Meeting 2.0: 29.04.2015
Our PickUsUp team arranged a second group meeting for Wednesday 29th.
Based on the limited time during our classes and the various topics we had to cover in order to more specifically determine our target segments, lot of work was still required and we preferred meeting up and doing it together. We think that our overall performance is more efficient when the various ideas can be discussed together. As a result, the outputs are more elaborated and structured since every group element feels that he/she took part in the process. In our opinion, this type of collaboration is one of the most important advantages of a group work, and we believe that our group is a good example of it in this project.
After making our “To Do” list for the meeting and distributing tasks, every member of the group started to work on his/her own or in pairs, even though asking for the others’ opinion if any doubt surfaced was required. We believe that by distributing the tasks and being able to ask for input from the others, our group meeting would be less time consuming than the last one, when we had worked through all our “to dos” together. We tried to distribute our tasks based on the role that had been allocated to the various group elements in the beginning. However, we had already agreed on preparing individually for the different topics that we would cover in the meeting.
Everyone was supposed to reflect about the empathy map already created for Pedro, and to bring their ideas for Fernando’s. This approach worked and, although the discussion was a little time consuming, we believe that we found the best possible characterization of our segment. We encountered some challenges since different members of our team thought about different environments for the same customer (Fernando could be in a dinner with his family or in a club with old friends; and in both situations he is a potential customer for us). We were discussing whether this meant we should split our older segment in two segments or whether we were just encountering two different behaviors of the same segment. These inconsistencies were an issue of internal communication since we had more or less the same approach for the target segment, just little details were different and we had to work through them. This is a typical occurrence in group works, we believe, and it is good that everyone recognizes their existence so that all can correct their behavior in the future.
Afterwards, when the two Empathy Maps were finished, we were missing the ‘Consumer Persona’ and ‘A Day in a Life’ for each segment, as well as the interview scripts.
While the various group members were working on these tasks, our Hacker completed the blog with missing parts and the information that we had decided on during the meeting based on the feedback we had gotten during the last class (we included a landing page and the presentations of each week). One of the group member researched creative content and news suitable to our topic. Two group members were elaborating the ‘Consumer Persona’ and ‘A Day in a Life’. Another group member worked on building the interview script taking into consideration the most important hypotheses to be tested and we made an effort to do it in an easy, objective and structured way. The objective was to cover all the aspects that could help us gaining insights for the validation of our hypotheses.
Finally, we wrote some emails both to potential suppliers (scooter companies) asking for more information, and also to the Portuguese government (Ministry of Internal Administration), explaining our new concept and asking if they were interested in partnership agreement to promote the service.
