How can food waste be reduced through food sharing?
A group of three women and three men took on this design challenge on a Saturday in early December.
The framework for fruitful design thinking
AN IDEAL RAM FOR DESIGN THINKING
The design thinking workshop took place in a dance hall on the outskirts of Freiburg im Breisgau. The spacious room and the beautiful white walls were ideal for allowing creativity and group dynamics to flow freely.
Patrick Steiger from Infometis and Jan Knöbel from ibo moderated this workshop. Their improvisational skills were put to the test early in the morning: the participant with the key to the dance hall had overslept.
KEY MISSING – PREPARATIONS IN THE OPEN SKY.
So there they were, standing in front of the locked venue an hour before the workshop was due to start, ready to prepare their flip charts. Without further ado, they declared the windows their work surface and painted the posters in the fresh air.
Right on time at 9:00 a.m., the key and the participants arrived, and the moderators were able to hang up their prepared flip charts in the venue.
Understand
It started with an analysis of the design challenge. What is food sharing? What do we know about food waste and the sharing economy?
UNDERSTAND "FOOD SHARING"
Involve people
Design Thinking is not just a modern innovation and creativity method, but also a human-centered technique. It's not about theoretical discussions and brainstorming in an ivory tower (or cherrywood-floored ballroom), but about confronting real-world problems.
PATRICK STEIGER MODERES THE COMPILATION OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.
Therefore, our design thinkers had to develop a useful interview guide so that the subsequently collected data could be effectively analyzed later (asking questions is easy – but what do we do with the answers?). Should we ask directly for facts? Are indirect questions more suitable? How do we avoid leading questions? How do we ensure that people give honest answers and not just those that are 'socially acceptable'?
And so it began. The participants split into three pairs and set out to interview people in Freiburg about the topic of "food sharing." One all-male team had some difficulty approaching people or finding passersby willing to spare a few minutes for a short interview. The mixed team collected data from four people in 90 minutes. The two women even managed five interviews. For everyone, it was an experience outside their comfort zone. It took courage to approach people and a certain amount of frustration tolerance to deal with the frequent dismissive gestures, refusals, and disinterest. In the end, however, we had data from 11 interviews, which provided an excellent foundation for the rest of the workshop.
The problem
ANALYZING AND STRUCTURING THE INTERVIEW DATA.
The data analysis, still conducted in pairs, really energized the workshop. The delay we had previously experienced due to discussions and disagreements regarding the interview questions now proved beneficial. The collected answers and facts could be entered into a grid we had developed and directly structured into pre-prepared categories.
After a representative from each team had presented their findings to the group, the critical step of problem definition followed. Which of the identified difficulties and obstacles to food sharing should be addressed next? It is inherent in the nature of Design Thinking that – according to the Double Diamond model – after collecting the problems (diverging), the focus must now shift to the most important problem (converging).
The workshop participants initially disagreed on this point as well. Based on the aggregated interview findings, we formulated two problem statements. The vote revealed that the three women wanted to address one issue and the three men the other. The fateful coin toss then decided in favor of the feminine perspective (point of view)
"How can accepting food from 'strangers' be made socially acceptable?"
We had now reached an important milestone: a relevant problem (based on user data) had been identified. With a 1.5-hour delay – after more than 70% of the workshop time had been completed – we were finally able to enter the solution space. This confirmed a long-standing Design Thinking experience: at the beginning of a larger project, it's inherent in the process that more effort must be invested in defining the problem space than in finding the solution. The team first needs to clarify exactly what a solution should address.
First, you need to make sure you're doing the right thing, in order to do it right.
Be creative
The second part of the "Double Diamond" approach then took place: the creativity block. In record time and – as always, within a time-boxed timeframe – the design thinkers developed dozens of solution ideas (diverging). These were then presented, aggregated, and consolidated in the plenary session.
Prototyping
From the nine ideas, a clear winner was chosen this time by means of a points-based voting process (convergence), which was then further developed in subgroups:
- Two participants designed a physical prototype.
- A team of two developed further characteristics, skills, and business rules for the proposed solution.
- The third team prepared a short video that clearly conveys the concept.
Once again, the experience with Design Thinking was confirmed here: when the problem is clearly defined, the solutions practically tumble out on their own.
Feedback loop
Ideally, some of the interviewees would have come to the workshop venue to have the solution to their biggest food-sharing problem presented to them and to give the participants feedback. Unfortunately, the Freiburg residents were unavailable during the pre-Christmas period, so the final step, testing the solution after the workshop with other people, had to be done.
It was already dark when the two workshop moderators were able to call the participants together for the retrospective.
RETROSPECTIVE AT THE END OF THE DAY
The participants were enthusiastic about the process and what was achieved. The moderators' excellent preparation was particularly praised, as some participants became nervous and doubted whether a solution could be reached that day, especially during the "groan zone" in the early afternoon when defining the problem took longer than expected. However, the moderators' experience and gentle guidance ultimately resulted in a perfectly timed finish, allowing the workshop to conclude to everyone's satisfaction at 6:30 p.m.
