Who:
Trying to identify who would benefit from my opportunity, and ultimate solution, was a bit more difficult than originally anticipated. This is because everyone could benefit from safer roads if drivers were not distracted by their smart devices, regardless if they drive or not, and regardless if they do drive whether they use a smart device while doing so or not. It took me awhile to realize that not everyone would actually be an ultimate consumer of my solution or product. Someone who is a potential customer would need to be a driver AND be a smart device user (and my boundary definition has been adjusted as a result of this exercise).
Therefore, while I could not find someone who did not drive, nor could I find someone who did not own a smart device, I could interview people who could come into contact with drivers while they themselves were not driving (despite any benefit from safer driving conditions as a result of my product). Interviews therefore were from the context of a non-driving activity in the proximity of roads. This included potential pedestrians, walkers/joggers/runners, bicyclists, skateboarders, etc.
What:
Poor driving is not solely a result of smart device usage, and there are other distractors that contribute to accidents and fatalities. Radios, rowdy kids in the back seat, or daydreaming are all examples of this. Additionally, for my non-driving population stated in the “who” section, there could also be reasons they are struck by vehicles or involved in accidents. Wearing non-reflective, dark clothing at night, j-walking, and not following the rules of the road while sharing the road with vehicles could also result in incidents.
Why:
The underlying cause of these interviewees needs is not necessarily different in terms of them both being related to poor choices, distractions, or law violations. The contributing reasons to the incidents for this population is the only thing that is different, with smart device using drivers only being one of these reasons.
Inside the boundary Outside the boundary
Who: Drivers who own smart devices Everyone else
What: Smart device use while driving is causing All other accidents or
accidents and fatalities fatalities not caused by smart
device use.
accidents and fatalities fatalities not caused by smart
device use.
Why: Increased smart device users Inability to control the
Increased complexity of apps actions of others
Failure of drivers to self-regulate
Lack of needed regulation
Lack of knowledge of existing regulation
Increased complexity of apps actions of others
Failure of drivers to self-regulate
Lack of needed regulation
Lack of knowledge of existing regulation
James,
ReplyDeleteI think one element of your service that could fall into the idea of being outside the boundary is the impending rise of self-driving cars. I know this is a service that is probably years from being an actuality but it is something to think about in regards to your unmet need and how it will affect your business when / if it does come to fruition.
Brandon
Hi James,
ReplyDeleteI could absolutely see why this may have been tougher than expected. It would be very great to see if with the increased usage of smartphones across the country, there was something in place that would prevent texting and driving. I feel like you were right in how you split up who was in and outside the boundary, but you could have expanded a little more on the why section and how these apps will effect those who are "inside" the boundary.