learn what we  need to know and keep iterating.


Design Thinking Reflection Siew Santamaria Challenge One of the challenges we chose to address in 2017 was how to provide more immediate performance feedback to our consultants in the field . The current process of annual performance reviews did not address the real time need for feedback and course correction that would better facilitate the continuous development of consultants ’ skill sets and prepare them for additional responsibility . Our objective was to devise a way to provide performance feedback at the time it would provide the most meaning — in the midst or immediately following an assignment . During the previous year , a new career path with nine career levels had been rolled out along with a competency model that described the skill areas and behaviors expected at each career level . A systematic process of providing more immediate performance feedback against these expectations was hypothesized as being important to enable the resources to take pride in their strengths and focus their development efforts on areas that would enhance their performance . Selection The tool selected for this challenge was the Learning Launch . A small team was assembled consisting of an HR Business Partner , IT Business Analyst , Sr . HR Director and HRIS Senior Analyst . There were several ideas about how to accomplish the objectives . Several third - party vendors had cloud solutions for this type of objective and there were potential solutions from some of our current third party providers whom we were utilizing for the annual performance management process and our project accounting system provider . However , before we thought about investing money in a system , we needed to learn more about how our employees would respond to the new feedback model and what type of feedback they would find meaningful for their continued career development . The team initially got bogged down in requirements gathering , but came to the realization that experimenting was the best way to get out of the gate quickly and cheaply and thus the Learning Launch was selected . The Learning Launch was inexpensive and fostered an iterative process whereby the team could Test , Learn , Adapt , and then Test , Learn , Adapt again , building upon those assumptions that were confirmed and pivoting from those assumptions that were disproved . It also put us in closer contact with our ultimate customers from whom we needed to gather important data . While our goal was to provide a non - threatening feedback mechanism that fostered development rather than judgment , we needed to learn from our customers how they perceived the exercise and what value the feedback provided to them . Application For our first Launch 1.1 , we developed a brief feedback form that could be manually launched from our performance management system . The form was tied closely to the competency model categories as well as the technical skills the consultants were required to perform at the client . Next , we needed to select a test group . We reached out to the operations team for data on a project team that had recently completed a project and had logged a minimum number of hours . They provided us with the project name , list of consultants that charged time to the project along with their role on the project , hours charged and the name of the project manager . We contacted the test group in advance via email . We told them they had been selected to participate in a pilot of the feedback process and explained the objectives of the pilot and what we needed from them . We launched the forms to the test group and gave them two weeks to respond . Unfortunately , no one responded . It was time to pivot to Launch 1.2 . We learned a valuable lesson from the failure of Launch 1.1 ; we needed to get some leaders involved and we needed to explain what we were trying to do live before launching into the test . This time around we selected a project team that was delivering a project in one of our biggest accounts . We met with the project lead first to discuss our objectives , share the process and feedback form and get his input prior to launching the test . He recommended who should provide feedback on whom based on their role on the project . We made some adjustments to the form and process based on his feedback and proceeded to meet with his whole team . During this meeting he did most of the talking , explaining the purpose of the pilot test and his expectations . One of the changes we made for this launch was the routing of the feedback . Whenever the feedback was provided by anyone other than the project lead , it was routed to the project leader for review first before going to the recipient . This time we had 100 % participation . Insight Testing our ideas on a small scale was extremely valuable . We were able to identify kinks in the process , such as planning for the following situations : 1 ) what to do when the reviewer does not complete the feedback form in the time allotted , 2 ) the cycle time to initiate and close the process , and 3 ) what to do when the project leader is the bottleneck . We were also able to obtain feedback on the form itself such as : 1 ) was there too much information or not enough information , 2 ) were the instructions clear , and 3 ) was the feedback actionable . The Learning Launch was also inexpensive . We were able to utilize our existing system to facilitate the test and it enabled us to iterate as we gained additional insights from our test group without incurring additional cost . The entire process enabled us to prove and/or disprove the assumptions we made at the beginning . The Learning Launch was a true learning event . It allowed us to test our hypothesis that our resources desired more immediate feedback on their performance that they could then take action on to continue their own development . Despite failing on Launch 1.1 , we were able to regroup and try again after making some changes to the testing process . We also learned something that we had not anticipated during Launch 1.2 ; some of the reviewers were not very good at providing actionable feedback . This was brought to our attention by the project leader during Launch 1.2 . This insight alone identified a need for training resources in the art of providing feedback . Approach The Learning Launch is a powerful tool . It provides a platform for small scale , inexpensive test runs that can be launched quickly and provide valuable insight into the assumptions as well as revealing areas that may have been blind spots for the team . I would definitely recommend using this tool again when confronted with similar circumstances . Based on some lessons learned , I would recommend making the following changes to how we employed this tool . First , be mindful that the tool is just that , a tool and not all powerful in and of itself . Bringing the right people to the table up front to collaborate is equally as important . The failure of our first launch illuminated a couple of key oversights , namely the need to involve a business leader in the change process who can champion the change to the team and inviting a skeptic into the planning team to challenge our assumptions and protect us from confirmation bias . Secondly , our small test was only the beginning . We need to run more small tests and gather more data in order to confirm or disprove our hypotheses . And finally , we need to continuously ask ourselves the following questions , what do we know , what do n’t we know , and what do we need to know . Then go figure out how to learn what we need to know and keep iterating .