retail experience - solution development

Module: Design Practical 2

Assignment 1: Solution Development

M.Des 1.1

Name: Harshal Desai

Lecturer: Arabella Pasquette

Date of Submission

18/12/2011

Word Count: 2122

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION: RECAP FROM LAST WEEK .................................................... 3

TARGET CONSUMER ......................................................................................... 4

PRIORITY OF ISSUES ............................................................................................ 5

WHATS OUT THERE? ........................................................................................... 6

CONVERGING IDEAS ........................................................................................ 8

NEXT STEP .......................................................................................................... 10

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ................................................................................ 11

APPENDIX ......................................................................................................... 13

A1. ISSUE CHART .......................................................................................... 13

A2. FAIRPRICE SUPERMARKET VS HYPERMARKET ..................................... 14

A3. TARGET CONSUMER ............................................................................. 14

A4. CONSUMERS FUTURE 2020 ................................................................... 16

A5. SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 16

WORKS CITED .................................................................................................. 17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Solution Development for the supermarket involves striking a balance

between consumer needs and retailer costs. The Masters of Design

students have spent six weeks gathering and analyzing research data,

brainstorming on several potential solutions. Those solutions shall be

looked into from a broader perspective in an attempt to achieve the

necessary balance for an ideal consumer shopping experience.

INTRODUCTION: RECAP FROM LAST WEEK

After several trial and errors in identifying the core issues, another

brainstorming session was held to sort out issues into specific categories.

(Appendix A1)

Figure 1: Issue Chart sorted into Categories

This gave the team a clearer perspective to focus the observational

analysis and process mapping. It was decided to select FairPrice

outlets as our client since they have over 240 sales outlets, holding over

50% market share for retail in Singapore. (Chong, 2011)

A quick population comparison showed that FairPrice Xtra

hypermarkets have a maximum population reach of 900,000 potential

consumers, and thus, was selected as our primary focus.

Issues Before Entry

Carriers

In the Store

Checkout Counter

After

Exit

Figure 2: Population density Comparison. (Department of Statistics, 2011)

The decision is also based on the initial observations at Fairprice

markets. The checkout time in a hypermarket was five times more than

a regular supermarket and people bought approximately twice the

number of items in a hypermarket. (Appendix A2)

TARGET CONSUMER

Based on interviews of a total 30 people at FairPrice Serangoon and

Hougang, the team concluded the target consumer has an age range

of 35-40 years, having a monthly income $3000-$4000, living

approximately five minutes from the hypermarket, shopping once a

week. The consumer primarily walks to the store and takes a cab to go

back home. The team estimated the reason being having to carry

heavy shopping bags. (Appendix A3)

Shreyaa was assigned to create four psychological consumer profiles

that match the following data and classify them as impulse buyers or

planned buyers.

Biniya focused on creating a detailed process map in all three stores

centered on the consumer profile and Alex reread the secondary

research to define the scope of the project.

Issa and Yumi studied the carriers available in the marketplace today.

PRIORITY OF ISSUES

The team interviewed 50 people at FairPrice Serangoon, A.M.K. and

Hougang to determine the priority issues from a consumer’s

perspective. The people were chosen randomly constrained by the

target profile and given a list of issues to rank according to priority.

Figure 3: Priority of Issues Chart

The results were as follows:

Primary Issue: Waiting in long queues at checkout

To increase efficiency of the checkout counter by

improving/eliminating current payment system. 66% consumers

voted this as top priority.

Secondary Issue: Wanting high quality of fresh products

To develop a system that keeps track of product expiry dates

and notifies the staff. 22% consumers voted this as top priority

Tertiary Issue: Carrying Bags after Checkout*

To design a solution that reduces difficulty of carrying products

home after purchase. 16% consumers voted this as top priority.

*Despite the results, the team’s observations conclude that carrying groceries after checkout is a far bigger

problem and as such, is being considered as the secondary issue.

WHATS OUT THERE?

Issa, Yumi and Alex studied several alternative carriers available in the

market, both portable and collapsible types of varying sizes. These

carriers were differentiated according to their strengths, weaknesses,

cost and features along with a Quality Vs Value assessment. Analysis

showed that most carriers were easily portable, lightweight, and cost

ranging from $25-$200 depending on sizes and type of material.

Harshal focused on examining the current experiments done in

RFID(Radio Frequency Identification) and NFC (Near Field

Communications) technology with regards to supermarkets. The goal

was to study the cost of setup, understand privacy issues and potential

flaws, variety of features etc. The results are compared according to

Cost Vs Function to determine the feasibility of this technology being

used in the Singapore market.

Currently Metrogroup AG

runs a Future Store using NFC

technology for the products,

and RFID tags for store

inventory (Future Store

Initiative, 2011)

Customers use their cellphones to capture photographs of barcodes of

the products they wish to purchase. When they are done shopping,

they use the application to create a generic barcode that is later

scanned at a kiosk, and

payment is done either via

cash or credit cards.

RFID technology is used by

the store to keep track of

inventory so it becomes

easier for staff to restock the

supply faster.

Another company named ShelfX

uses a “Smart” shelf system,

combining NFC with RFID to

improve store navigation and

speed up checkout. The product is

currently in trials at a local store in

Colorado, United States.

The process is to use a special NFC

card to tap on the shelf and take

an item. The shelf is weight-

sensitive and can track the

number of items taken by the

consumer. Once all the shopping

is complete, the consumer simply walks to the checkout kiosk, swipes

their card, and completes the payment. A cellphone app is used to

keep track of purchases and to remove any item from the grocery list.

Harshal has been in communication with the Executive Vice President

of ShelfX discussing the cost of setup and features that could be

applied on their technology catered towards the FairPrice Singapore

consumers (ShelfX)

Details of the analyses shall be compiled in the second assignment

focusing on the respective solutions.

CONVERGING IDEAS

After having several individual concepts that solved specific issues

within the supermarket, the next phase was to step back to get a clear

look at the bigger picture. By evaluating which ideas are worth

pursuing, the team can focus on solutions that are beneficial to both

consumer and client.

To look at the bigger picture, Harshal summarized the proposed and

posted them on a wall. Alex and Harshal worked together for the next

two days, setting limits and narrowing the field of solutions within a set

of ideal constraints.

Figure 4: The Solution Wall (Source: Self Shot)

At this point, it was decided to not just focus on the ideal solution for

our primary issue i.e. tedious queues at the checkout counter. Instead,

the focus was to deliver the best consumer experience possible,

keeping the FairPrice Mission, Vision and Values in mind.

According to the Consumer Futures 2020 Scenarios, the solutions were

divided according to the four scenarios predicted in the theory

(Appendix A4) and it was found that RFID and NFC technology provide

the most prosperous results. (Bennie, Crossley, Goodman, Jewell,

Knowles, & Uren, 2011)

The solutions were divided and ranked on a predetermined scale

based on the effectiveness of solving respective issues. (Appendix A5)

Based on the results, three solutions could be proposed.

Solution A: The Ideal Solution

Using RFID technology to eliminate checkout lines altogether, NFC

cellphone app for easy navigation within the stores and an efficient

home delivery system provided by the supermarket. RFID shall also

keep track of the store inventory, notifying the staff in case any

products are past their expiry dates or running low on stock. Consumers

have a choice of using their own portable carriers that are lightweight,

durable, waterproof and cost-friendly. This eliminates the need of

plastic bags and contributes to a better future.

While a delivery system would incur higher costs, they would more than

make up for it in profits created by a larger influx of consumers.

Solution B: Adequate Solution

Using NFC technology for cellphone checkout in combination with an

app for store navigation. The setup cost is considerably less for the

supermarket, and solves the priority issues. The drawbacks however,

include consumer’s dependence on their cellphone to shop. A

supermarket would need to include mobile charging stations for the

consumers. RFID tagging is strictly used for inventory tracking by the

staff. It reduces the setup cost of RFID considerably. The store does not

offer any special delivery services and consumers rely on their portable

carriers to take the groceries home. An alternative is for the

supermarket to lease their carts for a deposit fee that is refunded when

the consumer brings the cart back to the store.

Other Solutions

These concepts are additions to the overall solutions mentioned

above, to improve the consumer experiences.

1. A storage area for the consumer to keep their bags when they

enter the store, to make it easier for them to shop without

burden.

2. An application for smartphones that checks if the supermarket

has the required products

3. Staff training to ensure each customer is greeted politely

4. A counter for consumers to taste bit sized portions of

frozen/ready-to-eat items as an incentive to purchase the

product.

NEXT STEP

The next phase for the design team is to divide into pairs and focus on

specific areas in preparation for the December Graduation Show.

Alyssa and Yumi shall be working on a prototype of the portable

carrier. A basket-sized version was selected since it can be used in all

modes of transport, giving the consumers flexibility to take the transport

of their choice.

Shreyaa and Biniya are creating three boards summarizing the project

and a booklet containing a detailed report.

Alex and Hershey are filming two videos, based on process mapping

observations from Biniya, to show the current time taken for shopping

and how the future solutions will work. Due to time constraints, it was

decided to directly film the process and use special effects for editing

instead of an animation.

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

Overall, I have enjoyed working on this project. Despite initial setbacks

and personality clashes, it was a wonderful learning experience.

From a designer’s perspective, understanding how to accurately

gather data by framing the correct questions, figuring out which

observations to focus on and learning to rely on intuition about certain

issues that may not be picked up through surveys turned out to be very

exciting.

Regarding the concept of groups, I still maintain my position that

overall, there would have been a wider variety of solutions had the

class split up in pairs instead of trying to compete. The objective may

have been to mimic a work environment; however, project leaders do

not switch weekly in an actual working scenario, at least not where I

have seen. In addition, getting others motivated can become quite

stressful at times, particularly when everyone has conflicting goals.

While some just wanted a decent grade, others wanted to ensure the

result was something that makes them proud. In a job, the former

would ideally be kicked out of the team, particularly when they don’t

adhere to deadlines, arrive late, or are not present at all. There is a

clear chain of command in a job, whereas being students, there was

just a senseless power struggle over why one should take orders from

someone else.

Thankfully, we were learning psychology of design at this stage too and

I realized one vital method to “motivate” some of my team members.

By clearly stating that each person will be held responsible for their

sections during a major presentation, suddenly there was an

immediate urgency to generate results.

The quality of work that we had been struggling to achieve for two

weeks was suddenly achieved in 2 days. Of course, due to the rush,

there were a few errors along the way, but it was a valuable

observation in leadership, to relieve the burden suddenly and force the

team to actually work as a unit.

Personally however, I still firmly believe that if everyone had worked on

the project individually, we would have seen far better results. Some

folks are just not meant to work in teams; however, that should not be

misinterpreted as not being able to collaborate.

Collaboration is not really teamwork… Like the famous Leonardo

DaVinci, who sought help and advice from several masters whenever

he had doubts, but the result was always a DaVinci exclusive. Every

student had access to the different design departments and allowed

to consult with their top lecturers. It would have certainly been

interesting to find out if anyone actually tapped into these valuable

resources on their own will.

Nonetheless, it was definitely a valuable experience to pull a decent

success within the time constraints. The end-product may not be up to

my personal expectations but it certainly appears far better than what

I was hoping for during the last two weeks. The videos appeared to be

the highlight of the project, acquiring positive feedback during

graduation and through the social networks alike.

I started out loathing this project, ended up completely immersed it

and discovered a passion for observational research, wanting to

understand a problem from a broader perspective instead of just

randomly fixing it with the first thing that pops in my head. I look

forward to applying this wisdom in my future projects.

APPENDIX

A1. ISSUE CHART

A2. FAIRPRICE SUPERMARKET VS HYPERMARKET

A3. TARGET CONSUMER

35.25

min

145

152.1

min

327

Total Checkout Time

(weekday)

Items bought

Supermarket

XTRA

hypermarket

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 2 3 4 5 6

Fre

qu

en

cy

Income Range

MONTHLY INCOME

MONTHLY

INCOME

1 = < $2000

2 = $2000-$3000

3 = $3001-$4000

4 = $4001-$5000

5 = $5001-$6000

6 = > $6000

Primary

Secondary

Based on interview of total 30 people

at FairPrice Serangoon and Hougang

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Fre

qu

en

cy

Number of minutes

DISTANCE FROM MARKET

(in terms of minutes)

7

1

5

0

17

7

14

3

0

6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 2 3 4 5

FR

EQ

UEN

CY

TRANSPORTATION

TRANSPORT TO

MARKET

TRANSPORT FROM

MARKET

Time in

Minutes

Majority living within 5 minutes from market



1 = Car

2 = Cab(From Store)

3 = Bus

4 = MRT

5 = Walking(To Store)

MODE OF TRANSPORT



A4. CONSUMERS FUTURE 2020

A5. SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT

Please see next page.

WORKS CITED

Future Store Initiative. (2011, 11 16). Retrieved 12 15, 2011, from METRO

Group: http://www.future-store.org/fsi-

internet/html/de/375/index.html

Bennie, F., Crossley, D., Goodman, J., Jewell, J., Knowles, H., & Uren, S.

(2011). Consumer Futures 2020 - Scenarios for Future Consumers.

London, United Kingdom: Forum for the Future.

Chong, S. (2011). Case Study: NTUC FairPrice. The Fifth ISO Chairs

Conference. Geneva, Switzerland: International Conference

Center Genever (CICG).

Department of Statistics, S. (2011). Population Trends 2011. Singapore:

Ministry of Trade and Industry.

ShelfX. (n.d.). Retrieved 12 15, 2011, from ShelfX.com:

http://www.shelfx.com/