Social enterprise thinking prioritizes people and the planet over shareholder gain, operating through a human-centered design approach and design thinking process. Social enterprises span every industry and can be funded by various means, provided they generate revenue while creating a positive impact. AOS's project goal is intrinsically human-focused with a substantial social component, which led to the use of social enterprise thinking in developing a solution for AOS
With a clear understanding of AOS's ideal user, we developed a problem statement to define the design challenge. Utilizing a Point of View (POV) framework, we crafted an actionable problem statement that ensures the solution aligns with both user needs and client expectations.
To address the userβs problem, we identified common traits and challenges among the personas, forming the user portion of the POV framework. We detailed each persona's primary needs and explored their central motivations, resulting in a comprehensive problem statement that targets key user requirements and motivations.
To address the userβs problem, we identified common traits and challenges among the personas, forming the user portion of the POV framework. We detailed each persona's primary needs and explored their central motivations, resulting in a comprehensive problem statement that targets key user requirements and motivations.
A brainstorming exercise was conducted to generate potential solutions for the identified problem. The session began by framing the problem statement as a "how might we" question to stimulate open-ended thinking. An affinity mapping session followed to organize and refine the ideas into actionable solutions.
The session generated numerous ideas and product features. While many addressed aspects of the problem, none fully met both the client's and users' needs.
Ideas were grouped into similar and complementary concepts, which were then labeled and documented. This process formed the basis for potential product solutions.
The focus was on developing cohesive solutions that addressed both functional aspects and user needs.
The session generated numerous ideas and product features. While many addressed aspects of the problem, none fully met both the client's and users' needs.
Ideas were grouped into similar and complementary concepts, which were then labeled and documented. This process formed the basis for potential product solutions.
The focus was on developing cohesive solutions that addressed both functional aspects and user needs.
The prioritization exercise aimed to refine our list of potential solutions and identify the most viable ones. Each solution was rated and plotted on a prioritization grid to visualize the best options for implementation.
Over five potential solutions were generated. Each was rated on a scale from 1 to 5 for both risk and value, with 5 indicating the highest level of risk or value.
The solutions were plotted on a prioritization grid, categorizing them into four zones: the Challenge Zone (high value, high risk) with two solutions; the Reconsider Zone (low value, high risk) with one solution; the Possible Zone (low value, low risk) with two solutions; and the Implementation Zone (high value, low risk) with three solutions deemed most promising for development.
Solutions in the implementation zone were prioritized based on their balance of value and risk. Solutions with a value of 4 to 5 were considered critical for effectively addressing poverty, while those with a risk range of 2 to 1 were acceptable due to straightforward outcomes if implemented. Thus, three solutions emerged as the most promising for development.
Over five potential solutions were generated. Each was rated on a scale from 1 to 5 for both risk and value, with 5 indicating the highest level of risk or value.
The solutions were plotted on a prioritization grid, categorizing them into four zones: the Challenge Zone (high value, high risk) with two solutions; the Reconsider Zone (low value, high risk) with one solution; the Possible Zone (low value, low risk) with two solutions; and the Implementation Zone (high value, low risk) with three solutions deemed most promising for development.
Solutions in the implementation zone were prioritized based on their balance of value and risk. Solutions with a value of 4 to 5 were considered critical for effectively addressing poverty, while those with a risk range of 2 to 1 were acceptable due to straightforward outcomes if implemented. Thus, three solutions emerged as the most promising for development.
The project concluded successfully, with stakeholders expressing strong approval of the mobile app and lock prototype. They believed the lock could be effectively produced to facilitate in-home user access. While some were concerned about the lock's practicality for commercial use, stakeholders felt it would suffice for small businesses.
This experience underscored the importance of considering both company maturity and priorities during product development. For AOS, which is still in its startup phase, prioritizing robust security measures was a critical decision. Establishing trust with users is vital for new companies like AOS.
This project highlighted the significance of assessing risks and creating effective solutions to mitigate them. While a less security-focused approach could have been taken for the minimum viable product (MVP), doing so would have heightened the risk of harming the brand's reputation.