Summary

Problem

The nuances of grocery shopping are not well-understood. There are many aspects of the chore and process, such as planning meals, making lists, shopping strategies, paying methods, etc.

Solution

​Research common obstacles during the grocery shopping process, and identify underserved challenges to create a familiar product with new features and capabilities.

Outcome

The meal planning aspect and culmination of various tasks with the shopping list were discovered to be primary frustrations. These tasks also remained loosely or completely unsolved by others. 

Problem

User Pain Points

• Lack of support for all aspects and steps of the experience
  
• Need several apps for the same (shopping) activity
  
• Collaboration within the household can be difficult
• ​Shopping at several stores/locations

Solution Values​

• Focus on capabilities not available using other apps
• Maintain features and functions common on other apps
• Provide functionality for all stages of the activity
  
• Support for multiple store locations, household collaboration, and integrations

Process

My Contribution

Reviewed and reflected on personal experience with the activity and features of a competitor's application. Researched the grocery shopping experience from start to finish, through interviews and contextual inquires. Defined the problem space for a future application. Collaborated to analyze the research findings using an affinity diagram, and proposed condensing the diagram. Helped highlight points to include in the persona and journey map, and developed a flow model to support these other models. Analyzed insights of and deduced application requirements using the models generated from the research findings.

Field Research

Contextual Inquiries
Focus:  Actual shopping trip experience with questions about their before and after shopping processes. Observed behaviors and verbalizations were equally important. (Notes included all aspects of trip:  what, where, when, how, why, who, etc.)

​In-Person Interviews
Focus:  Semi-structured interviews about a recent shopping trip experience. Questions included actions and behaviors before, during, and after shopping process. (Notes included responses and interviewer notes about nonverbal behaviors, e.g. tone.)

Insights

1. Experience includes processes before, during, and after the actual activity, and some steps can be skipped. 
2. Different for everyone, but tends to be two conflicting methods in each stage. 
3. ​People other than the actual shopper often have some sort of influence.

Affinity Diagram

Insights

• Separating shopping into 3 stages highlights issues at each stage.
• Most steps had 2 methods. Steps with multiple processes included medium of the list, process of making the list, route chosen while in-store, checkout preferences, and even bagging.
• Some steps were better handled electronically (e.g., coupons and payment), but participants preferred other steps to be physical (e.g., produce and meat shopping). 
• The average frequency for shopping was once a week, but the frequency was generally between 0.5 and 2 times per week.
• Impulse shopping was most common when shopping in store. 
• There were many reasons for store selection, such as convenience and distance, but participants tended to shop at different stores.

A subset of the affinity diagram

Synthesis

Persona

Erica embodies elements of the data from participants, such as

• ​Millennial but doesn't utilize technology in the activity
• Will incorporate technology if practical for quick weekly trips
• Primary store's app is not downloaded, as it adds no value to the trip
• Often makes the same things and buys similar items each week
• Frequent items create a path through the store to get through the list quickly
• Views grocery shopping as a necessary task rather than a positive experience

Journey Map

Scenario/expectations:  These provided more data about the research findings and were derived from the raw data, affinity diagram, and persona. ​

Actions:  Preparing a shopping list, driving to the store, looking at the shopping list, picking up items, and checking out via the self-checkout.

Opportunities:  These reflect the insights gained from the journey map. The list and shortest route through the store were the primary ones focused on in ideation.

Reading the map:  Thoughts are reflected in bubbles, and emotions are reflected by the line up (positive) and down (negative)..

Flow Model

The stakeholders involved in the activity took two forms:  person and object. Regardless of the type, both had influential roles in the process. ​

Arrows represent the primary actions and tasks that occurred between the stakeholders, such as objects informing the person (e.g., parts of the kitchen that inform the primary shopper about what needs to be on their list).

This model also accounts for the influence of a secondary person (or shopper) on the primary shopper. This secondary shopper may or may not be present during the grocery shopping activity.

Solution

Requirements

1. Provide users with a digital shopping list, including creating, editing, and deleting lists.
2. Suggest the most efficient path to navigate to specific items or areas within the store.
3. View information about sale items before and during the shopping trip.
4. Exist as store-agnostic and integrated with the shopping process.
5. ​Improve the checkout experience by shortening wait time in checkout lines.
6. Track commonly bought items and suggest these items when creating grocery lists.
7. ​Integrate recipes and meal plans in order to quickly add ingredients to a list.
8. Support collaboration by allowing multiple users to access real-time information for the same shopping trip from separate devices

Conceptual Designs

Visions

Vision 1 (right) focuses on the following pieces of data

• allowing a secondary shopper to help with the shopping, especially compiling a list
• the ability to add ingredients to a list based on planned recipes
• easily search and add sale items to the list
• shopping at multiple stores/optional to choose a store

Vision 2 (left) focuses on the following pieces of data:

• ​the ability add ingredients to a list based on planned recipes for the week
• identifying an efficiency route for quickness and ease of shopping (two possible ways:  (1) the actual mapped out pathway and (2) the list with section where the item is located
• suggesting of most commonly purchased items to add to the list
• downloadable information (although offline-mode was not a requirement from the data, a participant did express frustration with network connection

Product Concepts

Smart Shopping List (right)

Incorporates:  coupons, sale items, frequently purchased items
​
Features:  easy quantity adjustment, quick removal of items

Recipe Integrator (left)
​
Incorporates:  adding ingredients, quick view of list, cross-check of list items and ingredients​

Features:  recipe recommendations, recipe details

Storyboard

The storyboard follows the user as they create and use a list.

1. User checks environment (cabinets or pantry) for needed items
2. User searches for recipes to cook during the week and adds ingredients to list
3. User checks current sale items:  how much and where
4. User can downloads list and efficiency route for offline viewing
5. User views efficiency route for moving through the store quickly (items are ordered first to last based on their location/section in the store)
6. User "checks" items off list (can be done while shopping, but not shown here)

User Environment Design (UED)

Shows the steps and functions of each component and how the components interact. Arrows represent the influence of one feature or component on another. 
​
Components highlighted:​

• Recipe Integrator
• Smart Shopping List
• Sale Items (by store)
• ​Efficiency Route​

Although each component may have several pages or pop-ups in a final, high-level design, this UED provides a general sense of how the main feature will function and react to each other within the design.

Outcomes

1

Holistic concepts of a potential application and its features were generated.

2

Many insights from the research were captured in the models and documentation.

3

Several innovative ideas about how to aid in the grocery shopping activity were gleaned. 

Reflection

There are several improvements that could have been made in this project.

• There could have been a better focus on one to two data insights from the research when ideating concepts for a potential solution.
• A competitive analysis (and possibly heuristic evaluations) could have been conducted to have a better understanding of which ideas were currently unsolved in the domain space.
• Evaluating the initial conceptual designs could have provided more guidance on the most valuable solution for the grocery shopping activity. 

Back to Projects