Our next step is to create a prototype of the service our project will be providing. In order to do so, we have generated a platform in which we are hoping to analyze the interactions between people, as well as the level of interest and engagement. So as to make sure our prototype would be done in the correct way, and that the project would have value flowing from one way to another, we decided to take advantage of a class focused on Point of View we had on the 3rd week of May with Jorge Rodríguez.
The class began with an analogy so that the students could get immersed in the right context. On the first screen of the presentation, was written “cubism”. Yes, the art movement of the early 20th century. In the beginning, nobody could understand why the teacher was giving us a class about art (considering that we have only 5 weeks to launch our final project). But then, he started making questions about it, refreshing our minds and studies about the history of art. A couple of minutes later, a lot of students were giving their opinions about this avant-garde art movement, and in the end, we found out that Cubism, pioneered by Picasso, revolutionized Europe painting and sculpture through an artwork based in broken up objects reassembled in an abstract way. It is to say that the artists depict the subject from different points of view (instead of from a single viewpoint), representing the subject in a greater context.
Having this context in mind, the class was divided into 5 different moments where we had to answer some questions given by Jorge. In each one of them, we were pushed to think about our project in completely different perspectives and points of view of the same thing. It is to ask ourselves things like that:
- How to create value for different stakeholders?
- How might we build a solution that balances everyone’s needs and interests?
- How can we balance the feedback of each stakeholder? (by the way, the feedback is what balances value)
Obviously, having in mind that no solution is complete, but we can always try to make it in the best way possible. The first moment was dedicated for us to think about the feasibility in the prototypes where we could analyze and evaluate some aspects of our prototype to determine if it is technically feasible. Next, we looked to our prototype as we were the customer, so then we could have empathy putting ourselves in their place to try to feel what they would feel while interacting with our proposal. And then, we could think from our client POV, likewise from the market and competitors POV.
What we found really interesting, is that the project is immersed itself in different perspectives. The first one, from the government perspectives (to generate social equity and policies); second, from the food system perspective. Also, that it the competitive market it doesn’t exist an innovation like our project, because none of them are inside the public environment. The benchmarking can have sometimes quite similar initiatives, but not with the same goal: to generate food policies in a public environment.
Just to finish, the last step was dedicated to thinking about the actual value our proposal brings to our client. We discussed how we could measure the success of our prototype if it really represents value for our client’s customer; if it represents a threat to our client’s competitors; and also, if it represents a change in the market. And the answer is yes! Because this initiative has the some important goals are aimed to connect players, improve quality, promote proximity distribution to move towards a more sustainable consumption, establish a set of commitments and projects in order to increase positive in impacts – fight against waste of food, give a metropolitan dimension to Area Metropolitana de Barcelona related to food policies, and also to make the food system of AMB become more sustainable.
We found the class very interesting and it helped us a lot to have some insights and previously realize if we are going the right path, as well as if we are taking all these different points of view into account. And even more, if we had all the answers to the questions addressed. Because if we don’t have an answer to a particular question, we have to find out!