Reflection	
  —	
  Mind	
  Mapping

Challenge	
   	
   Given	
  the	
  ever-­‐increasing	
  pace	
  of	
  technological	
  advancement,	
  the	
  daily	
  business	
   opportunities	
  and	
  challenges	
  that	
  a	
  company	
  must	
  choose	
  among	
  can	
  seem	
  limitless	
   and	
  therefore	
  require	
  prioritization.	
  In	
  theory,	
  this	
  may	
  seem	
  easy	
  enough	
  —	
   address	
  the	
  opportunity/challenge	
  first	
  that	
  presents	
  the	
  greatest	
  impact	
  and	
  work	
   through	
  the	
  remainder	
  serially.	
  But	
  few	
  companies	
  have	
  the	
  luxury	
  of	
  operating	
  this	
   way.	
  That	
  which	
  is	
  a	
  priority	
  for	
  one	
  individual	
  or	
  department,	
  could	
  be	
  irrelevant	
  to	
   another.	
  And	
  often	
  solutions	
  require	
  collaboration	
  across	
  functional	
  areas	
  of	
  a	
   business.	
  	
   	
   Therefore,	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  address	
  multiple	
  priorities	
  in	
  parallel,	
  my	
  company’s	
  decision	
   makers	
  require	
  a	
  means	
  for	
  transparent,	
  shared	
  prioritization	
  and	
  capacity	
  planning	
   through	
  project	
  management.	
  Our	
  approach	
  must	
  address	
  the	
  interests	
  of	
   production,	
  marketing,	
  sales,	
  finance,	
  creative	
  services,	
  IT	
  and	
  Web	
  development.	
  	
   	
   In	
  order	
  to	
  address	
  this	
  need	
  through	
  design	
  thinking,	
  my	
  teammates	
  and	
  I	
  focused	
   on	
  what	
  works	
  well	
  and	
  what	
  knowledge	
  gaps	
  existed	
  in	
  the	
  existing	
  cross-­‐ department	
  relationships	
  so	
  that	
  we	
  could	
  help	
  facilitate	
  a	
  more	
  effective	
  structure	
   and/or	
  process.	
  	
  	
  	
   	
   Selection	
   	
   Using	
  the	
  tool	
  of	
  Mind	
  Mapping,	
  we	
  looked	
  for	
  patterns	
  and	
  insights	
  in	
  a	
  large	
   quantity	
  of	
  data	
  collected	
  during	
  our	
  exploration	
  of	
  aforementioned	
  departments’	
   project	
  management	
  practices.	
  With	
  the	
  offices	
  for	
  these	
  department	
  spread	
  among	
   three	
  geographic	
  locations,	
  we	
  expected	
  this	
  dispersion	
  may	
  have	
  contributed	
  to	
  the	
   development	
  of	
  divergent	
  approaches	
  over	
  time.	
  The	
  goal	
  of	
  Mind	
  Mapping	
  was	
  to	
   establish	
  criteria	
  for	
  ‘What	
  If’	
  idea	
  generation	
  to	
  follow.	
  	
   	
   Application	
  	
   	
   To	
  gather	
  data,	
  we	
  delved	
  into	
  our	
  design	
  research	
  toolbox	
  and	
  applied	
  techniques	
   that	
  emphasized	
  real	
  context	
  and	
  examples	
  rather	
  than	
  hypotheticals	
  and	
   assumptions;	
  empathy,	
  curiosity	
  and	
  conversation	
  rather	
  than	
  clinical,	
  distanced	
   observations;	
  and	
  continuous	
  small-­‐scale	
  observations	
  rather	
  than	
  research	
  as	
  a	
   one-­‐off	
  phase.	
  	
  	
   	
   Over	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  months,	
  we	
  engaged	
  with	
  project	
  team	
  members	
  and	
  decision	
   makers	
  across	
  departments	
  and	
  locations	
  through	
  several	
  means:

•  Instant	
  insights:	
  Brief	
  encounters	
  (i.e.	
  a	
  few	
  specific	
  questions	
  in	
  person	
  or	
  by	
   phone)	
  with	
  our	
  target	
  stakeholders.	
  We	
  found	
  this	
  helpful	
  for	
  eliciting	
   reactions,	
  candid	
  beliefs	
  and	
  opinions.

•  Qualitative	
  interviews:	
  Face-­‐to-­‐face	
  interviews	
  that	
  focus	
  on	
  evoking	
   experiences,	
  emotions	
  and	
  identities.

•  Journey	
  mapping:	
  Having	
  stakeholders	
  build	
  visualizations	
  of	
  relevant	
  touch	
   points	
  that	
  showed	
  how	
  they	
  interact	
  with	
  the	
  project	
  management	
  and	
   decision	
  making	
  processes.

•  Participatory	
  observation:	
  Learning	
  through	
  immersion	
  in	
  the	
  stakeholder’s	
   daily	
  activities.	
  This	
  helped	
  us	
  understand	
  how	
  the	
  environment,	
  context	
  and	
   other	
  unexpected	
  factors	
  contributed	
  to	
  the	
  stakeholder’s	
  engagement	
  in	
  the	
   project	
  management	
  and	
  decision	
  making	
  processes.

Having	
  then	
  collected	
  data	
  through	
  these	
  techniques,	
  we	
  recorded	
  the	
  responses	
   and	
  takeaways	
  on	
  Post-­‐It	
  Notes;	
  reviewed	
  them	
  as	
  a	
  team;	
  and	
  began	
  to	
  cluster,	
   refine,	
  and	
  again	
  rearrange	
  the	
  Post-­‐Its	
  as	
  patterns	
  and	
  insights	
  —	
  some	
  unexpected	
   —	
  began	
  to	
  emerge.	
  	
   	
   Insight	
   	
   As	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  the	
  data	
  collection	
  and	
  examination,	
  patterns	
  began	
  to	
  take	
  shape.	
  We	
   found	
  that	
  the	
  more	
  technically-­‐oriented	
  the	
  departments	
  (i.e.	
  IT,	
  Web	
   development),	
  the	
  more	
  transparent	
  and	
  structured	
  the	
  project	
  management	
   processes,	
  but	
  their	
  practices	
  were	
  also	
  viewed	
  as	
  overly	
  complicated	
  by	
  some	
   outside	
  those	
  departments.	
  Those	
  departments	
  that	
  were	
  more	
  inconsistent	
  with	
   their	
  project	
  management	
  processes,	
  tended	
  be	
  to	
  those	
  that	
  geographically	
  distant	
   from	
  headquarters	
  and/or	
  less	
  technical.	
  We	
  also	
  found	
  that	
  all	
  departments	
  were	
   open	
  to	
  greater	
  transparency	
  and	
  resource	
  capacity	
  planning,	
  but	
  difficulty	
   identifying	
  the	
  needed	
  colleagues	
  for	
  some	
  projects	
  at	
  their	
  outset	
  was	
  leading	
  to	
   surprises,	
  resource	
  conflicts,	
  and	
  tensions	
  at	
  later	
  junctures.	
  	
   	
   These	
  insights	
  revealed	
  willingness	
  for	
  uniformity	
  of	
  approach	
  in	
  project	
   management	
  but	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  resources/support	
  in	
  some	
  business	
  units.	
  This	
  came	
  as	
  a	
   surprise	
  to	
  some	
  who	
  assumed	
  the	
  divergence	
  in	
  approach	
  was	
  either	
  purposeful	
  or	
   the	
  result	
  of	
  indifference,	
  not	
  a	
  matter	
  of	
  resources.	
  Guided	
  by	
  this	
  information,	
  my	
   team	
  was	
  able	
  to	
  offer	
  recommendations	
  for	
  how	
  a	
  learning	
  launch	
  may	
  allow	
  the	
   company	
  to	
  test	
  and	
  improve	
  a	
  new	
  structure	
  under	
  real	
  business	
  conditions.	
  	
   	
   Approach	
  	
   	
   Mind	
  Mapping,	
  applied	
  to	
  the	
  entire	
  scope	
  of	
  departments/stakeholders	
  rather	
  than	
   just	
  a	
  subset	
  believed	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  ‘troublemakers,’	
  proved	
  extremely	
  valuable	
  as	
  we	
   were	
  able	
  to	
  identify	
  patterns	
  and	
  insights	
  about	
  the	
  current	
  ‘What	
  Is’	
  condition	
  that	
   allowed	
  us	
  to	
  devise	
  ‘What	
  If’	
  scenarios	
  including	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  embedding	
  project	
   managers	
  in	
  departments	
  that	
  previously	
  did	
  not	
  have	
  one,	
  and	
  providing	
  additional	
   training	
  and	
  support	
  staff	
  for	
  a	
  corporate	
  productivity	
  suite.	
  Future	
  use	
  of	
  Mind	
   Mapping,	
  depending	
  upon	
  the	
  objective,	
  may	
  include	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  same	
  techniques	
   and/or	
  expert	
  interviews,	
  desk	
  research,	
  and	
  best	
  practice	
  outlooks	
  depending	
  upon	
   which	
  best	
  suit	
  the	
  endeavor.


Reflection — Mind Mapping Challenge Given the ever-­‐increasing pace of technological advancement , the daily business opportunities and challenges that a company must choose among can seem limitless and therefore require prioritization . In theory , this may seem easy enough — address the opportunity / challenge first that presents the greatest impact and work through the remainder serially . But few companies have the luxury of operating this way . That which is a priority for one individual or department , could be irrelevant to another . And often solutions require collaboration across functional areas of a business . Therefore , in order to address multiple priorities in parallel , my company ’s decision makers require a means for transparent , shared prioritization and capacity planning through project management . Our approach must address the interests of production , marketing , sales , finance , creative services , IT and Web development . In order to address this need through design thinking , my teammates and I focused on what works well and what knowledge gaps existed in the existing cross-­‐ department relationships so that we could help facilitate a more effective structure and/or process . Selection Using the tool of Mind Mapping , we looked for patterns and insights in a large quantity of data collected during our exploration of aforementioned departments ’ project management practices . With the offices for these department spread among three geographic locations , we expected this dispersion may have contributed to the development of divergent approaches over time . The goal of Mind Mapping was to establish criteria for ‘ What If ’ idea generation to follow . Application To gather data , we delved into our design research toolbox and applied techniques that emphasized real context and examples rather than hypotheticals and assumptions ; empathy , curiosity and conversation rather than clinical , distanced observations ; and continuous small-­‐scale observations rather than research as a one-­‐off phase . Over the course of months , we engaged with project team members and decision makers across departments and locations through several means : • Instant insights : Brief encounters ( i.e. a few specific questions in person or by phone ) with our target stakeholders . We found this helpful for eliciting reactions , candid beliefs and opinions . • Qualitative interviews : Face-­‐to-­‐face interviews that focus on evoking experiences , emotions and identities . • Journey mapping : Having stakeholders build visualizations of relevant touch points that showed how they interact with the project management and decision making processes . • Participatory observation : Learning through immersion in the stakeholder ’s daily activities . This helped us understand how the environment , context and other unexpected factors contributed to the stakeholder ’s engagement in the project management and decision making processes . Having then collected data through these techniques , we recorded the responses and takeaways on Post-­‐It Notes ; reviewed them as a team ; and began to cluster , refine , and again rearrange the Post-­‐Its as patterns and insights — some unexpected — began to emerge . Insight As a result of the data collection and examination , patterns began to take shape . We found that the more technically-­‐oriented the departments ( i.e. IT , Web development ) , the more transparent and structured the project management processes , but their practices were also viewed as overly complicated by some outside those departments . Those departments that were more inconsistent with their project management processes , tended be to those that geographically distant from headquarters and/or less technical . We also found that all departments were open to greater transparency and resource capacity planning , but difficulty identifying the needed colleagues for some projects at their outset was leading to surprises , resource conflicts , and tensions at later junctures . These insights revealed willingness for uniformity of approach in project management but a lack of resources / support in some business units . This came as a surprise to some who assumed the divergence in approach was either purposeful or the result of indifference , not a matter of resources . Guided by this information , my team was able to offer recommendations for how a learning launch may allow the company to test and improve a new structure under real business conditions . Approach Mind Mapping , applied to the entire scope of departments / stakeholders rather than just a subset believed to be the ‘ troublemakers , ’ proved extremely valuable as we were able to identify patterns and insights about the current ‘ What Is ’ condition that allowed us to devise ‘ What If ’ scenarios including the idea of embedding project managers in departments that previously did not have one , and providing additional training and support staff for a corporate productivity suite . Future use of Mind Mapping , depending upon the objective , may include many of the same techniques and/or expert interviews , desk research , and best practice outlooks depending upon which best suit the endeavor .