Validation Process — Second Week
First Javelin Board
Javelin Board — Updated, 2nd Week.
For developing the idea under the light of Startup we began with the CPS approach, Customer, Problem Solution.
It is important to mention that the idea was conceived before the course and it made to the final of the Kick-Off event for EIT Digital Master School that was held on Rennes, France last year.
The CPS approach was implemented taking into consideration what has been learnt in the Business Development Lab. We first defined the Customer, once the specific potential customer was defined we moved into defining the risk assumptions to create a correlation with the problem we believed they had.
Finally, we moved into the stage of validation our assumption to validate that our understanding of the potential customer and the identified problem indeed existed and were correlated to derive into the solution we have proposed
The breakdown of the process is outlined in detail in the following lines.
Reviewing the idea.
The main idea in which Cookage is built upon is related to the fact of preventing food waste and helping customers to get all they need to cook a meal.
Building upon the knowledge from Lean Startup Workshop.
Along the course, we have been taught the importance of defining the customer (potential customer), problem and solution
The importance of it is related to the fact that it allows to make sure there is a customer for the problem for which the solution we have created exists.
Defining the problem.
During the brain storming session, worked on refining the problem definition, we focused on problem first.
The problem is associated to food waste as supermarkets experience the need of throwing away food that is about to expire.
This problem has been linked to the need of a subset of supermarket’s customers that lack time or experience for grocery shopping.
Identifying potential customers.
The next stage we focused on was associated to defining the potential customer, as taught in the workshop the ideal definition is the one that is as specific as possible.
In our scenario and based on actual experience from our surroundings we have defined the potential customer subset as.
· Students who live in a student residence.
This has been defined as our customer subset since we interact with this subset and we are aware that the problem we are pursuing to address is present for most of the students.
Defining Risk assumptions.
For the problem and solution to connect with each other and be of value to the customers we defined risk assumptions, this was a technique taught during the workshop and which has led to a more robust validation process.
1. Limited time to go to spend on grocery shopping at the supermarket.
a. This first risk assumption has been chosen since the solution we are proposing allows to have the grocery packages ready when the customer arrives to the supermarket, no need to go through the aisles and queueing to pay. The whole process is improved overall.
2. Lack of knowledge when doing grocery shopping.
a. This second assumption is because there are students who do not know what ingredients are required to cook a specific meal. Another item to think about is associated to forgetting an item required for a recipe, for example, even if the student knows which ingredients are required there is the chance of forgetting an ingredient while carrying out the grocery shopping.
After defining the three previous stages we worked on the validation process.
On the next stage, we reached out to student living at a student residence and who tend to go to the supermarket to carry out grocery shopping.
For this first validation process we did not consider students that do not go to the supermarket for grocery shopping as they do not fall under the subset we have defined.
Questions to validate of the problem we consider to be present were formulated and interviews were conducted, we recorded ~ 70% of the interviews conducted to have material to improve the problem and customer definition.
Results of validation process — first week.
In summary, the problem we have identified has room for improvement to become more specific to the subset of customers we have targeted to.
Thanks to the interviews it was possible to identify aspects associated to the problem we are targeting to address, items we haven’t considered explicitly. Pivot process is being considered to improve the problem definition.
Results of validation process- second week.
Based on results of first week further validation processes were conducted, the summary of the results are.
1.- Lack of Time
Not expected one — 18/41 person prefer to save money over saving time.
This means that they are willing to go to several supermarkets to save money.
2.- Limited Budget
Expected one — 38/41 do prefer to save money when doing grocery shopping.
The next item to validate is to know if this happens even if they have a predefined list of items to buy or not.
3.- Not buying the right amount of food.
Expected one — 11/15 persons are buying more than what they originally forecasted, even when they have a predefined list as they think on others when doing grocery shopping.
4.- Not buying the proper food for others. (Balanced and healthy diet within nuclear family)
Not expected one — 4/15 person only but grocery for the nuclear family or themselves, they are not buying for others or extended family members.