Issuu

DESIGNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY BY EMPOWERING SUPERMARKET CUSTOMERS WITH OPEN DATA PROCESS REPORT

Abstract During a service design project within the field of Smart Cities and Open Data, the environmental problems related to our current food supply system were addressed. Through the use of various service design methods, and broadly applied triangulation, the problem area was investigated and potential solutions explored. The proposed service solution, named DropX, uses a cloud database, mobile technology and gamification to empower and motivate people to take action. This is done by providing supermarket customers with the information they need to lower their personal water footprints through better informed grocery shopping. The information will be provided in an easily accessible and relatable way, via the supermarket receipts, an app and a website, and users will have the opportunity to challenge each other to friendly competitions with the aim of reducing their water footprints.

Project group no.: 5

Master Programme: Service Systems Design

Members: Semester: 2nd semester

Christian Brandstrup Jensen

Nea Alina Annika Kosonen

Title: Designing for Sustainability by Empowering Supermarket Customers with Open Data Project Period: February 2015 - May 2015 Semester Theme: Design of a Distributed Service System

Marianne Have Petersen

Katharina Maria Stark

Supervisors: Nicola Morelli and Amalia de Götzen Aalborg University Copenhagen A.C. Meyers Vænge 2450 København SV, Denmark Semester Coordinator: Amalia de Götzen

Jonas Wenke Secretary: Judi Stærk Poulsen Copies: 3 Pages: 118 Finished: 28th of May, 2015

Copyright © This report and/or appended material may not be partly or completely published or copied without prior written approval from the authors. Neither may the contents be used for commercial purposes without this written approval.

Table of Contents Introduction 7

The Group 8

Learning goals 9

2.2 Existing Mobile Applications for Better Informed Shopping 34

Methodology 10 Project Management 11 Project Context 13 Defining Smart Cities, Open Data and Distributed Systems 14 Problem Definition 14 Initial Problem Statement 16 Project Limitations 16 Service Development Process 17 Steps Taken 18

1. HEAR - Understanding the Problem Space

2 CREATE - Exploring the Solution Space 2.1 Defining ‘Environmental Impact’

33 34

2.3 Segmenting Potential Users 35 2.4 Ideation 36 2.5 Investigating Touchpoints 39

2.6 Defining ‘Resources Used in Production’

2.7 Gamification as a Tool for Motivation

2.8 Defining Concept Framework 42

2.9 User Interviews and Card Sorting

2.10 User Personas 45

2.11 Refining the service concept

2.12 Back-end Design 49

1.1 Identifying Further Research Topics

2.12.1 Service System Navigation 49

1.2 Customer and Consumer Insights

1.3 Industry Insights 22

1.4 Existing Concepts and Initiatives

2.12.2 Designing the Relational Database

2.12.3 Preliminary Back-end Infrastructure 53

1.5 Categorising Research Findings 25

2.13 Concept Refinement 54

1.7 Defining the Problem 29

2.13.1 New Ideas through User Participation 54

1.8 Verifying the Problem 30

2.12.4 Motivational Considerations 54

1.9 Identifying Customer Needs 31

2.13.2 Refining Concept 58

1.10 Revised Problem Statement 32

2.13.3 Revenue Streams 61

1.6 Exploring Possibilities through Video Sketching 28

3 DELIVER - Prototyping and Testing the Service Solution 63 3.1 Prototyping 64 3.2 Testing 66

3.3 Sketching the Service

Experience With Scenarios 70

DropX Concept 73

References 104

Description of DropX 74

Appendices 106

Customer Value Constellation 74

Appendix 1: The survey 106

Role Personas 76

(Appendix 2: Survey results - CD)

Motivation Matrix 77

Appendix 3: Interview guide for farmer interviews

109

System map 78

Appendix 4: Speed personas

110

Database Design 79

Appendix 5: Existing service research

111

Back-end Infrastructure 80

Appendix 6: The result of ideation

112

Customer Journey Maps 84

Appendix 7: The result of ideation, first iteration

114

Flowcharts 87

Appendix 8: Idea spreadsheet

115

Lean Canvas 88

Appendix 9: Booklet 116

Blueprint 89 Service Outcomes 96 Challenges 96 Discussion and Reflection 97

Validity of Data and Methods

Further Research 99 Expanding DropX 100 Conclusion 101 Reflections on Group Work 102 Reflections on Learning Goals 103

Introduction This report is a result of a semester project created by students from the MSc. in Service Systems Design at Aalborg University Copenhagen. The project was created as a part of the course ‘Design of a Distributed Service System’. The topic was ‘Smart Cities and Open Data’, and our chosen theme was ‘food’. We looked at the whole supply chain, slowly narrowing into customers’ awareness of environmental impact of the food they buy. We explored the open data on different products, and investigated how we could make it more accessible and relatable for customers. This report will show steps taken and methods used in our iterative research and design process, ending up in a new and verified service concept.

The Group Our group consists of five students with different study backgrounds and from different countries. This mixture broadened our perspective at many points in the process by leading to interesting discussion and combinations Industrial Design methods. Working Leisure Management of working towards FINLAND DENMARK a common goal using service design

Nea

Christian

Marianne

Jonas

Katharina

Nutrition and Health DENMARK

Industrial Design GERMANY

Media and Communications NORWAY

tools created satisfying group dynamics.

Nea

Christian

Marianne

Industrial Design FINLAND

Leisure Management DENMARK

Nutrition and Health DENMARK

Learning goals Through this project we have striven to gain knowledge and acquire skills within the framework of this semesterâ€™s learning objectives (Aalborg University 2012): â€?Give hands-on experience on the design of a complex service on the basis of a modular platform, in which actors and competences are clearly identified, organizational and interaction aspects are planned and user participation is planned and supported.â€? Using the official learning goals as inspiration we set personal learning goals that we as a group saw fit for our semester project:

Be able to understand the nature, structure and interaction of service systems from a broad perspective. Dig deeper into the service systems and identify the actors and components and their role and influence, on each other, and the surrounding systems. With our understanding, and the use of techniques and tools acquired through the semester, we want to plan, organise and facilitate collaborative participation and interaction between the actors of the system. Have hands-on experience working and collaborating with actors/components of the service system. Learn and gain knowledge about smart cities and open data. Be able to analyse and work with open data in such a way that it can benefit and improve the life qualities of citizens.

empathize

Methodology In this semester project we had chosen to utilise a mix of three different design frameworks. These frameworks are the human-centered design process introduced by IDEO in 2009, the design thinking process used by the d.school, and service design tasks by Stefan Moritz (d.school Feb 2015; IDEO 2009; Moritz 2005). All of these highlight iteration heavy process as well as the use of user-centered, qualitative methods that will help us to understand all the actors involved in our chosen theme. A clear framework helped us to structure and organise our design process, but also to shift between different mindsets. We used the stakeholders in multiple steps to increase our co-creational mindset.

define

ideate

Empathise

In this step we gathered information about the context and the stakeholders to understand all the possibilities and constraints that guided our process. This step also made sure that the results we gathered were “true to reality, relevant and appropriate“ (Moritz 2005, p. 125). The most important aims were to have an understanding of the complex food supply system and the behaviour of actors involved.

Define

To simplify and categorise the research data gathered we went through the define step. It helped us to make a clear strategy: what problems should be solved, how could we use the data and what is the criteria for successful

prototype

test

ideas in further steps. The aim of this step was to form “a meaningful and actionable problem statement” (d.school Feb 2015). It also aligned the semester group to work unified towards a common goal.

Ideate

In the ideate step we generated ideas and concepts that provided an answer for the previously set problem statement. These ideas needed to be relevant and true to the needs of the stakeholders. It was important to produce large amounts of ideas that were later judged and combined to create new ones. We strove to use participatory design methods as much as possible, to involve the stakeholders in creating a new solution.

Prototype

We prototyped the best ideas and concepts to explore and narrow down our solution spectrum. Low-fidelity prototypes served as communication tools that eased the discussions. While prototyping, the least feasible ideas automatically were discarded.

Test

In the test step we gathered user feedback in a real-life context to be able to refine our concept. While observing the users we also got new insights on their behaviour and preferences.

Project Management We needed to limit the iterative nature of the methodology in order to meet this project’s deadline. A timeline was created, a logbook was kept, a calendar was followed and a Scrum board (Schwaber & Sutherland 2013) helped us with structuring.

Timeline

A tentative timeline was created in the beginning of the process. Based on IDEO’s process for human-centered design, the ‘HCD Process’ (IDEO 2009), we divided the process into four macro phases: ‘Hear’, ‘Create’, ‘Deliver’, and ‘Report’.

In the Hear phase we planned to conduct field research as well as online research. During the Create phase our group wanted to translate this knowledge into themes, opportunities, solutions and prototypes. In the third phase, named Deliver, we strove to realise and finalise our solutions (ibid., p. 8-9). In the final phase we aimed to focus on the report compilation, due to the firm deadline. We planned to move back and forth between the different macro phases through iterative micro processes, while this timeline only illustrates our overall structure of the process.

CREATE

HEAR

REPORT

DELIVER

timeline

Personal deadline

Status Seminar

Mid-Term presentation

Project Program hand-in

week

Official deadline

Logbook, Calendar and Scrum Board

Throughout the process our group used a shared logbook in Google Drive diligently. Before, during and after each group meeting the logbook was used to create agendas, write notes, thoughts, summaries, feedback from supervisions, etc. All of us contributed in creating the content, and we made big use of it when writing this report. We also had a calendar in our group room visually pointing out which macro phases to cover in which weeks. A heavily altered version of the Scrum method (Schwaber & Sutherland 2013) was used to help us follow the timeline, but it was mainly used in the beginning and towards the end of the process. Instead, our logbook and calendars were used as tools for planning and keeping track of the progress, steps, methods and assigning tasks. When using the Scrum board on our group room wall, the four columns (‘backlog’, ‘to do’, ‘doing’, ‘done’) were used to have control over the tasks.

Project Context

The topics for this semester project were Smart Cities, Open Data and Distributed Systems. In the following section we will discuss these to define how they worked as a starting point for the project, how the selected theme â€˜foodâ€™ relates to them and how the initial problem space was defined. Finally we will present our initial problem statement.

Defining Smart Cities, Open Data and Distributed Systems The idea of developing Smart Cities has evolved and gained popularity over recent years as a result of major, global trends, challenges and opportunities. The urban population has surpassed the rural population as a result of rapid urbanisation, with close to 4 billion people currently living in cities (Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster 2012). This number is seen rising to 6 billion by 2050 (ibid.). New cities forming around the world, as well as existing cities experiencing growth, are creating ever more complex systems consisting of a vast range of different components, e.g. people, transportation, companies, technology, communication infrastructures, as well as cultures, communities, worldviews, agendas, goals, needs and wants. At the same time we are faced with a huge and increasing threat from man-made CO2 emission, pollution, overproduction and unsustainable use of natural resources, and resulting environmental challenges and climate changes. However, we are also living in a time where new information and communication technologies (ICT) have the potential to become the tools we need to overcome these challenges. The Internet is connecting more and more people, who are constantly online

via smartphones and other mobile or wearable devices. At the same time, these new technologies and the interconnectedness is generating huge amounts of data about the immense number of components that make up a city, including ourselves. By making this data ‘open’, we have a chance to connect the different city networks and make them work together to create more sustainable solutions, limiting waste of resources, and design more liveable cities. And this is what Smart Cities are all about. We define a Smart City in the following way, based on Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster (2012): “The Smart City strives to become more sustainable and liveable, through the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Therefore it is characterised by a high level of mobility allowing people, information, capital, and energy to flow together easily, which supports innovation and creativity among its many stakeholders.” In addition to our definition of Smart Cities, we define Open Data in the following way: “Open Data is data that can be freely used, shared and built-on by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose.” (James 03 Oct. 2013) It is important to note that ‘data’ can be numbers, text, content, pictures, music, etc., and that anyone can create and release open data, including individuals,

companies, governments, NGOs, etc. To further add to the definition, two types of “openness” must be met in order to define something as truly open data (ibid.):

its current trends and challenges. Furthermore, it is inevitably a crucial part of anyone’s life, and a big and essential part of any city’s infrastructure.

- Legally open: You must be allowed to use the data. - Technically open: You must be able to work with the data easily.

Supply System

Open data can hence be summed up in three important principles (ibid.): - Availability and Access (People can get the data) - Reuse and Redistribution (People can reuse and share the data) - Universal Participation (Anyone can use the data) In this project we have explored distributed systems with a viewpoint based on the definition made by Coulouris, Dollimore and Kindberg (2005) in which “hardware or software components located at networked computers communicate and coordinate their actions only by passing messages”.

Problem Definition Early on in the process we decided to work with the food supply system as our focus for designing a smart solution. This choice was based on our big interest in the topic, but also our preliminary understanding of

Over the past decades we have witnessed a big shift in the way most people get and consume their food, as well as what they consume. We have gone from a society and economy based on agriculture, to our current service and experience economy (Pine & Gilmore 2009). The food supply chain has grown increasingly long and complex, with supermarkets, cafés, restaurants and fast food restaurants as the first touchpoint between the consumer and their food. Most consumers are now distanced from farming, the actual source of our food, and the way it is grown and produced. This development has turned food into a huge industry, with several companies collaborating and competing at various stages in the service system, with economic profits as one of the most important objectives. At the same time, companies can now grow and produce food in one part of the world, ship it across vast distances, and sell it in another part of the world. This enables companies to market new and exotic foods to consumers, as well as lower their costs by strategically choosing specific countries and partners for certain parts of the food production. To understand the underlying process, we

Figure 1. Preliminary food supply system illustration.

made a preliminary, visual illustration and overview of the food supply system (Figure 1). These trends, and the new structure of the food supply system, have brought with them a series of positive outcomes for the consumers. What was previously considered exotic or seasonal foods are now available in the local supermarket, and at a low cost as well. Restaurants are always ready to serve us anything we want, and in the case of fast food, very cheaply and efficiently. In our part of the world we have an abundance of food, measured in quantities as well as selection. But these seemingly positive outcomes come at a cost, and the food supply system can be seen as unsustainable in several ways.

Ethical Aspects

The highly industrialised food supply system, the increasing demand for (cheap) food, and the companies’ continuous strive for profits, have resulted in a seemingly downprioritising of ethical aspects of the production. Farmers around the world struggle to stay in business because of the power and control possessed by a few, large corporations (GRAIN 28 May 2014, p. 5). Focus on quantity rather than quality has led to a new type of farm, the ‘factory farm’, where animals are treated as meagre commodities (Pluhar 18 Dec. 2009). With the goal of producing meat as quickly as possible, a lot of resources are also put into producing feed for the animals (Nierenberg Sept. 2005, p. 14-15).

Food waste

What may be the biggest problem, however, is the sheer amount of food that is wasted throughout the food supply system. Parfitt et al. (16 Aug. 2010) make a distinction between ‘food loss’, which takes place during production, post-harvest and processing, and ‘food waste’ which happens as part of the retailing and final consumption. However, we use the term ‘food waste’ to describe any waste of food at any given stage in the food supply chain. Approximately one third of the world’s food production is wasted (Gustavsson et al. 2011, p. 4), and for industrialised countries more than 40% of the waste happens at the retail and consumer stages (ibid., p. 5). This is remarkable because developing countries are actually experiencing

the same level of food waste as industrialised parts of the world, at the post-harvest and processing levels. Denmark is no exception, with 700.000 tons of edible food wasted every year (Regeringen Feb. 2015, p. 27). Consumers accounted for approximately 250.000 tons of waste, while 227.000 tons of food was wasted in the service sector (ibid., p. 27). One of the immediate problems that comes to mind, when considering the waste happening as part of the retailing and consumption of food in our part of the world, is the fact that many people are still starving in other parts of the world (World Food Programme 2014). And furthermore, the environmental impact, the air pollution, the natural resources going into production and

operation of the freight network, the poor working conditions for farmers, and much worse conditions for farm animals, seem even more unnecessary and unreasonable considering that one third of the outcome is wasted. In addition to this, a lot of resources go into handling all the waste that is produced (MiljĂ¸ministeriet 21 May 2014).

Initial Problem Statement When defining the initial problem statement we were not even close to having a comprehensive understanding of the range and depths of negative impacts and unsustainability of our current food supply system. Subjects that we were aware of, but that were not discussed in the problem definition, are packaging of food and related challenges with recycling, long supply chains resulting in lengthy transportation routes, pollution and use of resources, and pesticides applied

in the farming. However, the need for smarter, more sustainable solutions was already obvious. There are many different actors in the food supply system, many opportunities for closer collaboration, for making wiser choices, for limiting some of the negative aspects of the system. With this in mind we chose to keep our problem statement presented below - very open and broad at this point in time, attempting not to limit ourselves and our scope for potential solutions here in the â€œfuzzy front-endâ€? (Sanders & Stappers Mar. 2008).

How can we use open data to create a more sustainable food supply system in Copenhagen?

Project Limitations Various aspects limited the scope of this project, and some of these are worth mentioning as they affected our decisions and progress. A lot of our research has been desk based, meaning that we have gathered and analysed information already available. This was mainly done in the first half of our process to gain the overview needed. Business considerations were not heavily explored in this project, due to our learning goals. The project was more so focused on insights, ideation methods and user involvement. As this is a student project aimed for learning purposes, it has had its limits regarding time and money. We have had limited resources to e.g. conduct interviews and workshops, create prototypes and do testings as desired.

Service Development Process

In this part of our report we will present all the steps taken in our user-centered iterative process. They will be presented in connection with the three macro phases ‘hear’, ‘create’ and ‘deliver’, and will show the process of using various service design tools resulting in a finalised service concept.

empathise

define

ideate

prototype

test

Steps Taken

Theme: Smart cities & open data

Existing services research

Interviews: possible users

Back-end infrastructure

Brainstorm: food, supply chain, demand/supply

Quick and dirty interviews

Concept definition

Prototyping receipt

Initial problem statement

Preliminary personas

Revised problem statement

Prototyping service experience

Post-it reseach discussion

Word and image pairing

Revised personas

Test service experience

New problem statement

5-3-5 method

Preliminary system map

Scenarios

Stakeholder research

Prototype week

Preliminary database design

Preliminary flowcharts

Brainstorm: consumers

Target group

System navigation

Test receipt

Online survey

Environmental impact

Value constellation

Customer journeys

Interviews: stakeholders

Preliminary concept

Co-creation workshop

Motivational considerations

Video sketching week

Observations: Netto and Fakta

Refining concept

Various descriptive tools

P.O.I.N.T. technique

Morphological matrix

Database design

1 HEAR - Understanding the Problem Space

In the â€˜hearâ€™ phase of the project we conducted research on different levels in order to gain an overview and understanding of the context. We used a variety of qualitative research methods and explored our findings, before narrowing in our problem space.

1.1 Identifying Further Research Topics One of the very first things we did to get a better understanding of our chosen theme was desktop research. In order to identify further research topics, we brainstormed and noted the most interesting topics and concerns related with â€˜foodâ€™. What stood out to us was that most of the topics revolved around issues concerning the supply and demand, and interrelations between different stakeholders in the supply system. We wanted to investigate these issues further and therefore decided to do field research in selected stages of the supply system.

key! key!

1.2 Customer and Consumer Insights Price only One of the Price onlyfirst steps in our userfactor centred factor design approach was to conduct an online survey, inquiring into consumers’ grocery shopping and food waste habits. With this quantitative Most important method sought to gain an overall Mostwe important factor factor understanding factor factorof the situation, and to confirm or challenge the findings from our initial desktop research. The survey (Appendix 1) was shared via social media and 210 responses were gathered over a period of one week (Appendix 2 - CD).

Key findings Fruits and vegetables as the main sources of waste Our survey confirmed fruits and vegetables as the biggest sources of domestic food waste. 109 respondents chose ‘fruits and vegetables’ as the food they most often or second-most often had to throw out. Bread and dairy products were the second- and third-most discarded foods with 64 and 59 respondents pointing to these respectively. Based on this, we planned to focus on fruits and vegetables in this project, since taking the entire food supply into consideration was not deemed feasible. The looks and smell of the fruits and vegetables were what caused most of the respondents to discard them.

Price is key!

Main sources sources of of waste waste Main Not considered important Fruits Fruits & vegs & vegs

Others: Others: Mainly bread Mainly bread & dairy products & dairy products

Price is key ‘Price’ was chosen as the key parameter when shopping for groceries. 100 respondents chose ‘price’ as the most important factor when grocery shopping, and nine of these chose it as the only factor. An additional 65 respondents chose it as the second-most important factor.

Potential errors and unanswered questions Survey sampling The survey was mainly distributed throughout our own networks, which has undoubtedly caused a certain bias. This was kept in mind in the analysis and further work.

Important factor

The average age of our respondents was 31 years and 80 of the respondents were students. It is a realistic assumption that a lower income, generally associated with being a student, will heighten the importance of ‘price’ when grocery shopping. 46 of the students in the survey chose price as the most important factor when grocery shopping, with an additional 17 choosing ‘quantity’ as the most important factor and ‘price’ as the second-most important. However, the share of students choosing price as the most or second-most important factor when grocery shopping is not significantly different from the overall share in our survey.

Price only factor

Most important factor factor

What are the underlying reasons for domestic food waste? While our survey served to answer a lot of our questions, it also raised a range of new ones. For instance, although we confirmed that fruits and vegetables are the main sources of food waste, we do not know the underlying reasons for this. It may be connected to the general attention given to ‘price’, which can lead customers to buy bulk offers, thus ending up with more food than actually needed. Furthermore, if the monetary cost is the key consideration at the store, it may very well also be the key consideration in the home when a decision to throw out food is made. Buying food that is considered ‘cheap’ thus leads consumers to feel less of a loss when throwing it out.

1.3 Industry Insights In order to gain deeper insights we conducted interviews with some of the stakeholders from the early stages of the food supply system. The purpose of these interviews was to get a bigger overview of the supply chain, the different stakeholders in it and what kind of challenges they might experience being a link in the chain. Working with the supply and demand, we wanted to get a better understanding of how the power structure between the different stakeholders and how they are connected.

Business-to-Business Food Supplier

To cover the B2B part of the food supply system we set up an interview with the supply manager of the Cofoco Airport Solutions, Naya Gyldholm Johannesen. For the interview we prepared an interview guide in order to make sure we cover the topics related

to our project. To conduct the interview we were two people, one to do the interviewing and one to take notes and ask additional questions. The interview was also recorded for later listening by the group members not present. Through the interview we got insight on how Cofoco chooses wholesalers to be steady suppliers, how contract agreements are formed and in some cases broken. Furthermore, we found out that when working with big amounts of food and producing a standardised product, the size of vegetables and other ingredients matters. Small variations mean one slice less, which adds up to large quantities given the size of the company. Therefore orders that do not live up to the agreement are returned and/or wasted.

Supermarkets

Due to their easy accessibility, contact to supermarkets was established by directly going to them. Interviews

conducted there were semi-structured and adapted to the situation, depending on who was available for an interview on the spot. Since these interviews were more spontaneous and conducted by one person at a time, they were not recorded, only noted down afterwards. In order to satisfy their customersâ€™ high expectations, supermarket supply managers were ordering fresh fruits and vegetables every day. Due to their perishability, and customersâ€™ high demands, fruits and vegetables were often being discounted when approaching expiration (Coop 2015). Among other initiatives, this enabled the supermarkets to keep their food waste at a minimum. In addition to these insights, we gained a deeper understanding of the supermarketsâ€™ service system by inquiring into their daily procedures. For instance, we learned that most of their food products are sent from the individual producers or packagers to a central warehouse. From this

central warehouse, products are ordered by individual store managers. Central warehouses are located at certain, strategically chosen places around the country, and are shared by the supermarkets within an overall organisation, such as COOP or Dansk Supermarked.

Farmers

The farmers were interviewed by phone which made it possible for us to reach a large number, and cover a broad variety of crops and different challenges related to these. To structure the interviews, we made an interview guide in google drive, which was filled out during the interview. (Appendix 3) The interview guide resembled a questionnaire, but was not limited in the same way, since it left room for additional comments by the interviewed farmers. We discovered that smaller farms manage their waste well. They strive to be self sufficient and most of them only produce what they can sell. Any

Consumer purchase Waste?

40.000t waste

Supermarket

Restaurant

237.000t waste

shared in “detail”

40.000t waste

shared in “detail” or “Big Kitchens” 20.000t waste

leftovers are used by the farmers themselves or as animal feed. The bigger farmers suffer the pressure of the demand coming from further up the supply system and produce a lot of waste because of the high aesthetic requirements. Another point that stood out was that unpredictable weather can lead to excess in supply. Coping with this uncertainty is a big challenge for the farmers. The insights gained from all the interviews served us in our mapping and understanding of the complex food supply system. As our focus at this point lay on food waste the result was a visualisation of the overall system showing the amount of waste produced at each of the stages (Figure 2).

Restaurant

Supermarket

Central warehouse Supermarket

food

Waste? Not signiﬁcant

Wholesaler food

Packaging/ processing

130.000t waste

Figure 2. Food supply system with amount of waste at each stage

100.000t waste

Consumer purchase

1.4 Existing Concepts and Initiatives To research and analyse other attempts to address the defined problem area, we explored existing concepts as well as government initiatives and non-profit programs. Our main interests lay in resource efficiency, and the use of open data in relation to food. This exploration provided us with an overview of what had already been done and what problems remained still unsolved.

Food and Open Data

The need for making open data more usable for businesses and organisations has been recognised by the New York University’s Governance Lab (GovLab) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) who organised their first roundtable to discuss how to make “open government data more relevant, accessible, and actionable through structured dialogue” (GovLab Jan. 2015, p. 5). USDA is already providing massive amounts of data for example about crops, commodities and other agricultural topics (USDA 2015). In the report, where the findings and recommendations are discussed, six key areas of improvement for data were identified (Figure 3). These areas are relevant also for our project and the way we use data.

Datadiscovery & findability Data storage & dissemination

Data access & availability

DATA USER AS CUSTOMER Datacollection & sharing

Data quality

Data Interoperability

Figure 3. Key areas of improvement (GovLab Jan. 2015, p. 7).

Open data and food have also been in the spotlight in the recent years through hackathons and different other challenges. What inspired our work the most was the British Food Open Data Challenge organised by Nesta and the Open Data Institute. The aim of the challenge was to “encourage teams use available open data to develop products

and services to support people to make better choices with their food” (Nesta 2015). This challenge, like others, open up their data sources and other gathered research.

Resource Efficiency and Food Many organisations worldwide are working to make societies and

businesses more sustainable through providing solutions for food related resource efficiency. One we have investigated with interest is the UK charity WRAP. WRAP defines their action as helping “UK Governments, the EU and other funders to help deliver their policies on waste prevention and resource efficiency” (WRAP 2015). The most related project to our topic they have been working with is the ‘Love Food, Hate Waste’ campaign. This ongoing campaign is targeted towards UK businesses, organisations and households with the aim of raising knowledge about food waste on all levels. The website (lovefoodhatewaste. com) offers large amounts of information and practical advice on how to reduce food waste. Added to all this, the campaign also organises events and encourages individuals to take action in their own communities (Love Food, Hate Waste 2015). We found this campaign an interesting example on how charities and other organisations can take action on global problems. These examples served as valuable inspiration on how resource efficiency is tackled at the moment. However the absence of practical, tangible tools was evident. Empowering consumers in a more practical way could result in more substantial behavioural and environmental changes.

1.5 Categorising Research Findings The P.O.I.N.T. technique from IDEO’s Human Centered Design toolkit (2009) was used two separate times to map keywords and quotes from our research and create a common, visual overview. We wanted to identify areas for further investigation, and define problems, through this structured technique.

In the first round we interpreted the technique in our own way in order to adapt it to our given process status. Based on our desktop and field research we gathered our findings. To get an overview, we mapped them with sticky notes in relation to the visual supply chain we had depicted on our group room wall. The predefined categories ‘problem’, ‘obstacle’, ‘insight’, ‘need’ and ‘themes’ were used alongside our own

categories ‘opportunity’ and ‘trends’ (Figure 4). When going through all the findings one by one, we also added some new sticky notes to the wall. Green hand sticky notes were added whenever we had concrete concept ideas. They were noted down and later used to create storyboards and videos in the workshop week in ‘Video- and Animation-based

Sketching of Design Fiction’. Pink hand sticky notes were added whenever we discussed interesting themes to work with. These served as a base for further discussions. Through the mapping and grouping of the many findings, we were able to identify the main problem areas in the supply chain and see possibilities for further research. Some of the

problem areas were: high demands of the supermarkets towards farmers, weather changes, too big packagings, low awareness of impact, feeling of distance, level of food waste, etc. At this point we concluded that we wanted to approach the supply chain from both ends, working with the farmers and the consumers in order to change the â€œbig boysâ€? in the middle, i.e. supermarkets. In addition, we agreed to repeat the P.O.I.N.T. technique in a more detailed way in order to explore the problem areas more thoroughly.

Our Initial Ideas 1. Farmers sharing knowledge on best practices on coping with weather changes.

6. Making consumers aware of the different costs, not only the economic but also about the environmental costs.

2. Farmers requesting for manpower to harvest overproduced crops.

7. Guidelines on what type of food is safe to eat after expiration date and tips for storing it.

3. Farmers generating open data being used for blacklisting broken contracts. 4. Farmers sharing best practices on how to grow crops to a specific size to meet the demands of the customers and suppliers.

8. Product label translator to tell a story about where the product is coming from. 9. Database showing different stages of ripeness of fruits and vegetables.

Figure 4. First iteration of the P.O.I.N.T. technique.

1.6 Exploring Possibilities through Video Sketching In week 12 a workshop in ‘Videoand Animation-based Sketching of Design Fiction’ was scheduled as part of the course ‘Designing the Experience’. The purpose according to the course description was “to provide students with advanced knowledge of techniques and tools to represent non-functional aspects of services such as time sequences, interactions and experiences” (Aalborg University 2012). As a group we strove to use the time and techniques in regards to our main project in a valuable way. The previously mentioned ideas from the P.O.I.N.T. technique were depicted, investigated and further developed by using ‘storyboarding’ (Stickdorn & Schneider 2011, p. 186) as a narrative tool. A storyboard is a “tool designed to give a frame-by-frame, shot-by-shot series of sequential drawings” (Hart 2008, p. 1) of a concept. It helped us to describe and investigate situations,

as well as actions in a time sequence. Therefore it revealed flaws in our thoughts and was beneficial in the idea development. From all the storyboards different types of video sketches were created. Various techniques were used, such as bodystorming (Oulasvirta et.al. 2003), animatics (Hart 2008) and stop-motion (Priebe 2007). At the end of the week, after several iterations of the ideas, we presented the following video sketches: ‘The Life of a Carrot’ (Group 5 2015, a) ‘Hidden Costs Uncovered’ (Group 5 2015, b) ‘Farmbook’ (Group 5 2015, c) The feedback we received was generally positive, both in regards to the video sketches’ and the depicted concepts’ quality. In regards to the video ‘Hidden Costs Uncovered’, one of our fellow students mentioned that he had not before thought about the environmental costs of groceries, but considered it to be a very interesting theme.

1.7 Defining the Problem Before doing the second iteration of the P.O.I.N.T. technique, we discussed the themes of interest defined in the first iteration of the P.O.I.N.T. technique, and ended up deciding upon the five most interesting ones. They were brought to the same level of complexity before we employed the P.O.I.N.T. technique for each of them. 1. Weather (connected to the farmers) 2. Power structure (connected to the farmers and supermarkets)

3. High demands (connected to the supermarkets) 4. Lack of knowledge about impact (connected to the customers/consumers) 5. Domestic food management (connected to the consumers) This iteration was done in a more correct way according to IDEO’s description of the technique. The meaning is to “Translate the Problems and Needs identified [...] into Insights” (IDEO 2009). The results were valuable group discussions and reflections around each theme. Rounding off the

technique, we conducted a group vote: Which of the five themes did we want to work with further in our project? After a vote and some discussion we ended up with choosing number 4, even though number 2 was heavily considered. Reasons for not choosing number 2 was its big scope and the challenge of accessibility. Number 4 seemed more feasible for the scope of this project, and more suited for involving stakeholders in co-creation and testing. We thus moved forward with the aim of better

providing customers and consumers with the information they are currently missing about their food products. The P.O.I.N.T. technique enabled us to make a better informed decision in selecting a problem. It created a structure for our discussions and gave us an overview of the problem areas.

1.8 Verifying the Problem We conducted 40 semi-structured, ‘Quick and Dirty’ interviews with supermarket customers in Copenhagen. The interviews were conducted in and around three different supermarkets SuperBest in Valby, Føtex at Fisketorvet, and Rema1000 at Nørrebro - between 11am and 7pm on the same day. The interviewees were all adults responsible for the grocery shopping in their households, and covered a wide demographic spectrum. The primary purpose of these interviews was to validate our hypotheses about supermarket customers feeling distanced from their food sources, and the loss of information throughout the food supply chain. In other words, we wanted to know if customers feel they have the information they need to make the best decisions according to their preferences. These preferences may be related to their personal health, the environment, animal welfare, etc. Each interview was initiated and built around two overall questions: “Which parameters (e.g. price, organic groceries, country of origin, etc.) do you

consider when choosing which products to buy?” “Do you feel like you have the information you need about the different products, and that it is easily accessible and understandable (according to the considered parameters)?” The interviews were kept open and we let the interviewees guide the conversations and our follow-up questions.

The results

23 interviewees mentioned a lack of information about the products in the supermarkets. Lack of information about the country of origin was mentioned by five interviewees. An elderly couple was very aware of buying locally produced food, and the lack of information about the country of origin on certain frozen vegetables was highly unacceptable to them. Another recurring topic was organic produce. Many people preferred buying organic, and some to the extent where non-organic products were not even considered. This also lead to interviewees expressing their dissatisfaction with the term “organic” meaning different things in

different countries. They felt a lack of transparency and information in this area. Animal welfare, smaller environmental impact, personal health and taste were all mentioned as reasons for choosing organic products. Based on some of these reasons the interviewees also mentioned a lack of information about how the animals were actually treated, and which pesticides and other chemicals were used and put into the food during production. In addition to the above, one of our most interesting findings was the big difference in awareness and engagement among supermarket customers. We experienced the whole spectrum, ranging from people caring only about the price and nothing else, to the customers who regularly had to go to three different supermarkets to find the right, organic milk. We also met customers who spent several hours a week researching food, ingredients, production methods, pesticides and fertilisers online, to enable themselves to buy the products that were best for themselves, their families, the animals and the environment.

1.9 Identifying Customer Needs In order to capture characteristics of the broad spectrum of people that we had talked to and their way of making decisions in relation to grocery shopping, we created preliminary personas. The purpose was to make some rapid personas we could relate to in our continuous work with the project.

Critical Factors

To create the personas, we mapped out critical factors related to the customerâ€™s decision making in the supermarket, as this was one of the areas where we pictured having an influence. The critical factors are variables that have high impact on the existing service and/ or also high uncertainty for the future of the service (Jonas 2001, p. 76). After mapping we grouped the critical factors and ended up with four overall factors:

Convenience and ability: related to time, location, price and familiarity in connection to grocery shopping. Responsibility and motivation: connected to buying for other people, ethics, environment, local vs. global, health and allergies. Quality: concerning taste, aesthetics and shelf life of the products. Impulsiveness vs. planning: related to the behaviour when grocery shopping.

Quattro Stagioni

Choosing the factors that seemed most critical in terms of impact and uncertainty towards the service, we arrived at two main factors. ‘Sense of responsibility regarding the environment’ which relates to our overall theme, enabling people to make better informed decisions. The second factor ‘Ability and resources’ seemed to be the source of a lot of “bad” decisions when grocery shopping. Placing the factors in the ‘Quattro Stagioni’ (Jonas 2001, p. 77) gave us a base for creating our preliminary personas with very diverse characteristics.

Speed Personas

Figure 5. Quattro Stagioni with speed personas.

After creating the ‘Quattro Stagioni’ we were ready to create the rapid personas. We each got 10 minutes to create two personas, with these characteristics: name, age, picture, demographics, a quote and some personal details related to grocery shopping and/or thought on the environment. Based on these factors they were placed in the quadrant where their profile best fit (Figure 5). Having the preliminary personas (Appendix 4) visual in our workspace made it easier to relate our service to different interest groups (Stickdorn & Schneider 2011, p. 178).

1.10 Revised Problem Statement After exploring this broad problem space, we were now able to narrow in our focus. We chose to focus on the lack of information experienced by consumers and customers about the environmental impact. This led us to a new and refined problem statement.

Revised problem statement

How can we use open data to help consumers access and understand the environmental impact of the food they buy, and waste, with the aim of enabling them to buy and consume in a more environmentally friendly way?

2 CREATE - Exploring the Solution Space

In the ‘create’ phase we ideated, prototyped, co-created and refined our service concept. We based the work on knowledge from the ‘hear’ phase and translated it into themes, opportunities and solutions.

2.1 Defining ‘Environmental Impact’ After having worked with food waste from the beginning of this project, our focus had now shifted towards the ‘environmental impact of food’. This was now the overall issue we wanted to address, well aware that it had to be narrowed in at a later stage in the process. The overall ‘environmental problem’ is covering a vast range of subproblems and cannot be easily defined or addressed. Even when dealing with a much more narrow field - our food and food supply system - the environmental impact is a highly complex subject (Foster et al. Dec. 2006). For instance, a locally grown piece of fruit may seem to have a lower environmental impact than a foreign equivalent because of the lower amount of greenhouse gasses emitted during transportation. However, the locally produced option may be grown out of season and/or in a greenhouse, which requires a significantly higher amount of electricity and water (DeWeerdt 2009). The production stage is clearly a complex part of the system in regards to a study of its environmental impact. At the same time, this stage accounts for a big part of the environmental footprint of food products (IMECHE 2013; DeWeerdt 2009). Because of this, we narrowed in the scope of our project by focusing on the ‘resources used in the production of food’.

2.2 Existing Mobile Applications for Better Informed Shopping In the search of practical, tangible tools we found multiple mobile applications and websites that provide additional information in shopping situations (Appendix 5). These services aim to provide customers with understandable information on for example healthier options, allergens in the products and the supply chain. Most of the services can be divided into two groups: the ones using mobile barcode scanning functionality and the ones rating the products. Some services do not fall into neither of these categories, but work more as search engines for product information. One service, that combines product rating and mobile barcode scanning, is the US website and mobile

application GoodGuide (GoodGuide 2015). GoodGuide is a resource service that provides information on health, environmental and social performance of consumer products and brands. They describe their goal to be: “To help consumers make informed purchasing decisions that reflect their preferences and values” (ibid.). They do not only concentrate on food but also on personal and household products. At the moment the service is only available in the US and is listing about 210.000 products. The mobile barcode scanning makes it easy to review products on-site in the supermarket. After scanning or searching the product name, the user gets prompted with product rating that is divided into three sections: health, environmental and social impact. All products are ranked on a scale from zero to ten. This service is highly related to our topic as it is offering a useful and tangible tool with multiple functionalities to make better informed decisions with. GoodGuide is

however not using open data nor is it encouraging companies to open their data sources. While we were searching for shopping related mobile applications we discovered Kvittering.dk that is offering digital receipts. This service is provided by Storebox.com and the aim is to allow customers to save their receipts automatically when they are using a credit card. At the moment they have a range of shops as partners, including Dansk Supermarked’s chains. The service is effortless and offers some personalised functionalities. Through our research we discovered a variety of different shopping tools, all enabling customers to make better informed and more responsible shopping decisions. However, an effort must be made to find them and they seem to be targeted towards customers who strive to make a positive impact.

High level of ability and resources

2.3 Segmenting Potential Users The Quattro Stagioni and the preliminary personas created earlier served as a base for further discussing our target group. Having a defined target group, and a deep understanding of the people within it, is essential whenever designing a new business or service. We defined some characteristics for the quadrants of the Quattro Stagioni (Figure 6). In the following this model will be referred to as â€˜persona matrixâ€™. This enabled us to discuss where in the four areas our service should fit, considering our problem statement. We wanted to design a service with the greatest possible potential for facilitating truly meaningful behavioural changes in its users.

Characterising the Segments

People in the top right quadrant are willing and able to make environmentally friendly decisions in their everyday shopping. They could potentially be users of our service, since they have a genuine interest and care for the environment. People within the lower right quadrant are lacking the ability to act in accordance with their values. Most of the time this relates to either time, money or insufficient planning. In relation to this we talked about

- Have the time and resources to make sustainable decisions in the supermarket. - Seem to consider other parameters more valuable, e.g. taste or visual quality.

- Willing and able to make environmentally friendly decisions. - Have a genuine interest and care for the environment.

High sense of responsibility in regards to the environment

Low sense of responsibility in regards to the environment

- Neither have the resources nor the sense of responsibility towards the environment.

- Lacking the ability to act in accordance with their values (related to lack of time or money, or insufficient planning).

Low level of ability and resources Figure 6. Defined user characteristics.

developing a planning or budgeting service, but this was outside the scope of our current problem statement. In the lower left quadrant we find the people who neither have the resources nor the sense of responsibility towards the environment. In order to reach them we would have to make a service that takes both critical factors into account, giving these people a tool to increase their ability (time, resources, knowledge) and responsibility at the same time.

People in the top left quadrant have the time and resources to make sustainable decisions in the supermarket, but they seem to consider other parameters more valuable, e.g. taste or visual quality.

Target Group

The top left quadrant was considered most interesting as a target group because they have the ability and resources to make environmentally friendly decisions, but do not feel the responsibility. One of the motivational

factors for this area could be game elements added to our future service concept. Making the information available in an engaging way could be a way of moving the people in this area with high responsibility. Another interesting aspect of this group is their reason to not act upon their abilities. This was one of the reasons why we focused on these people as a target group. Working with people in the bottom left quadrant seemed to require a complex service, battling two critical factors at the same time. On the other

hand it would both be a challenge and an opportunity to create something meaningful. Furthermore, during our field research we had discovered that most people with a high sense of responsibility towards the environment somehow found the information they needed to make the most environmentally friendly decisions. We therefore decided that what fitted the scope of the project, and our ambitions, were the two left quadrants. Our objective was to raise these peopleâ€™s awareness of the overall environmental problems, and to motivate and empower them to address the problems through their food-related behaviour. People with a generally low sense of responsibility towards the environment were therefore chosen as our target group.

2.4 Ideation We approached the ideation phase by researching and gathering exciting creativity methods we have not been prior working with. After deciding on which to use, we divided the chosen methods between each other. So, one group member further researched variations, prepared and facilitated a specific method.

Creativity Session

Before beginning the ideation process, we wanted to get into the right mindset. Inspired by Balder Onarheim and his workshop at the Copenhagen Service Jam 2015, we wanted to employ some association activities to challenge our creativity. It was decided that we did not want to relate these activities to our project, but rather focus on the art of

being creative. We learned that it can be beneficial to practice being creative and bringing your mind into new lines of thought. Another conclusion was that our minds constrain the way we think, and that we often limit our own creativity with this.

Word & Picture Pairing

The first idea generating method we used was a word and picture pairing exercise. As in brainstorming in general, the aim was quantity over quality, and wild ideas were encouraged (Kelley & Littman 2001). No ideas were critiqued during the session, and participants sought to build on each otherâ€™s ideas, without getting into discussion about them (ibid.). One group member took the role as the facilitator while the rest of the

team collaborated in continuously developing new ideas. The facilitatorâ€™s most important tasks were to write down all of the ideas developed, and to help and nudge the participants in the ideation when needed, e.g. when momentum started to fade or when the ideas became too far off the guiding problem statement (Kelley & Littman 2001). All ideas were written down on sticky notes to make them easily shared, accessed and visible afterwards. As preparation, a high number of words as well as pictures had been printed and cut out in smaller cards. First step was to turn one picture and one word, and to use these as inspiration to come up with a potential service solution to our problem statement. It quickly became clear that some match-ups of words and pictures caused problems,

and we decided to continue the exercise by using one picture and two words as inspiration for each idea. The group members had three minutes to come up with, and build on, each idea.

5-3-5 method

The second method we used was the 5-3-5 method, which was our version of the 6-3-5 brainwriting. The term Brainwriting describes rapid generating techniques, which function by asking people to write their ideas on paper (Brahm & Kleiner 1996). This distinguishes it from brainstorming, where the participants say or shout out ideas (ibid). The goal of brainwriting was to further investigate existing ideas and come up with new ones. Each group member wrote down three ideas within five minutes on a paper,

which was afterwards passed to the next person. This was repeated five times until all the prepared tables were filled in.

them under different, overall themes, and made them all visible and accessible on the wall (Figure 7 next page) (Appendix 6).

The outcome of these intensive 30 minutes were 75 ideas. We went through the results afterwards, by marking and discussing the ones at least two group members found interesting.

One category was ‘labeling supermarket products’, where we gathered ideas like a wristband that senses the product you pick, or a receipt depicting the environmental footprint of your purchases. ‘Rewards/punishment’ was collected under the headline ‘point system’ along with the note of connecting this with the group of ideas named ‘Gamification’. Here we collected thoughts like scanning labels to find the product you want, making the supermarket a treasure hunt or establishing challenges focussing on resource aware behaviour between private people, groups or supermarkets. The other categories were ‘App’, ‘Database’ and ‘Farmers’(Appendix 7).

Organising and Discussing Ideas

The ideation exercises proved successful and valuable as a high number of ideas were developed. In accordance with the initial mindset and approach, most of the ideas did not turn out to be directly useful in the following process, but they all served to broaden our minds, explore the possibilities and lead to new concepts and insights. To gain an overview of all these ideas, we grouped

This organising lead us to reflect upon the ideas once again, discuss them in a group setting, and elaborate or further build on the ideas. While the mindset in our ideation had been targeted towards quantity, wild ideas and not saying no (Kelley & Littman 2001), the time had now come to adopt a more reflective and critical view. While discussing the ideas it became evident that many of them revolved around supermarkets as one main service arena. Since the supermarket is the main source of private consumers’ food products, this is also where their main environmental footprint is determined. It was identified as a place with many opportunities for getting in contact with customers, and communicating the environmental impact of the food they buy, in accordance with our problem statement.

Figure 7. Organising ideas.

2.5 Investigating Touchpoints In week 16 the second workshop in the course ‘Designing the Experience’, the ‘Sketching in Hardware’ (prototyping techniques), took place. Determined to maximise the course’s contribution to our main project, we continued working with the ideas developed during the previous steps.

Basket Concept

As we had a variety of ideas to work with, we mapped possible physical touchpoints in our main service arena

- the supermarket. We developed an idea of a ‘smart basket’, which would provide the supermarket customer with information regarding the environmental footprint of different products. We quickly realised the technological boundaries caused by the current standards used throughout the entire food supply system. Furthermore we also came to the conclusion, that by designing a smart basket we would not be able to reach our intended target group as this would require them to be active. Therefore we chose to discard this concept. The rest of the week was spent developing an idea less relevant for our main project, but still within the scope of our problem area.

Game Experience

In the following we developed a game named DropX Interaction. (katharista. com/pretend_kickstarter.html). The purpose of the game station, which is set up in or next to a supermarket, is to playfully educate the gamer or customer about the resources (here water) and effort going into production, processing and transport of food. The goal of the game is to collect falling water drops as fast as possible to grow an apple. Finishing the game fast requires physical effort from the gamer, which is intended to make her feel and relay to the effort and resources used in the food production.

The ‘Sketching in Hardware’ workshop taught our group about realising sketches into prototypes, but the biggest value was in testing the experience and how the information is received. One of our realisations during this week was that the range of resources used in the production of food was too broad to be covered in our service design project. Going through iterations of prototyping helped us reflect upon and develop our semester project further. All in all, we had a successful workshop that gave us more confidence in exploring different service aspects using different techniques.

2.6 Defining ‘Resources Used in Production’ As there are a lot of different resources used in the production of food, we wanted to explore and analyse which ones were relatable and therefore made the most sense to communicate to the supermarket customer.

Analysing ‘resources used in production’

Electricity and water are two, albeit very important, resources used to produce the food we eat. In addition to these pesticides, fertilisers, land, money to pay off workers, and fuel for machinery can be considered (IMECHE 2013). Especially the use of natural resources, i.e. water, and the potential, negative environmental impact caused by pesticides and fertilisers, were of interest to us. As we were researching the current status of use of water resources, it quickly became clear that this was a big issue that needed to be dealt with. Agricultural production accounts for approximately 92% of the global water footprint (Hoekstra & Mekonnen 2011). According to The United Nations World Water Development Report, by 2050 we will need to produce 60% more food globally, and 100% more in developing countries (Unesco 2015), and “[...] the current growth rates of global agricultural water demand are

unsustainable” (ibid.). The report points to increased water use efficiency, reduced water losses, and increased crop productivity as key elements on the road to a sustainable agriculture sector. However, when considering the big differences in water requirements between different food products, it is clear that consumers also have the power to change the negative development and forecasts for our food supply system.

Available data on the water footprint of food products

Hoekstra first used the term ‘water footprint’ in 2003 (Hoekstra 2003). The term covers both direct and indirect freshwater use by a consumer or producer. The water footprint of a product, whether agricultural, industrial or service, is defined as: “[...] the total volume of freshwater that is used directly or indirectly to produce the product.” (Hoekstra et al. 2011, p. 46). Chapagain, Mekonnen and Hoekstra, among others, have done extensive research on this topic, and have calculated the water requirements for a vast range of different food products. Furthermore, they have made the data open and available for anyone to use (Waterfootprint.org 2015). In one of their reports (Mekonnen & Hoekstra 2012) they write that: “... the global average water footprint per ton of crop increases from sugar crops (roughly 200 m3/ton) and

vegetables (300 m3/ton) to pulses (4,000 m3/ton) and nuts (9,000 m3/ton). For animal products, the water footprint increases from milk (1,000 m3/ton) and egg (3,300 m3/ton) to beef (15,400 m3/ ton).” It is important to note that even within a food category, e.g. vegetables or fruits, the water requirements can vary a lot. For instance, plums, dates and grapes require approximately ten times as much water per weight unit as watermelons (Mekonnen & Hoekstra 2010).

The complexity behind water footprint assessments

The calculations behind the water footprint assessments are indeed complex, and it is out of the scope of this project to fully explain them. However, some overall remarks on the complexity in calculating water footprints, and the methodological approach used, will be made. First of all, all of the different steps a product goes through must be understood. In case of a meat product this includes the growing of crops needed to feed the given animal. Afterwards, the animal must be raised, provided water and feed along the way, and eventually slaughtered. Second of all, when aiming for a more precise calculation, global assessments are not valid, and locations must be

taken into consideration. For instance, the feed for an animal may be grown in one part of the world, the feeding and raising in another part, the slaughtering and preparing of meat in a third, and final consumption in a fourth. This all matters in the calculation of a total water footprint.

Blue, green and grey water footprints

In ‘The Water Footprint Assessment Manual’ the water footprint is split up into blue, green and grey (Hoekstra et al. 2011, p. 2). They are defined as follows: “The blue water footprint refers to consumption of blue water resources (surface and groundwater) along the supply chain of a product.” “The green water footprint refers to consumption of green water resources (rainwater insofar as it does not become run-off).” “The grey water footprint refers to pollution and is defined as the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants given natural background concentrations and existing ambient water quality standards.” We are well aware that the distinction is needed in order for people to fully understand the water footprints of their food, and making decisions on this background, but for the scope of

this project we choose not to make clear distinctions between blue, green and grey water footprints.

Relating the research and data to consumers

The differences found in water footprints of similar products from different countries are very interesting seen from a consumer perspective. Simply by choosing to buy a product from one country, over another, a customer can significantly lower her water footprint. The virtual water content of beef cattle can range from below 8.000 m3/ton in some countries, to more than 20.000 m3/ton in other countries (and 40.000 m3/ton in extreme situations) (Chapagain & Hoekstra 2003). While the numbers in the reports referenced above should be considered highly educated estimates, but not facts, they provide us with a very valuable insight into the challenges and opportunities related to the current freshwater problems. The fact of the matter is that consumers possess a great power to impact the situation in a positive way, simply by making certain, conscious food choices.

Critical reflections

The research done by Chapagain and Hoekstra (2003), and Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2010) appears to be the most comprehensive and detailed on this topic. However, the 2003 report

on livestock and livestock products (Chapagain & Hoekstra 2003) was based on studies conducted between 1995 and 1999. The study on crops and derived crop products (Mekonnen & Hoekstra 2010) covers the period 1996 - 2005. While new studies might not provide significantly different water footprint estimates, it is worth taking into account the age of these studies. Furthermore, the data gathered from studies like these is ‘static’. Ways to gather the data in a more dynamic nature could greatly benefit the public, industries, and services, including the one being designed in this project. Considering the complexity of the methods and calculations behind aforementioned studies, this may prove to be too great a challenge in the near future. For the time being, we choose to work with the studies and water footprint data gathered in the time period starting in 1995, similar to other, highly respected organisations and digital services such as ‘Waterfootprint. org’ and their ‘Product Gallery’ (waterfootprint.org/en/resources/ interactive-tools/product-gallery/).

2.7 Gamification as a Tool for Motivation Gamification had become an increasingly important aspect of our service ideas, but since our

knowledge about gamification was not thoroughly grounded in academic research, we decided to gain a deeper understanding through desktop research. Our research related to this project did not dig into the details about the gamification phenomenon, its history and the countless studies that have been conducted around the topic. It did, however, give us a deeper understanding of the potential benefits of applying gamification, and how to apply it, in design of services. In this report we will discuss gamification through the following definition: “the application of typical elements of game playing (e.g. point scoring, competition with others, rules of play) to other areas of activity, typically as an online marketing technique to encourage engagement with a product or service” (Oxford Dictionaries 2010).

Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation

According to Daniel H. Pink (2011) an important distinction must be made between ‘intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’ motivation. Intrinsic motivation comes from within a person, when a certain action or behaviour is conducted out of an inner want to do so. In other words, the ‘doing’ is a reward in itself. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, occurs when a person is motivated to do something out of an external, more tangible, reward. Some well-known examples are ‘salaries’, a ‘bonus’, or a ‘promotion’ rewarded in relation to a job. Extrinsic motivators can be very useful when the task at hand, or a

certain behaviour, is not intrinsically desired (ibid.). Gamification can be used to stimulate people’s motivation by providing them with opportunities to win, collect points or reach new levels (i.e. “Leveling up” (McGonigal 2011)). By incorporating this kind of motivation into the design of our service we can provide supermarket customers, who are currently not engaged in making environmentally friendly decisions, with the incentive they need to start doing so.

Gamification and feedback systems

One of the reasons why gamification could add great value to our service is the fact that we, as consumers, do not ‘see’ the environmental problems, nor do we see our personal impact whether small or big. This makes it very difficult to relate to, to understand, and thus to find the motivation for behaving in an objectively positive way (McGonigal 2011). The power of gamification lies in its ability to provide users with instant feedback on their behaviour, good as well as bad, thus creating the incentive needed for behavioural change (ibid.).

Empirical studies

Empirical studies are beginning to prove the positive outcomes of well-applied gamification to certain services. Grant McKenzie (2011) addresses the business value in knowing consumers’ location,

and analyses gamification as a method for getting people to (voluntarily) share this personal information. He mentions the highly popular service FourSquare (foursquare.com/), which allows its users to ‘check in’ to a bar, restaurant, venue, etc. via their smartphones (ibid.). With every check-in they earn points, badges, and can eventually become ‘Mayor’ of a given location. Starbucks is one of the companies seeing the potential value in this model, which is why they started offering discounts to the customers with the highest number of check-ins (ibid.). Similarly, studies have shown the benefits of applying gamification to health and exercise in the creation of so called ‘exergames’ (O’Loughlin et al. 2012). Among the most well-known are Wii Sports and Wii Fit: Yoga.

there are already consumers who make a conscious effort to reduce their food related water footprint. They do so because they want to, intrinsically motivated. If one of these consumers join our gamified service, and over time come to rely on extrinsic motivational factors (i.e. challenges, rankings, points, high-scores, winning the “game”, etc.), the environmentally friendly behaviour might turn into a ‘job’, something they need to do in order to get the reward. This eventually means that the reward has to increase continuously to satisfy the users’ needs, what Daniel H. Pink (2011) describes as an ‘addiction’.

Risks and challenges

After having come up with a vast array of possible solutions to our service problem, we decided on one, unrefined concept based on its seemingly great potential. We wanted to provide consumers, namely supermarket customers, with easy access to information about the environmental impact of different food products. The information should be easily relatable and could be accessed through touchpoints such as smartphones, computers or the receipt. We considered the latter to be highly interesting, since this could potentially help raise awareness of the overall problem as well as our particular service. Furthermore, we considered some

While gamification can definitely be a powerful tool to foster desired behaviour and create intriguing user experiences, it is also important to consider the associated risks. Gamification can be used as an extrinsic motivational factor, and inspire people to do things they would not otherwise have done in the lack of intrinsic motivation. But if intrinsic motivation is already present towards a given task or behaviour, and an extrinsic motivation is added, the intrinsic motivation may disappear (Pink 2011). Adding a reward of some kind can turn a task previously considered to be ‘play’ into a ‘job’ (ibid.). For instance,

2.8 Defining Concept Framework

Figure 8. Service concept themes categorised.

aspect of gamification to potentially be of great value in our service.

Exploring the Options From a User’s Point of View

We listed the most relevant keywords describing our current concept idea, and grouped them into overall themes. The four themes were ‘components’, ‘characteristics’, ‘outcomes’ and ‘inputs’ (Figure 8). This helped to define a common overview of what should be included in the future concept. After recently having spent a lot of time inside our office, we decided to do some field observations in our previously specified service arena, the supermarket.

Our main objective for the field observation was to gather knowledge about how product information is currently communicated to the customers (i.e. how it is made ‘relatable’), and through which touchpoints. We visited two local supermarkets and paid special attention to packaging, labels, certificates and signs. The field observation was unstructured and results consisted of photographs, videos and written notes. Discussing different observations while being in the supermarket allowed us to act out different scenarios. The supermarket visit cleared our focus and the next step was to use a morphological matrix to start defining

what components should be included in the service. The morphological matrix is a tool that allows bigger problems to be broken into smaller tasks. The advantage of this tool is that it allows generation of multiple conceptual solutions and in that way increases the chance of truly innovative ideas (Weber and Condoor Nov. 1998). We broke the service concept into five different tasks (Figure 9). Inside these categories we wrote all possible solutions. Before specifying the service concept too much we wanted to include users in the service creation and discuss service touchpoint options with them.

Figure 9. Morphological matrix of service components.

2.9 User Interviews and Card Sorting The purpose of the user interviews was to get some inputs on the service touchpoints that we had identified as potential channels for our service. The interviews were conducted in the main library in the city center of Copenhagen. We interviewed six people, three men and three women in the ages between 21 and 76. We prepared an interview guide with simple questions revolving around their shopping habits and if, and how, they consider the environment when shopping. The users were then presented with visualisations of the identified touchpoints and asked in

which one they would like to get more information about the environment. One of the key findings from asking about the service touchpoint was that most of the interviewees chose the label, price tag and some the receipt as a channel for information. Furthermore, all interviewees except one wanted to receive the information passively - not actively acquire it. Asked whether they prefer scientific facts or information delivered by bloggers the opinions were split. Some prefered the scientific fact, even though this might be too complex to understand. Therefore they preferred a mix of scientific and blogger. Most people would like to keep their tracking private with the option of sharing to spread awareness.

2.10 User Personas Before creating our final personas we had a second look at the persona matrix used to create the first set of personas. Looking at the vertical line, we realised that it was challenging to distinguish between customers’ ‘ability’ and ‘resources’. Resources such as time and money are not necessary depended on each other. Therefore we changed the ‘level of ability and resources’ into ‘high/low level of knowledge about environmental impact’, taking only their knowledge into account (Figure 10). The horizontal line also created some issues, as we realised that it made little sense to distinguish between high and low ‘sense of responsibility’. A customer can have a high sense of responsibility,

Figure 9. Work in progress on persona matrix.

but this does not necessarily mean that she acts on it. Instead, we revised the parameters to ‘passive vs active on knowledge about environmental impact’. It made more sense to point out the customers’ level of action in relation to their knowledge, instead of the feeling of responsibility. To help our further work we defined the characteristics of the four quadrants. Using this as our base we started to

create our final personas. We then created four engaging personas, one for each quadrant of the matrix. Two of the personas, David and Rebecca, were considered to be in our main target group. Even though we did not focus on Kenneth and Eva in our further investigation, all personas were considered potential users of our service.

“I see that there are markings

“My smartphone is great, I

on several products, but I

just need to learn how to

don’t know what they mean.”

use it properly.”

REBECCA, 23

KENNETH, 49

[creative, dedicated, thrifty, active]

[calm, open-minded, traditional, playful]

Personal Information

Rebecca lives in Amager with two other girls. She has been together with her boyfriend for nine months. He lives in Frederiksberg with his older brother. Rebecca studies in the second year of a BA in psychology at Copenhagen University. She also works part-time at a clothing store in Fisketorvet shopping mall to earn some extra money.

Kenneth is born and raised in Østerbro, where he still lives with his wife. They have two boys, aged 26 and 23, which both have moved out. Kenneth works as a bricklayer in Copenhagen. He is contented with his tasks and cares very much for his colleagues.

Biography

Rebecca is a very busy girl. She uses most of her time studying and working, aiming for high grades and money to live for. In her spare time she loves to be creative through painting and drawing, and every time she has some free time this is what she does. At the same time Rebecca tries to meet her boyfriend, friends and family as often as she can. They all live close to Copenhagen, so that makes it a bit easier to find time.

Every evening Kenneth relaxes with sports on the TV and a good cup of coffee. Once a week he still keeps himself moving by playing football with his old pals. Kenneth enjoys when their two boys drop by for dinner every now and then. They always introduce him to something new related to electronics and have recently convinced him to buy a smartphone. As a tradition, to keep the spark going, Kenneth and his loving wife go out to eat once a week.

Shopping Habits

Price is very important to Rebecca. She shops groceries on a budget and only buys the most necessary items. She rarely makes a shopping list, as she usually has an overview of what she needs. Rebecca thinks that the information on products is often confusing, but she does not have time to do research on it. Therefore, she bases her decisions mostly on price and convenience.

Kenneth does the grocery shopping twice a week. The list if often planned in advance in collaboration with his wife. Kenneth recently discovered through a random documentary he saw that caged eggs are not good, so he started to buy free-range eggs instead. He feels that this makes a difference. Kenneth often goes for discount offers, e.g. ‘2 for 1’, just in case the boys drop by they need to have a little extra.

Digital Habits

Rebecca has a smartphone and mostly uses it for SMS, calling and e-mailing. In addition, she loves using Instagram and Pinterest as channels of inspiration for her arts. Spotify is frequently used while studying to keep her concentrated.

Kenneth was introduced to his smartphone and laptop through his boys. He does not fully understand them, but has become quite fond of the games on Facebook. Kenneth also follows his boys on Facebook and Instagram to keep himself updated. From time to time he uses dba.dk to buy and sell different items.

“I love learning new things

“Last Wednesday, I beat

and keeping myself

Lasse in FIFA and now he

updated.”

owes me a dinner.”

EVA, 42

DAVID, 31

[out-going, goal-oriented, productive, engaged]

[social, casual, quality-conscious, curious]

Personal Information

Eva lives in a small house in Valby together with her two children, a 15 year old girl and a 11 year old boy. Her ex-husband moved out two years ago. She works as a marketing manager in a fairly big company in Copenhagen and is both career-minded and dedicated in what she does.

David lives alone in Vesterbro in a three room apartment. He is educated and works as a chef at a restaurant in Hellerup. He is single, but has been seeing a girl on and off for one month. However, he is not sure if it will get serious, or if he wants it to be.

Biography

Eva is busy, but likes it that way She loves to cook healthy and varied food for her family and friends, and often invites people to her house. On certain afternoons during the week, Eva takes her kids to handball practice and gymnastics. While they are active with their friends, she uses the time to be productive. She often searches online for inspiration for cooking, recipes and information about the products.

David is very social and often has beer-and-steak-nights with his buddies. Sometimes they also play video games or just go out to enjoy the weather in a park. They are a very close group of friends and have know each other for many years. As a chef, David loves to cook food and often impresses his dates (and his mom) with tasteful dishes in his apartment.

Shopping Habits Often, Eva goes to selected shops to find certain items. She wants to create tasty and healthy meals, but also make good decisions, both ethically and environmentally. She does consider price, but the other aspects are more important to her. Eva plans ahead and believes that her decisions have an impact.

Digital Habits Eva uses her smartphone to keep in touch with her friends and family through SMS and calls, and is an active user of Facebook. Checking her e-mails is also a top priority for Eva. She uses several relevant apps for grocery shopping and planning her meals, e.g. føtex Indkøbshjælp and Karolines Køkken.

Shopping Habits David goes for quality when grocery shopping. To him, it is all about the sensoric experience of eating food. The quality lies in the taste. He does not really think about the price, and basically buys what he feels like and needs. He is spontaneous and like to experiment with the food.

Digital Habits David has a smartphone which he uses both for private and work matters. He likes to browse Facebook, swipe on Tinder and listen to music on Spotify. He most recently downloaded the app Endomondo, because he would like to start running and therefore being able to track his own development that way. He has never been a big fan of Instagram or Twitter, but he is a casual gamer when he rides the bus to his work.

2.11 Refining the service concept One of the most important findings in our interviews with potential users, was their desire for a service like this to be very easy to use, only requiring a minimal effort. They did not want to scan or photograph their supermarket receipts, or in any other way upload or register their purchases manually. However, if this challenge could be overcome, there appeared to be a target market for our concept. This insight had a significant effect on our options in the design of this service. It meant that we had to gain access to data about supermarket customers’ purchases, while ensuring that the customers’ only action would be allowing us this access. After some research on existing services with similar challenges, and some discussions based on these, we decided to adopt a model similar to those of eKvittering (ekvittering.dk) and Kvittering.dk. Both services offer their users the opportunity to receive and gain an overview of their receipts digitally. A user can receive a digital receipt on her smartphone almost immediately after making a purchase, provided that she pays with a registered credit card and that the purchase is made in one of the stores collaborating with one of the aforementioned service providers.

Focusing on water footprint

Based on our research we decided to keep our focus on the water footprint of different food products. The water problems related to our food supply system had proven to be massive, and with the data already available we saw some great opportunities in creating a meaningful and useful service. Well aware that the water footprint in no way gave a comprehensive image of a product’s environmental impact, we still wanted to keep an open mind to other metrics, such as the distance a product had traveled. This was reflected in our revised problem statement, presented below.

Deciding on main service touchpoints

During our ideation we had considered a wide range of possible touchpoints, specifically designed for our service. Among other things, we had explored the opportunities for attaching labels to supermarket products, visually depicting their environmental impact. However, at this point in time we deemed it unrealistic to develop and implement any physical add-on to existing products, supermarket shelves, packaging, etc. Instead we decided to focus on the printed supermarket receipts, as well as a digital platform for users to keep track of their purchases, and their water footprint or general environmental impact.

Printing this information on the physical receipt did not require any fundamental changes in the existing service systems, but would rather build on the established infrastructure. Furthermore, printing the information on the receipt would act as a touchpoint for non-users as well, likely working as their first encounter with our service concept. By developing the digital platform as an app, as well as a website, we would also have the opportunity to give users instant, digital feedback on a given purchase’s environmental impact.

Revising our problem statement

Based on the decisions presented above, we once again revised and updated our problem statement to fit our current situation. The revised version is presented below.

How can we translate and present open data to empower and motivate customers to lower their environmental footprint through better informed grocery shopping?

Figure 11. First two iterations of back-end design.

2.12 Back-end Design

2.12.1 Service System Navigation

Up until this point in time, most of our attention had been turned towards designing the service with a usercentred approach. This meant that we had focused on designing the frontend of the service, i.e. the experience, knowledge and convenience we wanted users to gain from using this service. We now moved on to designing the back-end of the service system, based on our current understanding of the front-end of our service.

In order to fully understand and design the back-end structure, we needed to map out how the basic service was functioning. We started by sketching the preliminary user journey and explored how databases could be used in relation to the userâ€™s action (Figure 11). We listed down questions that we should define later when making the databases. Questions such as how much information should be given when signing up, who registers the

payment, how does barcodes function, and whether credit card information is needed for automated tracking of supermarket purchases or not. Also some new ideas surfaced: The user could create a shopping list in advance, scan the receipt when paying with cash and registered users could get personalised information on the receipt. These ideas were not implemented at this stage, as we wanted to test and verify the serviceâ€™s basic functionalities.

To make these illustrations more understandable we tried mapping them in various ways. Figure 12 is one of the results. This however did not provide enough information and was lacking information about the flows. Later on it served as the starting point for discussing customer journeys. After the previous unsuccessful ventures, we used the ‘System System Navigation’ (Patrício et. al. 2011, p. 186) model to present our unrefined, preliminary concept (Figure 13). It included the preliminary understanding of how databases could function and how the information flows between the front- and back-end.

A. Sign-up for the service online

B. Supermarket shopping experience with service concept

0. Scan Product for Information Visit the Website

Interaction with service system

Save Personal Information

1. Cashier Scans Purchases

3. Environmental Impact is Measured 2. Payment

Mandatory step

Touchpoint

Figure 12. Preliminary service experience.

Mandatory step

Optional step

Touchpoint

Optional touchpoint

ONLINE

PHYSICAL SUPERMARKET

Customer

Service Registration

Visit the Website

Download APP

Product-Water Information

Save Personal Information

Scan product barcode for information

See water footprint information

In application scanning

Present water footprint information

PHYSICAL SUPERMARKET

Proceed to Payment

Payment

Measure Impact

See water footprint measurment

See ranking

Notify customer about water footprint

Notify about current ranking

Present service information

Service Interfaces

Present service information

Request sign-up information

Cashier Terminal Scans Purchases Present customer with water footprint

Backstage Support

Send customer information

DropX Database

Supermarket Database

Figure 13. System System Navigation.

Provide water footprint information

Save customer information

Provide barcode information

Retrieve water footprint information Provide barcode information

Send water Identify customer footprint and register measurment info purchases

Update customer ranking

STORE Store ID Name Adress City ID

SHOPPING ACTIVITY User ID Purchase details ID

Gender ID

Gender

E-Mail adress

CITY City ID Name Country ID

Purchase ID

User ID Name

Age City ID

Purchase details ID User ID

USER GENDER

PURCHASE DETAILS

PURCHASE Purchase ID Store ID Timestamp

COUNTRY Country ID Name

ITEMS Item ID

PRODUCT

Purchase details ID Product ID

Product ID Name Brand Country Description Water Footprint Ingredients

Figure 14. Preliminary database design.

2.12.2 Designing the Relational Database Digital databases are used to store data, and to safely store the data even if the hard drive on which it is stored is turned off. ‘Relational’ databases contain data as well as ‘relations’ between this data. In relational databases, memory addresses are replaced by unique IDs, each of which represents an object of a given data structure (Chiang et al. 1994). All objects are kept in separate tables and a relationship can easily be

established by adding the ID of an object from another table to the data structure, a so called ‘foreign key’ (ibid.). All possible relationships can be characterised in just three ways: - One-to-one (one object points to one other object) - One-to-many (one object points to many other objects) - Many-to-many (many objects point to many other objects)

A many-to-many relationship is the most complex and requires the addition of a new table. The new table will only represent the relationship, and within it will be stored the IDs of the two different objects that need to be connected. At this point in time we sketched out the database needed for our core service concept (Figure 14). A ‘User’ table was needed to store information about registered users, with separate tables storing ‘City’ and ‘Country’ data in order

not to replicate data. The main part of our database was designed to store product information, and information about different users’ individual and total purchases and water footprints. Designing the database was an ongoing process and our latest iteration is presented and explained later in the report.

2.12.3 Preliminary Back-end Infrastructure While our service concept was not very refined at this point in time, the core service and the key functionalities were decided upon. This enabled us to go deeper into designing the back-end of the service.

Designing a Distributed System

As pointed out in the project context of this report, we work with the following definition of a ‘distributed system’: “[...] one in which hardware or software components located at networked computers communicate and coordinate their actions only by passing messages” (Coulouris et al. 2005). This definition covers a wide range of different services, many of which are integrated parts of most people’s everyday lives. The World Wide Web, web search, online gaming, email, social networks, eCommerce, etc. are all examples of distributed systems (ibid.), and so is our service.

Understanding the supermarket’s back-end infrastructure Before designing the back-end infrastructure of our own concept, we mapped out the back-end of the service we were to built our service upon, i.e. the supermarkets. This was done based on our personal understanding and assumptions, with the service experience and knowledge about

distributed systems as our guide. However, we did have to look into one essential element of the system first: the barcodes.

The Barcode Technology

One of the most common barcode systems is called EAN-13. Barcodes based on this system consist of 13 lines (bars), and each bar combined with a spacing represent a number. The first two numbers point to the country in which the marketer of a given product is listed. Denmark, for instance, has the country code 57. The following five numbers point to the producer or the importer of the product. The remaining five numbers are assigned by the retailer to help keep track of stock and sales. (Illustreret Videnskab 24 Jun 2010) With an understanding of the technology behind barcodes, we turned our focus towards the payment process in the supermarket. First step is the ‘scanning’ of groceries, where product information is accessed through the barcode. We determined that the product information must be stored in a ‘private cloud’, shared by all the cashier terminals logged onto the supermarket chain’s ‘intranet’. This would guarantee that individual stores were all using the same data, and that (temporary) price changes were easily sent to the stores. However, we also concluded that product information must be stored on the individual cashier terminal itself. Considering the number of groceries

bought each day, and the fact that bulk buys will require the scanning of the same barcode several times in a row, it seemed inefficient to have the cashier terminal (the ‘client’ in this case) request the information from the cloud (acting as the ‘server’) every time a product was scanned. Therefore, product information must be stored and updated in the private cloud, shared by all supermarkets in a chain, and passed to the individual cashier terminals with regular time intervals or after updates.

our servers continuously or after product updates. This will ensure that we have a comprehensive database of product information. Based on the product information, our system will calculate and store the water footprint of each product in our database. The cashier terminal will request the water footprint information on a given product, whenever a product is scanned in the store. This is needed in order to calculate and print the water footprint on the receipt.

Designing our service on existing infrastructure

Cloud Computing

With an understanding of the supermarkets’ back-end infrastructure, and how it ‘could be’ designed, we were able to design the infrastructure of our own service. The key was to have the supermarkets’ product information database communicate with our database storing information about the products’ water footprints. Through a collaboration with supermarkets, we would be able to access the data needed about each specific product. Furthermore, we would be able to get information about our users’ purchases in these stores, provided they paid with their registered credit cards. We imagine that our back-end will initially communicate with the supermarkets’ database of product information. We will get product information from the supermarket database, which will be pushed to

As mentioned above, our service would be built on an existing cloud infrastructure. While the supermarkets’ cloud solution must be ‘private’, our database of water footprint information would be built on a ‘public cloud’, free for anyone with internet access to use. Our service is an example of a Software as a Service (Saas), where the software itself is accessed independent of location (Mell & Grance 2011). This ubiquitous nature is one of the key characteristics of cloud computing, and would be a trait of the supermarket’s system as well as ours. Similarly, ‘rapid elasticity’ is one of the main benefits of incorporating cloud computing into a digital service system (ibid.). In our case, this rapid elasticity would be highly valuable considering the natural peak in supermarket shopping during the afternoon.

Seeing the Back-end From a User’s Point of View

Users will be able to access our database in which we store all the necessary product information, and use the service built around it, from any networked device, anywhere in the world. Front-end distribution enables the user to obtain access by their networked device, e.g. their computer or smartphone, requesting information from our database by sending a query. In this case, the user’s device acts as the ‘client’ while our database, our back-end system, acts as the ‘server’. The information requested will be all the data stored in our database, such as detailed product information or personal information within a user profile. Building on the back-end

described above, users would also be able to receive a digital receipt after grocery shopping, providing them with water footprint information about the individual products. Furthermore, a scanning feature in our app would allow them to access water footprint information about a given product before buying it.

2.12.4 Motivational Considerations Existing services prove the feasibility of the different aspects of our service. Various apps are already utilising the barcode technology and smartphones’ cameras to give users access to product information. Services such as eKvittering and Kvittering.dk are accessing information about their

users’ credit card payments in certain stores. The latter have overcome our biggest challenge: gaining access to the supermarkets’ databases. The supermarkets have an obvious interest in providing their customers with the best possible experience, and the mentioned services help them in doing so. Similarly, our service would contribute to the supermarket experience by offering more transparency and information to the customers. Furthermore, our service would work as a natural platform for CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) for the supermarkets’ communication towards customers and other stakeholders.

2.13 Concept Refinement After having gained a good understanding of the core of our service system, the value it would offer its users, and the way the back-end would be designed, we set out to refine the concept further. We agreed that the main elements of this refinement were to involve users directly in the design process, and to give further attention to the business aspect of our concept.

2.13.1 New Ideas through User Participation At this point in our process, all group members agreed on the potential benefits of making gamification a part of

our service, and this was further backed up by our desktop research on the topic. However the feedback we had gathered on this part of the idea was very limited. To understand what should happen to the data that users generate through the ‘track and measure’ part of our service, we organised a co-creation workshop. In the workshop we decided to only present the core of our service to the participants, i.e. the ability to find water footprint information about different food products, scanning products via the barcode to get the information, and having the water footprint printed on the receipt. With the participants we wanted to co-create the service in a way that made it interesting and motivating for them, and for others, to use. Cocreation can be defined as: “any act of collective creativity, i.e., creativity

that is shared by two or more people” (Sanders & Stappers Mar. 2008, p. 2).

Context

The workshop was organised at Aalborg University Copenhagen with six participants during a morning of a public holiday. The participants were recruited from among our friends due to accessibility and their alignment with the target group in regards to digital habits. We made a conscious decision to place the participants in groups with people they did not know. We strove before the workshop to recruit more participants, and managed to do this, but unfortunately we received some late cancellations. The amount of participants was still adequate as they were all active, engaged and open for

ideation. Three design team members took a role of a group facilitator and they were placed in ideation groups with two participants. Their main task was to guide the participants - help and direct whenever needed. The ideation methods chosen for this workshop were ‘word and picture pairing, and ‘storytelling’. Word and picture pairing, which we also used in our own ideation, allowed the participants to first come up with associations and use these as a starting point in idea creation. After ideating inside a limited timespan of one hour, the participants were advised to storytell their three best ideas and the service behind. The aim was to present one final concept idea in the end.

Generating new ideas

Throughout the workshop we wanted to foster positive energy and easy conversation. Snacks and beverages were accessible at all times and breaks were held frequently. We started with an unrelated creativity session, where the aim was to open up for ideation and act more spontaneously. Also the first part of our service concept was presented with casual conversation and questions from the participants. The ‘light’ beginning eased the discussions and helped the participants and facilitators to relax. Moving on to the concrete ideation, we introduced the ‘word and picture pairing’ method. We had prepared numerous pictures and words to be

used, and advised the participants to ideate with these as inspiration. Two words and one picture was used for each idea along with the choice from two personas, Rebecca or David, and noted down on an idea spreadsheet (Appendix 8). The personas offered an external point of view that made the participants design for someone else than themselves. To encourage ‘quantity over quality’ thinking, we rewarded the group with most ideas with a small price.

The groups ended up with approximately ten ideas each which were narrowed down to the three best or most interesting ones. All the groups had very diverse ideas, some more concrete and relevant for our process, and some more extreme and ‘outside the box’. Storytelling was used inside each group to define the ideas into more concrete concepts. We encouraged them to use props, and gave them big cardboard smartphones to explain digital services. The iterative thinking process allowed the participants to

discover deeper meanings inside their ideas. As the result of the storytelling method, the groups presented different scenarios of how their service would function. Although we had made a restriction of one final idea per group, all groups wanted to present more. They were allowed to do this, as we did not want to limit their creativity. After the final presentations we voted for the best idea, and the winning team was rewarded with a price.

Outcomes of the User Participation

A variety of ideas and concepts were created during the workshop. Some of them were irrelevant, but we were surprised by how many intriguing and feasible ideas the participants managed to come up without prior knowledge about the topic and with a very limited time. Immediately after the workshop we went through all the ideas and listed down the most interesting and ones worth taking into consideration for final refinement.

High level of knowledge on environmental impact

The list included the following rough ideas and concepts: Customised bonus or a tangible reward - money, free parking etc. as motivation to lower size of individual footprint Bottle refund system implemented to the service Competition element to motivate users Comparing neighbourhoods resulting in monthly events organised if the area footprint has lowered

Passive on knowledge related to environmental impact

Active on knowledge related to environmental impact

Encourage and follow your friends Donate to charity if you have lowered your water footprint enough See the result of your improvement - â€˜Save the rainforestâ€™ incorporating virtual reality Users reviewing products and getting a reward if they do so Scan to get additional product info (multimodal, audio, text), compare products Recipes with little water footprint, different variants of same recipe Sponsorships/partners, rewarding users, allowing them to save for a holiday Betting in a given time, activity as a bet, e.g. hard workout

Workshop participants

Low level of knowledge on environmental impact

Figure 15. Participants placed in the persona matrix.

Measuring the water footprint of alcohol and giving advice on how to avoid a hangover We gathered feedback from the participants after the workshop and they all seemed satisfied by how we had organised and structured the morning, but they also gave us some constructive feedbacks. The facilitators each reflected to their own

role, and this provided us with useful insight on how we as organisers reacted to the workshop. Adapting to group dynamics, some had a more active role in their group during ideation, while others only needed to guide the process and write the ideas down. As a round-off to the co-creation workshop we placed the participants into the persona matrix, together

with the personas (Figure 15). It was interesting to see where they could fit, and if they were in our target group or not. The placing was based on our observations, conversations with them, and on a form that was filled out before the workshop started. In the form we asked some basic questions related to our project (Appendix 9).

2.13.2 Refining Concept As intended, our co-creation workshop resulted in a wide array of ideas. The ideas ranged from being very abstract to relatively concrete, but they all needed some considerations and further work.

Sorting our Minds

We created a mindmap with the most interesting ideas developed during our workshop (Figure 16). Also included in this mindmap were the ideated components displayed in the morphological matrix created earlier in the process. During the discussion and grouping of the different ideas, their functionalities and the motivations behind them, some overall themes were revealed. Some ideas revolved around users seeking to understand and keeping track of their personal water footprints in order to â€˜competeâ€™ with themselves. Other ideas were built on users reducing their water footprints via small, personal encouragements and competitions, and others used open, city- or country-wide rankings and competitions as motivational factors.

Scenarios

We grouped the ideas into five service concepts (Figure 17). Each of us then chose one of the concepts and created a quick scenario for this. After internally having presented the scenarios, we collaboratively determined the pros and cons for each of them. Based on this discussion, we voted on the concepts with the aim of prototyping and testing just two of them. Figure 16. Idea mindmap.

Figure 17. Five concept ideas.

Conclusion of Refinement

Concept 1 and 2 were chosen as the most promising ideas, combined with specific elements from some of the other concepts. The two concepts had very different traits, thus giving us some interesting options for prototyping and testing. Furthermore, both ideas were aligned with our own thoughts and ideas from earlier in the design process. This served to confirm the potential of these ideas. Concept 1 Concept 1 is a service that provides its users with information about food products’ water footprint, and keeps track of the individual user’s water footprint over time. In addition to this, the user is provided with understandable and relatable feedback on the impact her choices have, and the difference she makes by choosing the “right” products. This feedback could be given in the form of “trees saved”, “lakes saved from drying out”, or the like. This concept would be focused on educating the users and inspiring intrinsic motivation, thus sustaining ongoing behavioural change. We saw this as something suited for our persona Rebecca.

Figure 18. Rapid customer journey concept 1.

Concept 2

2.13.3 Revenue Streams

Concept 2 is a service that enables its users to keep track of the water footprint of their grocery shopping, and to challenge and compete with their friends on having the smallest footprint. Participants would be able to customise the rules and details of a given challenge, e.g. timeframe and the stakes involved. Contrary to concept 1, this concept would be more about extrinsic motivation through a gamified experience. While concept 1 was fitting for Rebecca, this seemed ideal for our persona David.

When designing new services, the business aspect should always be considered an integral part of the final solution (IDEO. 2015, p. 15). Whether a service is being designed as an individual company, or as an integrated part of an existing service provider’s organisation, a plan for how to monetise on the value proposition, and turn it into a viable business, is as essential as the ‘human’ and ‘technology’ elements involved (Figure 20 next page). One of our challenges lies in the fact that we do not consider the service something our target users would, or should, pay for. This was based on our understanding of the target users, as well as the deeper motivations for solving the large-scale freshwater problem. A ‘Freemium’ business model (Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010, p. 100) was considered, but quickly discarded, as other models were found to have greater potential.

To further explore the concepts, we divided our group in two and rapidly created customer journeys (Figure 18 and Figure 19). This tool revealed fail points and possibilities within the two concepts, which were later discussed in plenary. Having iterated on the concepts we discovered that a lot of the elements of the journeys were the same, and that selected elements from each concept could work together, e.g. the receipt touchpoint and the challenge. We therefore merged the two concepts into one. This service concept served as the subject for the following prototyping and testing, but first we wanted to consider the business aspect of our service idea, by discussing possible monetisation models.

DropX as more than water footprint tracker

Figure 18. Rapid customer journey concept 2.

Seeing as DropX is already providing users with a simple, digital way of keeping track of all their grocery shopping, the concept is not far away from offering the same value as companies like eKvittering (ekvittering. dk) or Kvittering.dk (kvittering.dk). DropX could offer the same service, with additional services and features

their users, and seems to be a very interesting, potential buyer and/or provider of the DropX service. They are currently launching a collaboration with the supermarket chain Rema 1000 (Finans TV2 22 May 2015), giving the supermarkets’ customers the opportunity to pay for their groceries via the MobilePay app. This makes the smartphone, and MobilePay specifically, a natural part of the everyday supermarket experience. Furthermore, MobilePay have recently initiated a collaboration with the British mobile payment company Powa Technologies (Finans TV2 19 May 2015). This collaboration will enable their users to scan and buy products directly through the MobilePay app, e.g. via discount newspapers, signs or in shops.

Figure 20. Design Thinking model (IDEO 2015).

related to the water footprint, and adopt the same business model as eKvittering (described above).

DropX as an add-on

A natural consideration must also be to consider the option of designing and developing DropX as an add-on to one or more existing services, such as digital receipt services (i.e. eKvittering or Kvittering.dk) or digital payment services (i.e. MobilePay). MobilePay, an app developed by Danske Bank, offers easy and free payments to

Considering Danske Bank’s, and MobilePay’s, innovative moves into everyday shopping experiences, including grocery shopping, one can imagine the DropX service as an incorporated part of their existing services, adding additional value to their users.

Promotional partnerships and affiliate marketing

Another model that must at least be given some thought in this situation, is the well-known advertisement model. Many online platforms, such as social media sites, product review sites, various information sites, and blogs, are all generating their main revenue

streams from selling advertisement space to third-parties. The agreements may include fixed prices for the space, pay-per-click, pay-per-lead, or some other variant of affiliate marketing partnership (Chaffey & Ellis-Chadwick 2012, p. 515-519). For DropX, some companies and organisations are highly relevant and connected to the service concept, and could potentially add value to the user experience of our service. These potential partners include: - Companies selling products that enable customers to save water E.g. producers of shower heads, toilets, dishwashers, washing machines, etc. - Organisations working to preserve the environment in general, or with a more specific focus on water. - Farmers/producers of fruits and vegetables Since they are producing the products with the overall lowest water footprints, they have a financial interest in consumers becoming more engaged in reducing their personal water footprints. - (Online) supermarkets The latter is an obvious solution, considering the nature of our service. Users will search the database for products, compare different foods to find the ones with the smallest water

footprint, and plan their grocery shopping. Simultaneously providing users with information on where to buy the specific products, e.g. based on current supermarket discounts, could potentially be of great value to the users. The documented importance of ‘price’ when grocery shopping supports this. Direct links to the products in online supermarkets, such as Nemlig. com or Irma.dk, would further add to the experienced convenience.

Summing up business model reflections

The financial viability of this concept has been paid a lot of attention, but as of this moment we have not decided upon one specific business model. The different options will be explored further after the hand-in of this report. Developing DropX as an add-on to existing services, having supermarket products featured on the platform, or a combination of the two, are considered to be the most promising models. Depending on the model adopted, our back-end infrastructure must be adapted to existing ones. In either case, DropX would turn into a multi-sided platform (Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010, p. 76-79) with private users experiencing the service and value propositions for free, and some other customer segment(s) acting as the paying stakeholder(s).

3 DELIVER - Prototyping and Testing the Service Solution

Based on our recently defined service concept, and thorough considerations regarding the monetisation and financial viability of it, we moved on to prototyping and testing. We wanted to prototype the service experience as well as specific touchpoints, thus gaining valuable insights into the potential and desirability of our service in a real-life context.

3.1 Prototyping Warfel (2009, p. xv) states that “when you prototype, you allow your design, product, or service to practice being itself. And as its maker, you learn more about your designs in this way than you ever could in another way”. A prototype can generate a far deeper understanding than if you only write or make visual descriptions. We chose to prototype and bring to life two aspects of DropX: the receipt, with multiple ways of presenting the water footprint, and the the service experience.

Receipt

As the receipt would be one of the main touchpoints of DropX, we wanted to put it to the test. For this testing, we wanted to create a prototype as authentic as possible and used real receipts as inspiration. We worked with the limited space on the receipt to find out how to communicate information about water footprint and DropX in the best possible way. The biggest challenges were to figure out how this could look visually, but most of all how to make the information relatable for customers. We wanted to present the water footprint with a relative measure, e.g. by comparing it to an average, but it was difficult for us to know what the users would respond to. It was therefore natural for us to prototype multiple versions of displaying the water footprint.

“[...] When there are lots of different concepts to explore and things are still quite uncertain, sketching dominates the process” (Buxton 2007, p. 139). We sketched on paper and on the computer, at the same time as discussing the parts we wanted to explore further. First and foremost we focused on the visual displaying of the information, e.g. a scale or an icon. This was closely related to what type of information we wanted to communicate. Lastly, we had a look at the accompanying text, making it understandable and easy to read. We ended up creating three different types of receipts: the ones related to the bigger picture (e.g. saving lives), the ones related to personal water usage (e.g. showers or toilet flushes), and the ones related to something relative (e.g. the average). All receipts showed a realistic purchase and communicated the correct calculated water footprint of those items.

Service Experience

In accordance with Buchenau and Suri (2000, p. 425) an ‘Experience Prototype’ can be defined as “any kind of representation, in any medium, that is designed to understand, explore or communicate what it might be like to engage with the product, space or system we are designing”. We strove to test different parts of the DropX service with potential users. This included the experience of getting information that had not been considered before, as well as scanning products and challenging or being challenged. Based on this we discussed how we could test it. In order to limit the priming and risk of causing a bias, we decided to present them with as little information as possible. This was going to be achieved by giving them different tasks and challenges (e.g.: ‘go shopping as usual’, ‘grocery shop ingredients for a complete meal with a low water footprint’). Once the planning of the chosen methods, ‘Walk-through’ and ‘Cardsorting’, as well as the setup was completed, we arranged prepared props as intended and asked fellow students to test the setup and sequence in our studio room. During this process we integrated ideas like spreading the on paper printed products around the room and adding a shopping basket as a prop. These changes enabled the test persons to better engage with the experience of grocery shopping in the supermarket.

3.2 Testing With the aim of gaining valuable insights from potential users, to validate assumptions and enhance the prospective users’ experience we conducted two sessions of testing with potential users.

Testing the Service Experience with Possible Users

The testing of the service experience in a simulated supermarket setting was

The main findings were the following: Being presented with the water footprint regarding products made sense to the test subjects, even though some pointed out that it was not very important for them. Most of the test persons were interested in the footprints and scanned most of the products. Most chose products with lower water footprint. One male participant (IT student) pointed out that this service was an “obvious future development” considering the current trends in mobile technology, environmental issues and a general focus on transparency. The combination of the two distinct parts of our service concept, namely

conducted in a controlled environment of a room at Aalborg University Copenhagen. Eight students were recruited as test subjects, three women and five men. They were chosen due to their alignment with the target group in regards to their digital habits. Furthermore we assumed that a part of them would also match our intended target group in respect to both knowledge and action taken concerning the environmental impact of food they buy. Another reason to choose students was that they were easily accessible.

‘tracking’ and ‘challenging’, made sense combined and worked well. The challenge part was fun and engaging for most of the people. Some expressed their concerns, whether or not a challenge would be fair and not too stressful (scanning all the time). None of the test subjects payed a lot of attention to the receipt and thereby the depicted water footprint. The scale was easily understandable, but it was not completely clear what a good product is. Some test subjects were sceptical about the data and wanted to find out more One pointed out that only presenting the water footprint does not represent the complexity of issues related to food.

Reflections

Testing the experience proved useful as it provided us with a way to validate our previous ideas and assumptions. We were particularly satisfied with the direct feedback about the ‘challenge’ part of our service. Many test subjects referred to this part as fun, motivating and inspiring. One participant directly confirmed our hypothesis about some people lacking the intrinsic motivation for reducing their water footprints. When presented with the basic, ‘tracking’ part of the service, he said “Unless you are one of those environmentalists, where is the incentive?”. It was however hard to prototype an experience that could have a timespan of one month or longer. So forth we could not draw further conclusions on how this part would function in reality.

High level of knowledge on environmental impact

Passive on knowledge related to environmental impact

The group had clear roles in the testing situation and this, along other outcomes of good planning, enabled a regulated and comfortable atmosphere. The props were simple and understandable, and time constraints did not affect the testing in any way. The process was documented by taking pictures, and taking notes based on the observed behaviour. After the testing we placed the test subjects in our persona matrix (Figure 21). This gave us an overview of how they aligned in relation to our target group and whether the point of view of some test subjects was worth further investigation.

Active on knowledge related to environmental impact

Test subjects Workshop participants

Low level of knowledge on environmental impact Figure 21. Test subjects placed in the persona matrix.

Testing the Receipt

To test our receipt prototypes we conducted some â€˜Quick and Dirtyâ€™ testings at a supermarket near Sydhavn in the afternoon. We interviewed ten people, six women and four men. They were presented with three different prototyped receipts depicting the water footprint of the groceries on it. This was followed by some questions related to the receipt and the information on it. The purpose was to test whether or not the water footprint was noticed, if the information displayed was understood and which of the three receipts was the most relatable.

Key findings

More than half of them said that they normally take the receipt when grocery shopping. Nine out of ten prefered the simple scale depicting the water footprint. With the scale they were able to compare the water used to something, e.g. an average, which was what the two other icons were missing. They expressed that it was easier to understand the big masses of water with the scale. Almost half of the people that tested our prototype would explore the DropX website or application (displayed on the receipt) for more information. One man suggested that there could be a code to scan for more information, as this would demand less effort. Some of the people we tested with related the receipt to a supermarket campaign.

Reflections

Considering the key findings of testing the receipt gave us a better understanding of what people can relate to. The scale made most sense to people due to the comparing to the average. One woman even commented: “Oh, this was high! I better consider some other products next time.” With the other icons the comparing was harder as it was difficult for the test subjects to relate to the numbers. Many of them did however say that the icons were easier to spot than the scale. Because of this, we might have to think of a more visually appealing way of displaying the scale. Below 50% of the test subjects stated that they might go to the website or mobile application if seeing this on a receipt. What was interesting was that many of them thought that this was a test of a campaign, not a continuous service. This might be one of the reasons for not going to the website or app. A short explanation of the concept might have been beneficial. This made us think that a marketing campaign would probably be necessary for users to encounter the service in the startup phase. One of the women said that: “If one of my friends had told me about this campaign, I might have checked it out”. This indicated that the ‘challenge’ aspect of our service concept, and the inherent ‘Word of Mouth’, could work as a valuable driver behind raising awareness of the problem and our specific service.

3.3 Sketching the Service Experience With Scenarios In order to get an overview of our current concept and the service experience, we created a quick scenario. The aim was to narrate our service concept in a visual and relatable manner. Therefore, the scenario was made rather â€˜concreteâ€™, i.e. they only narrated the actual use of our service without exploring the broader context and lives of the users. The scenario was sketched out as a storyboard. It was meant as a depiction of our service seen from the point of view of a user, thus not explaining the back-end of the service.

Motivational Considerations

Through our research and development of our service, we realised a range of different, potential incentives behind the use of our service. Some people would simply be driven by their raised awareness of the problem, and act out of their power to have a positive impact through easily applied behavioural changes. Seeing as the food products account for approximately 92% of consumersâ€™ personal water footprints (Hoekstra & Mekonnen 2012), users of our service could greatly reduce their negative impact through small changes. This was depicted in the first part of the scenario above, where the information provided on the receipt inspires a supermarket customer to become a user of our service. This is an important aspect and objective of our service, since a general rise in awareness about the problem can be very helpful in overcoming it. Furthermore, aware and engaged users of our service can greatly increase our chances of reaching other, less motivated people. The less engaged people would not have the immediate connection with the deeper cause in this service, but could rather be motivated by the gamified aspects. As described earlier in the

report, implementing game elements in a service can greatly increase its users motivation to do things they would not otherwise have done. The incentive could lie in simply keeping track of your total water footprint over time, how you compare to the average water footprint per capita (1.700m3/year, Hoekstra & Mekonnen 2012), or your development. For others, the opportunity to engage in friendly competitions, based on bets and rewards of their own choosing, could be the incentive needed to actively lower their water footprints. The opportunity to â€˜winâ€™ over a friend and achieve social recognition, simply through product research and comparisons, and the continuous feedback on the immediate standings, could work as everyday excitement for many people. This was depicted in the second part of the scenario presented above. With the aim of encouraging and sustaining ongoing behavioural changes, intrinsic motivation behind the use of our service is preferred. However, awareness and knowledge gained through our gamified service may also lead to ongoing behavioural changes, even without extrinsic motivational factors.

DropX Concept

Our service design process resulted in a concrete service, designed to address the challenges found and analysed in this report. Our concept will be presented through the use of various models and tools below.

Description of DropX DropX is designed to address the unsustainable use of freshwater resources. The service seeks to raise awareness of the problem among customers, and to make them realise the power they have through their grocery shopping decisions. We want to empower supermarket customers to reduce their personal water footprints by providing them with the information and encouragement needed.

Receipts

After grocery shopping the total water footprint of your purchases will be printed on the receipt. The information is presented in a way that makes it easy to relate to.

Registering and tracking of personal water footprint

Information about thousands of products can be easily accessed through our app or website, so the planning and shopping can be done with the water footprints in mind. The information is made easily relatable, and direct comparisons of products can further help in the understanding of water footprints.

By signing up to our service, anyone can have their grocery shopping automatically registered and saved in their personal user profile. This enables them to keep track of their personal water footprint over time and follow their progress. By signing up with your credit card, each supermarket purchase will be automatically saved, with details about the different items’ water footprint. You will also get a notification and a digital receipt, with information about the water footprint of your purchases, every time a payment has been made in a supermarket.

Scanning

Challenges

Our database

By downloading our app, users will also have the opportunity to scan groceries in the store, and get instant information about the product’s water footprint. This feature is made possible by utilising the already existing barcodes on the products, or on the shelves, to access basic information about a given product. Information about the product’s water footprint is added in our database, thus giving supermarket customers on-thespot insights into a product’s strain on our freshwater resources.

Another important part of our service, is the option to challenge and compete with friends. Registered users can challenge each other to a battle where the one with the lowest water footprint wins. The timeframe of the challenge, as well as the award at stake, will be determined by the participants. During a challenge, each participant will get notified about the opponent’s/ opponents’ latest purchases, the current standings and reminders when a challenge is about to end.

Customer Value Constellation This ‘Value Constellation’ was used to map the existing “offerings and respective interrelationships that enable customers to co-create their value constellation experience […]” (Patrício et. al. 2011, p. 2) for ‘resource aware grocery shopping’, which is placed at the center of the network and connected to around arranged supporting services (Figure 22). Placed right next to it are the ‘environmental impact translation services’ which translate scientific data related to the environmental impact of food into practical information for everyday life, like TV-shows, blogs, guides and magazines, as well as books. Both are connected to ‘product’s environmental impact services’, such as scientific studies and articles. They are also linked to ‘supermarkets’, where a part of specific product’s environmental impact information is shown by signs and product labels. As indicated by a dashed lined ellipse, the core of DropX is to support a supermarket’s customer to grocery shop resource aware, by translating scientific data into feasible and relatable information.

Guides/ Magazines

Books Scientific studies/articles

Blogs

TV-shows

Productâ€˜s environmental impact Services

Environmental impact translation services

RESOURCE AWARE GROCERY SHOPPING

Product labels

Supermarket DropX service concept placed in customer value constellation Figure 22. Customer value constellation.

Signs

Role Personas Supermarket

In order to clarify the roles of the stakeholders in the service that are not users, DropX and supermarkets, we used role personas. Inspired by Hosonoâ€™s (2009, p. 5) structure, we defined key information about each stakeholder and generated role tables.

Objective

Provide water footprints to users through an online platform. Act as an informal connection between customers and supermarkets and producers/farmers.

Goal

Provide users with relatable water footprints. Help users make informed decisions when grocery shopping. Shorten the mental length of the supply chain for users.

Scenario

Control and update database with water footprints. Notify registered users on their monthly progress. Notify registered users in a challenge on rankings.

Functions

Provide open data to users through a digital platform.

Evaluation point

Updated database with correct, insightful and actionable data for users to act on.

Objective

Raise awareness about water footprints and environmental impact. Provide information from DropX with receipt and scanable products. Act as a link between customers and DropX.

Goal

Provide users with insights on the food they buy. Make the supply chain more transparent.

Scenario

Offer products that are scanable with DropX. Provide users with water footprints on receipts.

Functions

Be a channel for users to access open data with scanable products and receipts.

Evaluation point

Variety of products, some with low water footprint. Receipts with correct data for users to act on.

Motivation Matrix Supermarket

To create an overview of the stakeholders involved in DropX, and their motivations for being involved, we worked with the ‘Motivation Matrix’ (Vezzoli et al. 2014). The matrix depicts how each stakeholder creates value for each of the other stakeholders, through a given service. Through our work with this model, we have continuously discussed opportunities for involving different stakeholders with the aim of designing the best possible service experience for our target group, and turning the service idea into a viable business.

Supermarkets’ motivation for being involved

Users

- Empowered customers. - Sustainability through raised water footprint awareness.

- Easy access to understandable data about water footprint. - Tracking of water footprint. - Social, meaningful, gamified experience.

Supermarket

Our collaboration with supermarkets is necessary in order for us to automatically get information about our users’ grocery shopping. Therefore, supermarkets’ motivation for giving us the access and data needed is further elaborated on. Corporate Social Responsibility is an important part of most companies’ strategies, and COOP and Dansk Supermarked both have their own politics in these areas (COOP 2015; Dansk Supermarked 2015). A collaboration with DropX would be a clear sign of their commitment to not only operate with profits, but with social and environmental responsibility in mind.

- A CSR platform with direct customer interaction.

- Product information.

- CSR.

- Customer purchase information.

- Raised customer offerings.

- A community for challenges and friendly competitions. - Promotion through Word of Mouth.

- Fun, competition, social interaction. - Social recognition.

Users

Establishing a collaboration with one supermarket chain would perhaps be the easier solution, since this would set this chain apart from the others in terms of social responsibility. However, a collaboration with a broad range of supermarket chains, preferably all

- An easy and encouraging way to take better care of the environment.

supermarkets in Denmark, is highly important for users who want to keep track of all their grocery shopping, and their total water footprint, since many people do their shopping in various supermarkets.

If the social aspect of a collaboration is not enough for the Danish supermarkets, we could of course pay the supermarkets for allowing us access to their system, provided that a revenue generating business model is established.

System map To present the different technical processes of using DropX we have used the service design tool â€˜System Mappingâ€™. This System Map gives a visual description of the different actors needed in order to make the system function. Furthermore, it displays the information and material flow between the actors when using the service system (Vezzoli et.al. 2014).

Central warehouse

Packaging/ processing

Wholesaler

e 3

DropX Database #2

6 #4

Cashier terminal

8 11

7 10

Challenge

Researchers

Desctiption of service flow

information flow

Description of food supply flow

material flow

Description of data flow

Past event: Empirical research on products water footprint

Empirical research is translated into product water footprints

Supermarket database pushes product data to DropX database

DropX calculates water footprint for product and pushes information to cashier terminal

The farm

#1 d

Products are send to packaging

Products transported to wholesalers

Products are distributed to central warehouse

Supermarket receives the product ready for sale

Information is lost during the different stages of the supply chain

Customer signs up to DropX

Customer goes grocery shopping

Customer scans products by using DropX app

App requests product water footprint

DropX Database sends information to app

Customer decides on products, goes to cashier

Water footprint printed on receipt

For registered users: Receives water footprint notification

Customer sees progess

Customer has the option to create a challenge

Customer sees progress and ranking

Database Design In the latest iteration of our database design, some missing pointers have been added. The table previously called ‘Shopping Activity’ has been renamed to ‘Water Footprint History’ and now holds data on individual user’s total water footprint since registration. Furthermore, a table has been added to store the data on ‘Challenges’, with an additional table called ‘Challenge Details’ used to establish the needed many-to-many relationship between the ‘User’ and ‘Challenges’ tables. In connection to the challenges, some additional information is needed from the users. To enable a fair competition between two or more users, their caloric intake needs must be taken into account. Someone with a smaller daily intake of food will inevitably have an unfair advantage when the goal is a low water footprint. To overcome this obstacle, we will ask users of the service to fill in some additional information about themselves before setting up or accepting a challenge. With information about a user’s gender, age, height, weight and everyday level of activity, we can estimate their caloric intake need, thus setting them up for a friendly competition on equal terms.

CHALLENGE DETAILS CHALLENGES Challenge ID

Challenge ID

Start Date

Bet specifications

End Date

WATER FOOTPRINT HISTORY

Water footprint History ID

STORE Store ID

Bet stakes

status

Water Footprint History ID

Name

Total Water Footprint

Adress

User ID

City ID

Purchase details ID

ACTIVITY LEVEL

Gender ID

Gender

E-Mail address

Purchase ID

Date of birth

Store ID

Height

Timestamp

Activity level

CITY

Country ID Name

PURCHASE

Gender ID

Activity level ID

COUNTRY

Purchase ID

User ID Name

City ID Name Country ID

Purchase details ID User ID

USER GENDER

PURCHASE DETAILS

Purchase Water Footprint

PRODUCT Product ID

Weight

Name

Activity level ID

Brand

City ID

Country Description Water Footprint

ITEMS Item ID Purchase details ID Product ID

Back-end Infrastructure The exploration and development of the back-end infrastructure of our service had been an ongoing process throughout the design project. Our latest versions are presented here. The interconnection between the supermarkets’ and the DropX back-end system are explained by showing the different components’ functionalities and interconnected processes, exemplified by DropX users interacting with the service.

COMPUTER

Based on our understanding of the existing supermarkets’ back-end infrastructure (Figure 23) we designed the DropX back-end infrastructure, which integration is pointed out in the next page (Figure 24).

PRIVATE CLOUD - SUPERMARKET

INTRANET

CASHIER TERMINAL

Computer of supermarket chain updates/uploads product data to cloud Private cloud server sends product data to cashier terminal Information flow

Figure 23. Assumed supermarket back-end infrastructure.

As we partner up with supermarkets they provide DropX with data regarding their different products. Based on these, DropX calculates the products’ footprints, which get requested in the following step, and stored by the cashier terminals in order to sum up groceries’ water footprints and to print this information on the receipt. The further graphics depict the processes as registered users interact with DropX (Figure 25 and Figure 26).

COMPUTER

C C

PUBLIC CLOUD - DROPX

PRIVATE CLOUD - SUPERMARKET

SUPERMARKET INTRANET Computer of supermarket company updates/uploads product data to cloud

CASHIER TERMINAL

Supermarket private cloud pushes/ updates DropX product database Product footprint gets calculated and stored in DropX database Customerâ€˜s purchases are scanned Cashier terminal sends request for product water footprint

Client Server

C S

Material flow Information flow Figure 24. DropX back-end infrastructure - non-registered user.

$ RECEIPT

Server sends requested water footprint regarding specific product Customer pays & water footprint gets printed on receipt

PUBLIC CLOUD - DROPX

PRIVATE CLOUD - SUPERMARKET

CASHIER TERMINAL

SUPERMARKET INTRANET

Customerâ€˜s items get scanned Cashier terminal requests product water footprint Server sends requested water footprint about specific product Customer pays with credit card Cashier terminal sends request asking whether or not customer is registered DropX user

APP

Client

Server

Information flow Figure 25. DropX back-end infrastructure - registered user (passive).

Server sends requested information (here: confirm registration) & requests purchase information Cashier terminal sends purchase information Server updates user information & sends notification to user

Customer scans product with phone

App registers product ID and requests related water footprint

PUBLIC CLOUD - DROPX S

PRIVATE CLOUD - SUPERMARKET

DropX server sends product’s water footprint Customer‘s products get scanned

C C

Cashier terminal requests product water footprint $

SUPERMARKET INTRANET

DropX server sends requested water footprint regarding specific product Customer pays with credit card

CASHIER TERMINAL PRODUCT

Server sends requested information (here: confirm registration) & requests purchase information

C C Client

Server

Cashier terminal asks DropX database whether or not customer is registered user

APP

Information flow Figure 26. DropX back-end infrastructure - registered user (active).

Cashier terminal sends purchase information DropX database updates user information & cloud sends notification to user

Customer Journey Maps

through our app. The benefits of having easily accessible and relatable water footprint information can therefore be utilised by anyone, which is why we work with a group called â€˜nonregistered usersâ€™.

Using customer journey maps gives a visual display of the overall service experience through the touchpoint where the customer interacts with the service (Stickdorn & Schneider, pp.158159). The user journeys we created are presenting three different types of users: the non-registered, the passive and the active.

The non-registered user

The passive user

Accessing our open database of product information, either through our website or app, will not require a user to register to our service. This includes the scanning of products via their barcodes,

We define the passive user as one who has signed up with his credit card to our service, but does not actively engage or interact with the service. The passive user conducts his grocery shopping the way he has always done, without actively scanning or comparing products based on their water footprints. After shopping he receives a digital receipt on his smartphone,

informing him about the water footprint of his groceries. He will also follow his footprint and development over time via the app or website.

The active user

The active user utilises our service to its fullest. He actively compares products, either from home or in the store, and gets a digital notification and receipt with water footprint information after grocery shopping. He engages in challenges with his friends and family members, as a motivational factor for himself and to inspire others to lower their water footprints. He regularly checks the current standings in any challenge he is a part of.

Customer Journey Map The non-registered user $

Goes grocery shopping

The passive user

Goes to cashier

Gets receipt

Goes home

Sees water footprint

Explores DropX service

Downloads DropX app

Goes grocery shopping

Scans products

Compares products

Goes to cashier

Gets receipt

Checks water footprint

Goes grocery shopping

Goes to cashier

Gets receipt

Goes home

Sees water footprint

Explores DropX service

Downloads DropX app

Goes grocery shopping

Scans products

Compares products

Goes to cashier

Gets receipt

The passive user

Customer Journey Map Customer Journey Map $

$ Adds credit card details

Signs up $

Goes grocery shopping Goes grocery shopping

The active user

Goes to cashier

Gets receipt

Goes home

Sees water footprint

Goes to cashier

Gets receipt

Goes home

Sees water footprint

Explores DropX service Explores DropX service

Downloads DropX app Downloads DropX app

Goes grocery shopping

Goes grocery shopping Goes grocery shopping

TheGoes active user to Gets notific. cashier

Adds credit card details

Signs up

Adds credit card details

Goes grocery shopping Goes grocery shopping

Goes to cashier

Goes grocery shopping Goes grocery shopping

Scans products

Goes to cashier

Pays with credit card

Scans products

Goes to cashier

Pays with credit card

Goes to cashier

Gets notific. water footprint Gets notific. water footprint

Adds credit card details

Gets notific. about progress Gets notific. about progress

Goes grocery shopping

Scans products

Compares products

Goes to cashier

Scans products

Compares products

Goes to cashier

Description

Scans products

Places

Goes to cashier

Interface

Goes to cashier

Gets notific. water footprint

Gets notific. about progress

Signs up

Goes grocery shopping

Gets notific. about $ progress

water footprint

The passive user The passive user

Signs up

Adds credit card details

Signs up

The non-registered user The non-registered user

Checks water footprint Checks Gets receipt water footprint Adds credit Goes card details grocery shopping

Gets receipt

Description Gets notific. Pays with water credit card footprint

DropX touchpoint

Scans products

Places Checks water footprint

Other touchpoint

Goes to cashier

Interface Gets notific. about progress

Pays with credit card

Adds credit card details

Signs up

Adds credit card details

Gets notific. water footprint Gets notific. water footprint

Checks water footprint Checks water footprint

Gets notific. about progress Gets notific. about progress

Description

Places

Interface

DropX touchpoint

Other touchpoint

Time passes

Description

Places

Interface

DropX touchpoint

Other touchpoint

Time passes

Creates challenge Creates challenge

Goes grocery shopping Goes grocery shopping

Scans products

Goes to cashier

Time passes

Scans products

Goes to cashier

Gets notific. water footprint Gets notific. water footprint

Checks water footprint

DropX touchpoint Other touchpoint Creates Goes Scans challenge grocery products shopping

The active user The active user

Signs up

Gets notific. water footprint

Checks ranking Checks ranking

Che wat footp

86 YES Customer does not get product information, can scan another product

Product in DropX database?

Scans product with app?

Customer arrives / enters supermarket

YES

Retrieves information from database and sends to user via app

YES

Continues shopping?

Customer completes shopping & goes to cashier

Stores user information in DropX database

Retrieves product informations & calculates water-footprint

Supermarket employee scans products

Customer pays for groceries

YES

Non-registered user signs up?

Encourages DropX service sign-up

Provides customer with water footprint information

YES

Explores DropX inspired by receipt?

Credit card of registerd DropX user?

YES

Sends notification & digital receipt to registered user

ACTION

BACK-END EVENT

CUSTOMER DECISION

DATABASE CHECK

BEGINNING OF PROCESS

END OF PROCESS

Updates DropX user database with purchase

YES

Pays with credit card?

Prints footprint on receipt

Registered user challenges other registered user

Notifies user(s) being challenged

Users being challenged accept?

YES

Participating users agree on terms

Notifies participants Participants of the other grocery shop during Registered user participants purchases Notifies user(s) challenge period challenges other and ranking being challenged registered user

Settles the score at the end of the Users being challenge YES challenged accept?

Notifies being ch

Participating users agree on terms

NO NO

YES

User sets up new challenge?

YES

User sets up new challenge?

NO Settles bet & pays the winner

Flowcharts

The first one depicts a userâ€™s steps through the service. A user is a person who is accessing our database, either through our app or website, whether the person has signed up to the service or not. The first flow chart covers both registered and non-registered users.

In order to create an overview of the steps a user goes through, and the decisions made in the process, we sketched out the service with flow charts. Through the first iteration of flow charts it became clear that the BACK-END CUSTOMER ENDdepicts OF BEGINNING The second flow chart howTIME a DropX service was too complex to beDATABASE ACTION OF PROCESS CHECK PROCESS PASSES EVENT DECISION user might go through a challenge in ACTION depicted in one flowchart. We decided the DropX service. to split it up and present two, main flow charts.

YES

Bet including money money put in via DropX?

ACTION

BACK-END EVENT

CUSTOMER DECISION

DATABASE CHECK

BEGINNING OF PROCESS

BACK-END EVENT

END OF PROCESS

Notifies participants of result

CUSTOMER DECISION

TIME PASSES

DATABASE CHECK

BEGINNING OF PROCESS

Lean Canvas Although a final monetisation model was not settled upon during our project, we wanted to organise the key aspects of our service concept that would essentially make up our business model. For this purpose we chose to work with the Lean Canvas. The Lean Canvas (Maurya 2012) is an iteration of Alexander Osterwalder’s Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010). It is developed with startups in mind, making it “... as actionable as possible while staying entrepreneur-focused.” (Maurya 2012). It is inspired by The Lean Startup (Ries 2011), thus implementing “Problem” instead of “Key Partners”, “Solution” instead of “Key Activities”, “Key Metrics” instead of “Key Resources”, and “Unfair Advantage” instead of “Customer Relationships”. Together with “Value Propositions”, “Customer Segments”, “Customer Channels”, “Cost Structure” and “Revenue Streams”, they make up the nine building blocks that constitutes a business model. We have chosen the Lean Canvas as our framework for developing a business model, based on the novelty of our service. We have worked iteratively with the model as we went along, continuously revising and updating it with new insights and refinements of our concept.

Problem

Solution

Value Propsition

- Unsustainable use of freshwater resources

- Track (info)

- DropX is empowering supermarket customers to lower their water footprints

- Customers lack info and knowledge about water problem - Customers lack motivation to address the water problem - Customers are distanced from the water problem connected to the two points above

- Measure (tool) - Compete (incentive / inspiration / motivation)

Key Metrics - Users' average water footprint relative to population average - Individual users' change in water footprint over time

- DropX provides consumers with easily accessisble and understandable water footprint information on various food products - DropX inspires people to lower their water footprints through challenges and friendly competitions

Cost structure - Web + app development & maintenance - Hosting - Promotion

Unfair Advantage - Custom developed database

Channels - App - Website - (Receipts)

Revenue Streams - Salaries - Continuously researching and updating water footprint data

Customer Segments - Supermarket customers interested in reducing their personal water footprint, either motivated intrinsically or extrinsically

Pre-service

Blueprint

Timeline

These blueprints (Stickdorn & Schneider 2011, pp. 204-207) show the interactions involved with the use of DropX. Individual rows can be traced to follow the timeline. To depict our service in the best possible way, the blueprints were divided in accordance with the different levels of engagement expressed by a ‘non-registered user’, a ‘passive user’ and an ‘active user’. Furthermore, the pre-service is featured as it is the point where the supermarket customer becomes a user. In addition to the smaller blueprints, we have created an overall blueprint depicting all possible aspects of the service experience.

PRE-SERVICE

Become User

Service Encounter

Pay purchases in the supermarket

User Action

See water footprint in receipt

Encounter marketing material

Visit the website

Download APP

Present service information

Provide service information

Line of interaction

Touchpoint $

Present water footprint

Front-stage DROPX

DropX

WEB INTERFACE

MOBILE APPLICATION

SERVICE PROVIDER

DROPX PUBLIC CLOUD

Line of visibility DropX

SUPERMARKET

Translate information

SCANNER

RECEIPT

CREDIT CARD TERMINAL

CASHIER TERMINAL

Provide water footprint measurment

Back-stage

LINES

REPEATED STEP

TIME PASSES

ORDER OF ACTIONS

OPTIONAL ACTION

Calculate water footprint

Create marketing material

The non-registered user

Timeline

OPTIONAL PART OF SERVICE

Search for Product-Water Information Search for product information

User Action

See water footprint information

OPTIONAL PART OF SERVICE

Scan for Product-Water Information Scan product barcode for information

SERVICE

See water footprint information

Measure Impact See water footprint measurment

Line of interaction

Touchpoint $

Request product water footprint

Present water footprint information

Request product water footprint

Present water footprint information

Cashier scans purchases

Notify about water footprint

Present water footprint

Front-stage

Line of visibility DropX

Back-stage

Request product water footprint

Translate information

Request product water footprint

Translate information

Identify product

Provide product water footprint

Identify product

Provide water footprint information

Translate information

Calculate water footprint

Print water footprint

The passive user

Timeline

PRE-SERVICE

Sign-Up

SERVICE

Save personal information

User Action

Pay with credit card

Measure Impact

Notify on progress

See water footprint measurment

Get notification on progress

Line of interaction

Touchpoint

Request sign-up information

Cashier scans purchases

Request customer information

Notify about water footprint

Notify about progress

Present water footprint

Front-stage

Line of visibility

Identify customer

DropX

Save purchase information

Save customer information

Back-stage

Translate information

Calculate water footprint

Print water footprint

Request product progress water footprint information

Push notification

Identify customer

Provide customer progress info

Timeline

The active user

PRE-SERVICE

Sign-Up

User Action

OPTIONAL PART OF SERVICE

Search for Product-Water Information

OPTIONAL PART OF SERVICE

Scan for Product-Water Information

Save personal information

Search for product information

See water footprint information

Scan product barcode for information

See water footprint information

Request sign-up information

Request product water footprint

Present water footprint information

Request product water footprint

Present water footprint information

SERVICE

Me Im

Pay with credit card

S water meas

Request customer information

No abou foo

Line of interaction

Touchpoint

Cashier scans purchases

Pre water f

Front-stage

Line of visibility DropX

Save customer information

Back-stage

Request product water footprint

Translate information

Request product water footprint

Translate information

Identify customer

Identify product

Provide product water footprint

Identify product

Provide water footprint information

Save purchase information

Calculate water footprint

Tra info

P water

with t card

uest mer ation

customer

OPTIONAL PART OF SERVICE

Measure Impact

Notify on progress

See water footprint measurment

Start Challenge

Current Standing

End Challenge

Get notification on progress

Challenge/ Get challenged

Accept challenge

Get notification on current standing

Get notification on finished challenge

Notify about progress

Notify participants about challenge

Request approval

Notify about standing

Notify about final score

Notify about water footprint

Present water footprint

Translate information

ve hase mation

Request progress product information water footprint

Identify customer

Print water footprint

Push notification

Provide customer progress info

Request standing information

Push notification

Identify customer

Save challenge information

Identify customer

Push notification

End challenge

Push notification

Provide customer standing info

Identify customer

Provide final score

General blueprint Timeline

OPTIONAL PART OF PRE-SERVICE

PRE-SERVICE

Become User

Service Encounter

Pay purchases in the supermarket

User Action

See water footprint in receipt

Encounter marketing material

Sign-Up

OPTIONAL PART OF SERVICE

Search for Product-Water Information

OPTIONAL PART OF SERVICE

SERVIC

Scan for Product-Water Information

Visit the website

Download APP

Save personal information

Search for product information

See water footprint information

Scan product barcode for information

See water footprint information

Present service information

Request sign-up information

Request product water footprint

Present water footprint information

Request product water footprint

Present water footprint information

Provide service information

Request product water footprint

Translate information

Request product water footprint

Translate information

Identify product

Provide product water footprint

Identify product

Provide water footprint information

Line of interaction

Touchpoint $

Present water footprint

Ca sc purc

Front-stage

Line of visibility DropX

Translate information

Provide water footprint measurment

Back-stage

Calculate water footprint

Create marketing material

Save customer information

Cal water

ation

SERVICE

ee ootprint mation

ent otprint mation

OPTIONAL PART OF SERVICE

Pay with credit card

Measure Impact

Notify on progress

See water footprint measurment

Start Challenge

Current Standing

End Challenge

Get notification on progress

Challenge/ Get challenged

Accept challenge

Get notification on current standing

Get notification on finished challenge

Notify about progress

Notify participants about challenge

Request approval

Notify about standing

Notify about final score

Cashier scans purchases

Request customer information

Notify about water footprint

Present water footprint

slate mation

Identify customer

Translate information

Save purchase information

ide otprint ation

Calculate water footprint

Print water footprint

Request progress product information water footprint

Push notification

Identify customer

Provide customer progress info

Identify customer

Save challenge information

Request standing information

Push notification

End challenge

Push notification

Identify customer

Provide customer standing info

Identify customer

Provide final score

Service Outcomes As stated, DropX is a service that translates scientific data regarding resources going into the production of food, exemplified by water, into useful information for supermarket customers’ everyday lives. There are three main outcomes of this service, ranging from the rather abstract and intangible, to the more concrete and measurable.

Raised Awareness of the Current Freshwater Problems

A main prerequisite for the success of our service is a general awareness of the problems linked to our unsustainable use of freshwater resources. Through promotion of our service, and water footprint information on the supermarket receipts, our service can help make regular supermarket customers more aware of the overall problems and the impact of their choices. Furthermore, the virality inherent in our social, gamified service concept will contribute to the spreading of this important message.

Empowered Supermarket Customers

After becoming aware, customers must take action to address the problem. Our service will provide supermarket customers with the information they

need to lower their personal water footprints through better informed grocery shopping. The information will be provided through the most convenient channels, in a both understandable and motivating way, with the aim of reaching and inspiring as many people as possible.

More Sustainable Food Supply System

The overall “Why” (Sinek 2009) behind this service is a large-scale, environmental problem. The ultimate goal of the service is to improve upon the current state of our environment, balance our use of freshwater with the resources available, and create a more sustainable food supply system.

Challenges Collaborations with Supermarkets Obtaining access to information about our users’ supermarket purchases is highly important for our service concept, and collaborations with the supermarkets are necessary. Creating enough value for the supermarkets, and establishing these partnerships, is one of the most important challenges to overcome.

Monetising on the Service Concept

Although we consider the previously described monetisation- and business models to potentially be both feasible and viable, we have not yet tested any of them. Until established and proven, the implementation of any business model should be considered a challenge.

Products with multiple ingredients

While a collaboration with the Danish supermarkets will give us access to their database, and thus give us the information we need to keep track of our users’ grocery shopping, there is one major challenge that must be overcome. Many food products consist of multiple ingredients, such as bread or pre-packaged meals, and information

about these is not inherent in the supermarkets’ databases. For the time being, we will be able to provide users with water footprint information on whole foods, i.e. fruits, vegetables, meat, eggs, milk, etc. In the future a solution to overcome this challenge must be developed. We have considered different options which will be presented later in the report.

Discussion and Reflection

Through the process we have done continuous considerations regarding validity and reliability of our methods and sources. In this part of our report we will discuss these points, and in addition reflect on further steps for the project and expansions of DropX.

Validity of Data and Methods Triangulation was applied in different ways throughout our work, with the aim of achieving a high level of validity. It can be defined as â€œan effort to see if what we are observing and reporting carries the same meaning when found under different circumstancesâ€? (Stake 1995, p. 113).

Data source triangulation

Data source triangulation (Stake 1995) was applied at several stages during our design process. We always aimed for a relatively high number of data sources, whether that be the +200 respondents in our early-stage consumer survey, the 40 interviewees in a round of supermarket interviews, or the six participants in our co-creation workshop. Furthermore, we aimed at reaching people with different characteristics relevant to the research. This often meant covering a wide range of demographics and psychographics. In the desktop research phases we sought out different sources and different viewpoints on a given subject or research question, in order to get as broad and complete understanding of the situation as possible. The research done on water footprints must be mentioned in this connection. Since not a lot of extensive research has been conducted in this field, it was difficult to fully utilise the strengths

of triangulation. The water footprint calculations used as the source for the service proposed in this report, were the only ones that we found to be satisfactory, both in terms of the methodological approach behind them, and the range of products covered.

Investigator triangulation

Each researcher will inevitably have their own background, feelings and worldviews affect the perception of a given situation. Therefore, we have applied investigator triangulation (Stake 1995) and strived to be at least two researchers together in any field research task. Having different viewpoints on one research subject is always beneficial, and it has especially helped us in the analyses and discussions of our qualitative research methods. Thorough documentation in the form of written notes, photographs and videos has played a key role throughout our research, and has been essential whenever research was conducted by an individual researcher.

Methodological triangulation

Multiple methods were used to conduct research on the same areas, what is referred to as methodological triangulation (Stake 1995). For instance, desktop research, a quantitative survey, and interviews were applied to address some of the same research questions. Each method served to confirm, or challenge, findings from the others. Overlapping data was regarded as valid.

Further Research As is the case in most design projects, whether academic or professional, we were limited in resources and time. Therefore we needed to prioritise tasks and could not cover all the steps we intended to cover. One of the most essential aspects of our service, that will be given a lot of attention as we move forward, is the visual depiction of the water footprint information. It is crucial that we manage to communicate the data in a way that is relatable and understandable, and thus engaging and inspiring, for the users. This is an aspect that has already been prototyped and tested, but further iterations are needed. The previously mentioned ‘scales’, relating water footprints to everyday experiences, or measuring a product’s water footprint in terms of drinking water for people in developing countries, will all be developed and tested further. One of the next steps is to further develop and specify the, up until this point, rather loosely defined challenge part of the service. Furthermore we strive to create wireframes depicting the interface of DropX, which might be used for further testing and iteration of the service experience. In order to complement the distributed system’s back-end infrastructure,

further research is required. More specifically it needs to be explored whether or not our assumed supermarket back-end infrastructure matches with existing ones. If this is not the case we need to adapt. This would also mean that using the receipt as a touchpoint in our service is not an option. While this would significantly lower our ability to raise awareness, the receipt is not an essential part of our proposed service. Another important point is to verify that supermarkets would be interested in a collaboration with DropX. In order to evaluate and decide upon one of the proposed monetisation models in section ‘2.18 Revenue Streams’, other potential partners need to be contacted.

100

Expanding DropX During this semester’s project we developed a service translating scientific data regarding resources going into the production of food, exemplified by water, into useful information for supermarket customers’ everyday lives. Therefore, once the infrastructure is set up and the service is up and running there are multiple opportunities for further development.

Dynamically Updating Water Footprint Information

As DropX grows we might be able to establish valuable partnerships with farmers, producers and food processing companies, which could provide data regarding their processes, enabling us to present supermarket customers with information of increasing accuracy.

Adding Environmental Metrics

We are fully aware that only focusing on the water footprint does not cover the complexity of environmental issues related to the topic ‘food’. A product that is superior in terms of water footprint, may be worse off when considering other environmental metrics. Product information regarding the environmental impact, such as the distance traveled, the use of pesticides or ethical issues, should be added to the database and service experience.

Including Products with Multiple Ingredients

To overcome the challenge connected to products with multiple ingredients, crowdsourcing as a solution should be explored. Engaged users of our service could be enabled to provide the information about different products’ ingredients, either by simply uploading a photo of the list, or entering the ingredients manually. The first option would be the most convenient for the user, but would require a sophisticated photo recognition technology, or a lot of manual work on our side. Another solution could be a direct collaboration with the stakeholders in charge of producing the food products (i.e. working with the ‘recipes’ and the different ingredients), or packaging (i.e. attaching the content information to the products). Such collaborations could give us access to the data we need.

Easy Saving of Cash Purchases

Another challenge we realised early on in the process, was the fact that many users will occasionally pay for their groceries with cash. This would prevent us from automatically registering our users’ purchases, and providing them with water footprint information based on these. We want to make it easy for supermarket customers to transfer the information from a given receipt to the DropX service. This feature can be used by new, curious customers, or by

registered users who have not signed up with a credit card. A solution we began exploring during this project, and will develop further in the near future, is printing a unique code on each receipt. This code would act as a pointer to digitally stored information about a given purchase, and could then be entered by the customer for easy saving of purchase information and related water footprint.

Personal Goal Setting

During our design project, we have preliminarily explored the opportunity of enabling users to set personal goals for themselves, related to their personal water footprints. A user could, for instance, aim at lowering her personal water footprint by 10% per month, thus creating an additional motivational factor for herself. Updates on the current status and friendly encouragements could furthermore be sent via the smartphone app.

101

Conclusion

The service concept presented above, accompanied by our critical reflections upon it, serves as our conclusion, the main outcome, of our design project. However, the proposed service solution is not the only outcome of a design project. Any designer should strive to grow and learn with each project, and this has of course been an essential part of this particular one. Although this design project will continue for a few more weeks, this is a good time to look back and reflect upon the process so far.

102

Reflections on Group Work As is always the case when new design teams are assembled, some initial adaptations and adjustments must be made to establish the best possible framework for utilising each team member’s strengths and values. We spent the first few weeks getting to know each other’s ways of working and daily routines, in order to structure and approach the design process in the best way possible. Having a service design team with various educational, geographical and cultural backgrounds represented, soon proved valuable. We were able to apply a wide range of viewpoints in any given design situation. This helped us discover potential flaws, as well as opportunities, in various design solutions throughout the process. By acknowledging our different personalities and opinions, and encouraging discussions based on these, we embraced ‘agonism’ as a valuable aspect of service design (Munthe-Kaas n.d.).

103

Reflections on Learning Goals Throughout the process of this semester project we strove to apply the tools and methods needed to meet the formal as well as our personal learning goals. Combining the knowledge acquired through the semesterâ€™s courses and insights gained working with the semester theme, we were able to explore and understand the complexity of an existing distributed system, the food supply system. Through the research and interviews with various stakeholders we were able to identify existing problem areas within the system. With this we had a solid foundation for our further work. Using various ideation techniques to unfold and explore the opportunities within the given problem areas we arrived at a concept idea that would fit as a sustainable solution. Using the Design Thinking mindset, we have iteratively explored and defined all aspects of the service system, and

by using different methods and tools we acquired new hands-on experiences by involving users. One of the most important elements in our design process, both in terms of adding value to the final service solution, and building on our knowledge and experience with service design, was the co-creation workshop. It taught us a lot about involving users in the design process and facilitating workshops with the aim of designing a service that will turn out to be truly desirable among its potential users.

104

References Aalborg University. (2012). Curriculum for the Master’s Programme in Service Systems Design. (N.d.): 9-10. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

Coop. (2015). Reduktion af madspild. Web. 25 May 2015. https://om.coop.dk/ansvarlighed/ miljoe+og+oekologi/madspild.aspx

the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Manchester Business School. Degra, London. Web. 28 March 2015.

Brahm C., and Kleiner, B. H. (1996). Advantages and disadvantages of group decision-making. Team Performance Management. 2(1). Web. 30 March 2015.

Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster (2012). Danish Smart Cities: Sustainable Living in an Urban World. Copenhagen Capacity. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

GoodGuide. (2015). About GoodGuide. Web. 24 May 2015. http://www.goodguide.com/ about

BSBD. (26 Jan. 2015). System Map. Web. 27 May 2015. http://www.bsbd.org.uk/cards/ system-map/

Coulouris, G. F., Dollimore, J., and Kindberg, T. (2005). Distributed Systems: Concepts and Design. Pearson Education. Web. 19 Feb 2015.

Buchenau, M. and Suri, J. F. (Aug. 2000). Experience Prototyping. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques. New York: ACM. Web. 18 May 2015. Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Web. 18 May 2015. Chaffey, D. and Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2012). Digital Marketing: Strategy, Implementation and Practice. Pearson. Fifth edition. Print. Chapagain, A. K. & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2003). Virtual Water Flows Between Nations in Relation to Trade in Livestock and Livestock Products. Web. 25 April 2015. Chiang, R. H., Barron, T. M., & Storey, V. C. (1994). Reverse Engineering of Relational Databases: Extraction of an EER model from a relational database. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 12(2), 107-142. Web. 14 May 2015. Coop. (2015). Ansvarlighed. Web. 25 May 2015. https://om.coop.dk/Ansvarlighed.aspx

d.school. (2015). An Introduction to Design Thinking Process Guide. Web. 16 Feb. 2015. Dansk Supermarked. (2015). Samfundsansvar. Web. 25 May 2015. http:// dansksupermarked.dk/om-os/ansvar/ DeWeerdt, S. (2009). Is Local Food Better? World Watch Magazine, May/June, Volume 22, No. 3, 2009. Web. 28 March 2015. http:// www.worldwatch.org/node/6064 Finans TV2. (19 May 2015). Nye funktioner på vej til MobilePay: Scan og køb varer direkte. Web. 23 May 2015. http://finans.tv2.dk/2015-05-19-nyefunktioner-paa-vej-til-mobilepay-scan-ogkoeb-varer-direkte

GovLab. (Jan. 2015). Using Open Data to Protect the Food Supply: A Roundtable with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Web. 23 May 2015. GRAIN. (28 May 2014). Hungry for Land: Small Farmers Feed the World with Less than a Quarter of all Farmland. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. Group 5. (2015, a). ‘The Life of a Carrot (stopmotion)’. Service Systems Design. Aalborg University Copenhagen. Video. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=jqD7-7Sz12w Group 5. (2015, b). ‘Hidden Costs Uncovered (video sketch)’. Service Systems Design. Aalborg University Copenhagen. Video. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=llkXcs3lcPM Group 5. (2015, c). ‘Farmbook (final video sketch)’. Service Systems Design. Aalborg University Copenhagen. Video. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=VUxGycgq5hg

Finans TV2. (22 May 2015). MobilePay og Rema 1000 i storsatsning. Web. 23 May 2015. http://finans.tv2.dk/2015-05-22mobilepay-og-rema-1000-i-storsatsning

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R. and Meybeck A. (2011). Global Food Losses and Food Waste - Extent, Causes and Prevention. Rome. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn A., Mylan, J. (Dec. 2006). Environmental Impacts of Food Production and Consumption: A report to

Hart, J. (2008). The Art of the Storyboard: A filmmaker’s introduction. (Chapter 10). Focal Press. Web. 16 May 2015.

Hoekstra, A. Y. (2003). Virtual Water Trades. Value of Water, Research Report Series No. 12. IHE Delft, The Netherlands, 12-13 December 2002. Web. 28 April 2015. Hoekstra, A. Y. & Mekonnen, M. M. (2012). The Water Footprint of Humanity. Department of Water Engineering and Management, University of Twente. Web. 24 April 2015. Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M. & Mekonnen, M. M. (2011). The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan. Web. 25 April 2015. Hosono, S., Hasegawa, M., Hara, T., Shimomura, Y. and Arai, T. (March 2009). A Methodology of Persona-Centric Service Design. Proceedings of the 19th CIRP Design Conference–Competitive Design 31 Mar. 2009. Web. 23 May 2015. IDEO. (2009). Human-Centered Design Toolkit. IDEO.org. Web. 18 Mar. 2015. IDEO. (2015). The Field Guide to HumanCentered Design. IDEO.org. 21 May 2015. Illustreret Videnskab. (24 Jun. 2010). Hvordan læses en stregkode? Web. 24 Apr. 2015. http://illvid.dk/teknologi/elektronik/ hvordan-laeses-en-stregkode IMECHE. (2013). Global Food: Waste not, Want not. Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Web. 28 March 2015. James, L. (03 Oct. 2013). Defining Open Data. Open Knowledge Blog. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. http://blog.okfn.org/2013/10/03/definingopen-data/

105

Jonas, W. (2001) A Scenario for Design. Design Issues 17.2: 64-80. Web. 22. May 2015. Kelley, T. and Littman, J. (2001). The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity From IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm. Profile Books, 2001. Print. Love Food, Hate Waste. (2015). About us. Web. 24 May 2015. http://england. lovefoodhatewaste.com/content/about-us-2 Maurya, A. (2012). Why Lean Canvas vs Business Model Canvas? 27 Feb. 2012. Web. 04 April 2015. http://leanstack.com/whylean-canvas/ McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. Penguin. Print. McKenzie, G. (2011). Gamification and Location-Based Services. Web. 23 April 2015. Mekonnen, M. M. and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2010). The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Web. 24 April 2015. Mekonnen, M. M. and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012). A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Web. 25 April 2015. Mell, P., & Grance, T. (2011). The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing. Web. 27 Feb. 2015. Miljøministeriet. (21 May 2014). Danmark uden affald - Ressourceplan for affaldshåndtering 2013-2018. Vejledning fra Miljøstyrelsen nr. 4, 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.

Moritz, S. (2005). Service Design – Practical access to an evolving field. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

Experience Blueprinting. SAGE Publications. Web. 03 May 2015.

Stickdorn, M. and Schneider J., eds. (2011). This Is Service Design Thinking. BIS. Print.

Munthe-Kaas, P. (N.d.). Agonism and CoDesign of Urban Spaces. Web. 06 April 2015.

Pine, J. B. and Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the Experience Economy. Harvard Business Review. Reprint 98407. JulyAugust 1998. Web. 19 May 2015.

UNESCO (2015). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2015: Water for a Sustainable World. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Web. 28 April 2015.

Nesta. (2015). Food Open Data Challenge. Web. 23 May 2015. http://www.nesta.org.uk/ project/the-open-data-challenge-series/foodopen-data-challenge Nierenberg, D. (Sept. 2005). Worldwatch paper 171: Happier Meals: Rethinking the Global Meat Industry. Worldwatch Institute. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. O’Loughlin, Erin K. et al. (2012). Prevalence and Correlates of Exergaming in Youth. Web. 23 April 2015. Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Print. Oulasvirta, A., Kurvinen, E., Kankainen, T. (2003). Understanding Contexts by Being There: Case Studies in Bodystorming. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Vol. 7: p. 125-134. Web. 17 May 2015. Oxford Dictionaries. (2010). Web. 26 May 2015. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/english/gamification Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. and Macnaughton, S. (16 Aug. 2010). Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Phil. Trans. R. Soc., vol. 365, pp. 3065-3081. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. Patrício, L., Fisk, R. P. and Constantine, L. (2011). Multilevel Service Design: From Customer Value Constellation to Service

Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Riverhead Hardcover. Print. Pluhar, E. B. (18 Dec. 2009). Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farming. Springer Science+Business Media B. V. 2009. Web. 18 Feb. 2015. Regeringen. (Feb. 2015). Danmark uden affald II - Udkast til Strategi for affaldsforebyggelse. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. Crown Business. Print. Sanders, E. B.-N and Stappers, P. J. (Mar. 2008). Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design. Web. 06 Feb. 2015. Schwaber, K., and Sutherland J. (July 2013). The Scrum Guide. N.p. Web. 15 May 2015. http://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide. html Sinek, Simon (2009). Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. Portfolio, Penguin Group. Print. Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks Sage Publications, 1995. Print.

USDA. (2015). United States Department of Agriculture. Economics, Statistics and Market Information System. Web. 23 May 2015. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/ MannUsda/homepage.do Vezzoli, C., Kohtala, C., Srinivasan, A., Xin, L., Fusakul, M., Sateesh, D., & Diehl, J. C. (2014). Product-Service System Design for Sustainability. Greenleaf Publishing. Web. 27 May 2015. Warfel, T. Z. (2009). Prototyping: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York: Rosenfeld Media, LLC. Web. 18.05.2015. Waterfootprint.org. (2015). Water Footprint Statistics (WaterStat). Web. 24 April 2015. http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/ water-footprint-statistics/#CP1 World Food Programme. (2014). Hunger Statistics. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. http://www. wfp.org/hunger/stats WRAP. (2015). Our vision. Web. 24 May 2015. http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/ about-us

106

Appendix 1 - The survey

Grocery Shopping and Decision Making This survey is for understanding the decisions linked with grocery shopping. Thanks for participating!

9. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below

We are a group of Service Design students from Aalborg University Copenhagen working on a project with food consumption. * Required

9. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below 1. Gender * Mark only one oval.

10. When you are going grocery shopping how often do you plan ahead? * Make a list, check recipes, check what products you already have at home, etc. Mark only one oval.

Male Female Other

Always

After the last question in this section, skip to question 12.

Oftendays do After theplan last for? question 12. How many you * in this section, skip to question 12. 10. When you are oval. going grocery shopping often do you ahead?12. * Mark only one Seldom After the last questionhow in this section, skipplan to question Make a list, check recipes, check what products you already have at home, etc. question in this section, skip to question 16. Never After the last 1-2one days Mark only oval.

2. Age *

2-5 days Always After the last question in this section, skip to question 12. 11. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below 5-7 days Often After the last question in this section, skip to question 12. More than a week ahead. Seldom After the last question in this section, skip to question 12. I don't plan ahead 12. How many you * in this section, skip to question 16. Neverdays do After theplan lastfor? question Mark only one oval.

3. Profession *

4. Nationality *

6. How many people are in your household? * Mark only one oval.

13. Which 1-2 meals do you plan? * days 11. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below 2-5 days

5. Current1city and country of residence *

5-7 days 14. How doMore you than plan? * a week ahead. What kind of tools do you use, e.g. paper and pen, don't plan ahead phone, Ispreadsheet, app

2 3 6. How many people are in your household? * 4 or more Mark only one oval. 7. Please 1write any additional comments or thoughts below

13. Which meals do you plan? * 15. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below

2 3 4 or more 7. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below

8. To what extent are you a part of the PLANNING of grocery shopping in your household? * Mark only one oval. I'm not part of the planning. I decide on some things.

After the last question in this section, skip to question 16. After the last question in this section, skip to question 10.

14. How do you plan? * What kind of tools do you use, e.g. paper and pen, phone, spreadsheet, app

15. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below Skip to question 18. 16. What is preventing you from planning? *

After the last question in this section, skip to I'm mainly responsible for the planning. question 10. 8. To what extent are you a part of the PLANNING of grocery shopping in your household? * Mark only responsible for the planning. After the last question in this section, skip to question I'm one fullyoval. 10.

I'm not part of the planning. I decide on some things.

After the last question in this section, skip to question 16. After the last question in this section, skip to question 10.

I'm mainly responsible for the planning. question 10. I'm fully responsible for the planning. 10.

After the last question in this section, skip to After the last question in this section, skip to question

Skip to question 18. 16. What is preventing you from planning? *

22. Which factors are the most important to you when grocery shopping? * Choose three most important factors. Check all that apply. Quantity

Appendix 1 - The survey

Fair Trade Product contents and health benefits Aesthetics and packaging

17. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below

Price Brand Eco-friendly Other:

17. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below

18. How often does your household go grocery shop? * Mark only one oval. Seldom than once a week Once a week Twice a week 18. How often go grocery shop? * Moredoes thanyour twicehousehold a week Mark only one oval. Seldom thandoes once your a week 19. How much money household spend on grocery shopping each month? * Once a week If you are not sure, please give a rough estimate. Twice a week More than twice a week

only shop some things. Afteror the last question in this section, skip to question 22. 21. Please Iwrite any additional comments thoughts below I'm mainly responsible for the shopping. After the last question in this section, skip to question 22. 20. To what extent are you a part of the grocery SHOPPING in your household? * Mark only I'm one fullyoval. responsible for the shopping. After the last question in this section, skip to question I'm not part of the shopping.

24. How do you remember the items youâ€™re going Full overview to buy? * Good overview Partly overview No overview 25. How often do you buy more than what you end up using? * Mark only one oval. 24. How do you remember the items youâ€™re going to buy?Always * Often Seldom 25. How often do you buy more than what you end up using? * Never Mark only one oval. 26. Please Always write any additional comments or thoughts below Often

20. To what extent are you a part of the grocery SHOPPING in your household? * 19. How money Mark much only one oval. does your household spend on grocery shopping each month? * After the last question in this section, skip to question 27. I'm not part the shopping. If you are not sure, of please give a rough estimate.

22.

23. To what extent do you have an overview of the products you have at home? * Mark only one oval.

After the last question in this section, skip to question 27.

21. Please Iwrite any additional comments thoughts below only shop some things. Afteror the last question in this section, skip to question 22. I'm mainly responsible for the shopping. After the last question in this section, skip to question 22. 22. Which factors are the most important to you when grocery shopping? * I'm fully responsible for the shopping. After the last question in this section, skip to question Choose three most important factors. 22. Check all that apply. Quantity Fair Trade Product health benefits 22. Which factorscontents are the and most important to you when grocery shopping? * Choose three most factors. Aesthetics andimportant packaging Check all that apply. Price Quantity Brand Fair Trade Eco-friendly Product contents and health benefits Other: Aesthetics and packaging Price 23. To what extent do you have an overview of the products you have at home? * Mark Brand only one oval. Eco-friendly Full overview Good overview Other: Partly overview 23. To what do you have an overview of the products you have at home? * Noextent overview

Seldom Never 26. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below

27. How often do you have leftovers (without intention) after having prepared and eaten a meal? * Mark only one oval. Always Often Seldom 27. How often do you have leftovers (without intention) after having prepared and eaten a meal? * Never Mark only one oval. Other: Always Often 28. If you do, what do you do with your leftovers? Seldom Never 29. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below Other: 28. If you do, what do you do with your leftovers?

30. What type of food do you most often have to throw out? * You can choose more than one. Check all that apply. Dairy products Eggs

107

I don't eat food after expiration date. Other:

108 29. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below

33. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below If you for some reason don't eat some of the food categories listed above (e.g. due to personal choices or allergies) please let us know here

30. What type of food do you most often have to throw out? * You can choose more than one. Check all that apply.

34. How much food (that you could have eaten) do you throw out compared to other people?? * E.g. leftovers or unprepared foods gone bad Mark only one oval.

Appendix 1 - The survey

Dairy products

Below average.

Eggs

Average.

Meat

Over average.

Bread Fruit and vegetables

35. Do you feel that you throw out too much food? *

I don't throw away food. Other:

36. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below

31. What makes you throw out food? You can choose more than one. Check all that apply. Smell Leftovers Expiration date Aesthetics: Visible mold etc. Making room for fresh products Other: 32. Which food category(-ies) would you use after expiration date? * You can choose more than one. Check all that apply. Dairy products Eggs Meat Bread Fruit and vegetables I don't eat food after expiration date. Other: 33. Please write any additional comments or thoughts below If you for some reason don't eat some of the food categories listed above (e.g. due to personal choices or allergies) please let us know here

34. How much food (that you could have eaten) do you throw out compared to other people?? * E.g. leftovers or unprepared foods gone bad Mark only one oval.

109

Appendix 3 - Interview guide for farmer interview

Farm: Produce: Contact person:

4. How big is your farm / production of particular produce?

Phone number: Email: Responsible: Contact date: 1. Do you experience food waste?

5. Do you grow your produce free range or in greenhouse?

2. If you do, how much? (Percentage, amount, etc.)

6. Can I get back to you later with additional questions?

3. If you do, why does this waste occur?

7. Other contacts we could/should talk to?

4. Have you taken any initative to reduce the waste, if yes, wha

8. Other notes

110

Appendix 4 - Speed personas

111

Appendix 5 - Existing service research

EWG Food Scores, App http://www.ewg.org/

EWG Dirty Dozen, App

Dansk Mad, Fødevaredatabanken, App https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=no. orcasoft.matvaretabellen_dk Fødevaredatabanken:

http://www.ewg.org/

Kvittering.dk, App

PareUp, Platform

GS1 GoScan

http://www.pareup.com/

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org. gs1au.goscan

Love Food Hate Waste, App http://england.lovefoodhatewaste.com/node/5825

mesGoûts, App http://www.mesgouts.fr/

Open Food Facts, App https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org. openfoodfacts.scanner

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com. rcoon.enummer&hl=da

MyFoodFacts, App By COOP

Where’s This From, App http://www.wheresthisfrom.com/

http://www.foodtag.dk/

Holdbarhed, App

Edibly, App https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=prod. edibly.app

https://www.kvittering.dk/

E nummer & Fødevare Guide, App

http://www.foodfacts.com/

http://www.foodcomp.dk/v7/fvdb_default.asp

By storebox.com

Foodtag, App

Foodfacts, App

http://www.myfoodfacts.com/

112

Appendix 6 - The result of Ideation

The list below is the ideas generated in our ideation

App and Database

User generated data

Pointsystem

Gamification

“farmers Picks”, Products that farmers recommend based on environmental impact

Shared kitchen in building, order food, pick up.

Increase prices on groceries when you have reached your (personally defined) environmental impact limit, the sum goes to charity or a “hate organisation” chosen by someone else

Supermarkets competing in a game where information and how it is given to the customer are the parameters for winning

Info about how we are raping the land! Exhausting the land Informing people that they don’t need the exotic foods Open data to educate people about alternatives to exotic fruits and vegetables Database with farmer selfies - farmfies Info about energy source - wind, water, renewable / non-renewable App retrieving all the related information to given product from various sources (articles / blogger etc.) Compare “energy in” with “energy out” or general “outcome” of the product App that generates a plan for an environmentally healthy meal in the supermarket and guides you through it.

Consumer-created database of environmental impact, based on home/ desktop research + user ratings/reviews to “validate” Share home-crown food, perhaps in supermarkets or other “public” buildings / places (e.g. library) Guerilla “unmarketing” (pointing at) of very environmentally damaging product by stickers on supermarket shelves Shelf-boxes for freshly overproduced dishes

Get reward free food when producing / saving energy Earn points while shopping, few points red basket, many points green basket, top 20 in the neighborhood gold basket, could be added to a bonus card

Education incorporated, clearly showing the positive impact to extent the behavior longer than the game itself or “ongoing game”? Consumers setting limit on their environmental impact linked to other services, e.g. “no netflix if you surpass the limit” Cities / parts of cities blocks competing on being the most sustainable part - measured from choices at the supermarkets Gamification community challenges - caring more about game than environment, but positive impact Educational game to be played in the schoolyard - more stomping, more water, fruits and vegetables requiring different amount of water

113

Appendix 6 - The result of Ideation The list below is the ideas generated in our ideation

Random

Farmers

Electronic device tracking products through the food supply chain, measuring distance and impact + comparison to other journeys, ranking.

Service that sends interested consumers to the source of the produced product to better understand the process and impact

Other places to advertise environmental impact

Boxes to put food waste in are collected by local farmers that use it as food for animals or compost Farmers sale online, farmer put their misshaped product online and sell them + info about resources put into the growing all the food that is wasted earlier in the process

Labeling supermarket products Environmental impact calculated and stated on the receipt Product labels showing environmental price - easy translation, e.g. “one three had to die” Showing video (perhaps live) from farm actual situation, real-time Educating about food waste with an interactive fruit & veg section Fruit/vegetable scale in supermarket showing veight + “environmental all weight” Scanner in supermarket that gives the customer info about e.g. environmental impact. Customer can choose alternatives. Fruit/vegetable scale in supermarket showing weight + “environment all weight” Touching spot/mark (on product). Touch it and a bar will load. How bad is the environmental impact? New marking on price tags or labels/ packaging that indicate the impact of the product.

Show video (perhaps live from farm actual situation, real-time

114

Appendix 7 - The result of Ideation , first iteration

The list below was first iteration on the ideas generated in our ideation

Labeling supermarket product

Gamification

Point system

Different ways of interacting in the supermarket

Supermarket vs. supermarket

Rewards/punishment

Wrist band senses the product you pick up - changes the weight - give the information on the wrist band.

Game/social Community -

Could be connected to the gamification

Education game in the school yard Scale that increases when thing are put in the basket

Red/green/gold basket point system

Possible for Receipt calculation “One tree has to die”. “touch scale” in order to see the impact of the product.

Neutral supermarket - no labels - you have to scan to find the groceries that you want. Or geo catching in the supermarket - make the supermarket a treasure hunt.

Farmers Guerilla marketing about environmentally damaged product - stickers Tourisme

Database farmfies

Boxes to put food waste in given back to the local farmers.

115

Appendix 8 - Idea spreadsheet

IDEA SPREADSHEET Idea Number:

Group Number:

Idea Summary:

PERSONA

PICTURE

WORD

116

Appendix 9 - Booklet

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANT

FEEDBACK

Name:

How did the workshop style and methods fit you?

Age: Occupation:

How did we do as facilitators? (positives and negatives)

Where do you live (area)?

Please draw yourself above. Three-five keywords to describe yourself: Overall feedback on the session? (positives and negatives) How often do you grocery shop?

To what extent do you consider the environmental impact of the groceries you buy? (Make a circle.) 0

not a consideration

How?

Which social media platforms do you use?

10 main consideration

Any thoughts or feelings about the concept? (positives and negatives)