PROBLEM STATEMENT
The first step was to carefully breakdown the initial problem statement into primary objectives.
CONTEXTUAL INQUIRY
In order to expand on the problem and understand the context better, I did a white boarding session writing out the initial queries and assumptions. The initial questions were based on my own experience and knowledge pertaining to the food service industry and the information given through the problem statement. This step also helped me to get all my initial thoughts out in front of me in form a brain-dump.
Further, each of the next steps in the process were designed to get answers to these questions and get the initial assumptions validated. e.g. for Question 1 - Primary Interviews and Secondary Research were conducted, for Question 4 - Survey was deployed to regular visitors of local restaurants etc.
PRIMARY INTERVIEWS
Typically I would start with secondary research in front of a computer understanding the concept through articles, websites etc. However, for this project the potential stakeholder base appeared so accessible that I decided to start with initial rounds of primary interviews.
In order to understand the context better, I started visiting local restaurants, coffee shops and bars and managed to get brief interviews with 1 Wait Staff, 1 Barista and 3 Managers. The key objective of these interviews was to establish context and validate who will be the stakeholders in such a product. Some of the key quotes from these interviews are listed below.
Key Findings:
1. On average there is more interaction between a wait staff and guest compared to a barista or a bartender and a guest.
2. Managers in local restaurants tend to hire wait-staff only through their own network of known managers or rely on references.
3. Most of the corporate chains have digital infrastructure in place to conduct surveys etc which focus on all parts of the experience.
4. While corporate chains have aptitude tests and other methods in place to evaluate the applicant, the local restaurant rely majorly on references. In some cases, the servers are given situational questions as part of the interview process.
SECONDARY RESEARCH
Based on the primary interviews, I already started to understand how the food and beverage industry is sub-divided. It also gave me insights on who will benefit the most and the least by such a product.
I validated the key findings of the primary interviews and also found more information about classification of the food and beverage industry. Based on these information I made certain decisions regarding the scope of the project, which are described below.
For defining the scope of the project only the US food and beverage industry was focused on.
MARKET RESEARCH
Another key finding through Secondary Research was about the existing market. There is currently only one app aimed at reviewing the wait staff by the guests - Grate. The way it works is that users give anonymous reviews for the wait staff. The reviews are not visible to anyone except the managers, who have to get a paid membership.
As the reviews are not visible to the wait staff directly, I would imagine that such a system will be used to lodge complains against a wait staff at one's favorite local restaurant without risking the retaliation from the wait staff.
The whole point of reviews, good or bad, is to remove the problem areas and carry on the things that are working well. Hence, there is a clear gap in the market for a new product that is geared towards positive motivation and improvement.
INTERACTION MODEL FOR A WAIT STAFF
In a local restaurants, a server typically interacts with the Guest and the Manager (representing the rest of the staff). This identification was crucial to the process as it helped in identifying the key user profiles for the product.
Based on the identified user groups, I sketched out the overall journey maps for the three different users of the product - The Server, The Guest and The Manager. Even though the scope of the initial problem statement is 'defining an experience' for 'the guest', It was crucial to have a system level picture of how the same products would be used by different key user groups.
Surveys
In order to understand what motivates or inhibits people to give reviews to local restaurants, I deployed a survey. The survey got 14 responses. The key findings from the survey are listed below.
The survey also falsified Assumption 1. As it turns out more people are willing to share about their good experiences vs bad experiences. However, there is a caveat, if the experience is really bad, the restaurants risk losing the guest forever. This is really bad as they would never know since the guests are less likely to review about a bad experience
Although, not in the scope of this project, I deployed survey for restaurant managers to understand - how they evaluate a current server and how they hire a server. This information helped in validating that the data collected through reviews by guests will be useful for the future employer.
HOW IS A WAIT STAFF HIRED OR EVALUATED
As part of the contextual questions, I wanted to understand based on what skills is a wait staff hired or evaluated. This skills formed the basis of evaluation/review for the app.
Based on primary interviews and secondary research, the 4 key skills for a wait staff are listed below.
OBJECTIVES
Based on primary interviews, secondary research and surveys, the complete list of objectives is given below. These objectives became the initial starting point around which ideation/storyboarding exercises were conducted.
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
Based on the objectives and all the information collected and analyzed so far, it was important to outline the High Level Interaction model of different user groups with the system.
As mentioned before, the primary scope of the project is to define the experience for the guests.
INSPIRATION
The key objective of this system is to enable guests to give positive and constructive reviews. I remembered experiences from own life where a 'common enemy' has worked towards uniting the rest of the team. On research the theory was confirmed.
I used the 'Common Enemy' theory as a way to bring the guest and the server on the same side. I envisioned that the text used to ask the Guest to enter a review should be designed in a way that the Guest feels as part of a team. Where the team is pushing together to help the server hit the next rating milestone. In addition to the guests' inclination of giving reviews about good experiences, this should help in increasing the number of positive and constructive reviews overall.
Another inspiration came from a receipt at a local restaurant. The receipt contains a QR code that can be scanned to access information online such as accessing a survey. In my opinion this is very effective as it serves two purposes:
1. Seamlessly extend a user's journey from consumption of a service/product etc. to giving review about the experience.
2. It is easy to carry by the guest, who can choose to give reviews later, if is running tight on time.
IDEATION
Keeping the objectives in mind, I started sketching various elements of the system on paper. I did pros and cons analysis of various elements to make final selection at each level. Some of the sketches are shown below.
One key decision that I made during the ideation phase was to utilize the concept of 'Instant Apps'. Using 'Instant Apps' more guests can give reviews, as not everyone is likely to download and keep an app on their device. Also an 'Instant App' will be a better choice than a mobile website as it will be easy to add interactions on an app.
STORYBOARDING
After making decisions about various elements through the ideation phase, I storyboarded the whole experience from the Guest's perspective. This helped in visualization of the system.
WIREFRAMES
The wireframes below contain the overall information flow for the Guest. The wireframes also define the overall interaction model and interaction flow for the experience.
THE PHYSICAL LIKE BUTTON
The physical like button will be on the table with the guest at all the time. The guest can hit the button and give a 5 star rating to the server. The guest can also use the QR code present alongside to access the instant app and give the reviews in detail as well. Besides lowering the barrier to giving reviews, the other key significance of the button is to provide motivation to the server as per the initial objective. This is explained in detail below.
USING THE SYSTEM FOR MOTIVATING AND IMPROVING THE WAIT STAFF
As the guest hits the physical like button or gives an online review, the system actively calculates the cumulative rating (visible to everyone) and average rating of the day (visible to the server only). As long as the average rating of the server stays above 4 on a particular day, the name tag, which is a IOT based device, will glow due to the embedded led.
The reason of the keeping only the average rating of that day as the trigger for the name tag glow is that it gives chance to the servers who somehow are not well rated so far. By keeping it on day to day basis, it gives a fresh start and in turn, an opportunity to improve, which is the key objective of the product.
There is one major assumption at this point. I am assuming that all the servers improve in performance by positive motivation.
As the button glow is dependent on guests giving reviews, there might be cases where server is doing amazing and still not getting the name tag to glow. Even though the server knows they are doing a good job, the manager, the peers or even the guest might think that they are not a good server. So the very next step is to iterate and do research to validate the concept.
MOCKUPS
The first iteration of the mockups are shown below.
