Carlijn Beerepoot
The upper right box represents our best case scenario, the other three give possible scenario’s, wherein the box on the bottom left is the worst case scenario. Within each of these three boxes, we chose the scenario(s) most realistic to occur, these are made bold. For these scenarios solutions will be proposed below. For the scenarios in the bottom left box, the solution is the same for all of them, so these are taken together.
Scenario 1: Open minded – Not sustainable
Locals aren’t able to cook on the product
The problem in this case is that the product does not fit the user. This can have several causes, namely; the food won’t get ready, users don’t know how to use the product, food burns. This requires another design and strategy. Therefore we have to analyse and observe the cooking process and adapt the product to these results. When the case is that the customer don’t know how to use the product, we can make a clear instructions, clarified with step-by-step images. When the food doesn’t get ready or burns, first we have to find out if this can be prevented by adapting the energy source and the space between the energy source and the pot. If this is not possible and it’s the type of pot that has the biggest influence, we can look for another customer segment who uses a different type of pot.
Scenario 2: Open minded – Not sustainable
The product burns down
When this event occurs, we could try testing the product somewhere else and we can simplify the prototypes and only when the different parts of the product are optimal improved we can use the whole product.
Scenario 3: Open minded - Not sustainable
The product does not function well, due to bad weather conditions
When the cause of malfunction of the product is the type of conditions in which it is tested, namely the climate, we will pick a different testing location more southern. When this event occurs, it means there are more specific requirements on the environment where the product can be used, so this should be implemented in the future business model.
Scenario 4: Narrow minded – Not sustainable
People throw away the product; people deconstruct the product;
people don’t use the product due to technical failures and therefore also won’t help testing the user experience or other research; people disbelief the purpose of the product; due to technical failures. When one of these or more events occur, assuming we’re not able to change the product or the people, a successful completion of the project is not achievable. However, we may find another project on solar energy via the University of Oujda. Also, we can look for opportunities to create awareness under the local society on the risks of cooking on wood fire and the advantages of cooking with solar energy. This can be done for example by giving workshops or lectures at local women’s associations or environmental associations, but also an option is to give a kind of demonstration of the Fortune Cooker at a local market or something alike. Another option when one or more of these events occur, is to involve restaurants or other places where people can eat to bring the product to the attention.
Scenario 5: Narrow minded – (Micro) sustainability
Locals want to help testing, but won’t use the product after the research
In this case we have to find out why these people don’t use it. It can be that the chosen customer segment doesn’t really need the product. Thus we have to find out what their needs are and maybe look for another customer segment whose needs can be fulfilled by using the Fortune Cooker. It’s also possible they don’t know how to use it. When this is the case, we have to provide clear instructions with step-bystep images.