Figures 14A-14B. After the crit, uncertain of what to do, we wanted to validate our assumptions or identify potential new opportunities. To do this, we collectively determined potential user groups and then individually researched one to create a persona and a user journey of their current state for that group. We hoped that these outputs would allow for more rigorous evaluation of our ideas in context.
Figure 14C. I researched low-income city dwellers to create Elena. By studying Elena I hoped to uncover opportunities for GroMobile (convenient, affordable, hydroponically grown produce) to better meet her needs.
Figure 14D. In my researching food poverty to create Elena, I found that even if we controlled for access to, and the affordability of high-quality organic food, people still eat poorly. Food choice is incredibly complex and shaped by innumerable factors, just some of which are shown here.
As such, I struggled to create a journey for Elena, instead opting for scribbling "what if" all over the paper. What if she manages to grab groceries, pick up her kids, and cook dinner, but one of her kids decides he doesn't like what she cooked that night? Or doesn't "feel" like eating that? With this exercise, we had strayed beyond our original intent with GroMobile (to improve urban food production efficiency) in order to incorporate features that solve everything for everyone. We were doing too much.
Our research into inefficient food production uncovered links to research into food deserts, poverty, biology, diet and nutrition, socioeconomic disparities, education levels, etc. A targeted solution designed specifically for one of these challenges may have unintended consequences in the other areas. There are too many other factors involved that we can't even predict.