Challenge

I work with Fortune 100 Retailers in helping them solve business problems through technology  solutions. One of them, a leading Off-price retailer based out of the U.S, faced a unique challenge. The  Retailer made most of their revenues from their physical stores, and their e-commerce revenues were  very minimal. The challenge they wanted to address is to determine if we can, in any way, leverage the  e-commerce channel for more revenues and to use that channel for creating consumer interest, and  subsequently drive traffic to stores. Another data point that was made available was that, when  compared to their competitors, their physical store sales are considerably high. That meant that they are  doing something very right in their physical stores. Hence, it was decided that the scope of the project  would be to truly understand what their physical stores mean to their consumers, and replicate that  experience online. As easy as it may sound, finding what the physical stores mean to the consumers is a  rather complicated exercise. On as-is analysis of their physical store experience by walking into stores,  talking to consumers casually, and listening to the Merchandising managers, it was learnt on a  superficial level that the Retailer provides customers what they call as a ‘treasure hunt experience’. A  simple explanation of that term is - as a consumer who had been to their Manhattan store before, will  not see the same assortment of merchandise when you walk-in next time. This creates a tangible  consumer interest/curiosity which makes them walk-in to their stores again and again. Hence, the  hypothesis was defined as follows:

To generate more revenues and drive more in-store traffic with the help of e-commerce channel, it is  imperative to re-create the treasure hunt experience online.

Selection

Retailing is a people-driven industry. The red scarf you see on a particular aisle on a particular day is a  resultant of a series of decisions made by actual people - buyer, planner, vendor, distributor, and the  store associate. All this is done to entice another person, in the form of a consumer, in the hopes to  make her buy. Hence, it is important to talk to all involved stakeholders to understand what the treasure  hunt experience means in their minds. In fact, within the broader definition of a customer, there are  several segments – millennials, Gen Y etc. and they will have different interpretations.

Hence, the appropriate tool to understand what a treasure hunt experience is by employing the Mind  Mapping tool. This tool captures the mind maps of the involved stakeholders, and helps them co-create  the design criteria that define this enigma called “Treasure hunt experience”.

Application

To conduct the mind mapping exercise, the first step we did was to identify the stakeholders across the  spectrum. The list included Merchandisers from varied departments, Buyers, Planners, Allocation  Analysts, Distributors, Store Managers, Store Associates, Customers in 18-34 age bracket, customers in  35-45 bracket, customers in 46-59 age bracket, and customers >59 age brackets. The total size of the  group was around 15-20, with customers being the majority of the group, followed by merchandisers,  store associates, store managers, buyers, planners, allocation analysts and distributors.

Each participant was provided with a questionnaire on what treasure hunt experience means to them.  Participants were also encouraged to prepare collages with pictures, post-it notes etc. The information  gathered from these inputs was collated as sticky notes, posters and pasted in hall ways.

Insight

Then, we brought in UX experts, technology evangelists, Merchandisers, external consultants, store  associates to sift through the inputs gathered. As part of the mind mapping exercise, they were asked to  cluster similar insights. Some of the sample insights were – “the front aisle should always have different  types of merchandise every 2 weeks”, “The entire store layout should be visible from the store front”, “I  visit the store every 4 weeks” etc. The resultant of this exercise was that these insights translated into  the design criteria that the proposed solution should have.

One of the hurdles we faced came with the involvement of a varied set of stakeholders. This resulted in  rather broad and unrelated insights to the problem we were facing. So, our job was to make sure that  these are identified and eliminated. This resulted in unnecessary delay. If we were to redo this exercise,  we will be more stringent in identifying the stakeholders.

Approach

The experts were given a brief about the problem statement, and informed about the hypothesis. They  then went back to their drawing rooms and thought creatively on what the various possibilities are,  based on the design criteria. The experts were given a free hand to conceptualize anything, using any  format – tech tools, piece of paper etc.

The alternative approach to solve this problem was from top-down. Looking at what technological  options were available in the market, we identified those with strong resemblance to the problem  statement we had. One of them we identified was Tinder, a social dating website. In Tinder, the user is  presented with people who could be their potential matches. Based on whether they like that person or  not, they either swipe left or right. We thought of replacing people with merchandise, and voila – we  would get something closer to treasure hunt experience. But in the end, we decided not to pursue this  as we faced hurdles in deciding what the first set of SKUs should be. It also did not take into account the  other aspects of the store experience, namely the layout, fixtures etc. Hence, we decided to go ahead  with Mind Mapping tool as it will involve the right stakeholders who can provide a clear understanding  on the question we are trying to find answers for.


Challenge I work with Fortune 100 Retailers in helping them solve business problems through technology solutions . One of them , a leading Off - price retailer based out of the U.S , faced a unique challenge . The Retailer made most of their revenues from their physical stores , and their e - commerce revenues were very minimal . The challenge they wanted to address is to determine if we can , in any way , leverage the e - commerce channel for more revenues and to use that channel for creating consumer interest , and subsequently drive traffic to stores . Another data point that was made available was that , when compared to their competitors , their physical store sales are considerably high . That meant that they are doing something very right in their physical stores . Hence , it was decided that the scope of the project would be to truly understand what their physical stores mean to their consumers , and replicate that experience online . As easy as it may sound , finding what the physical stores mean to the consumers is a rather complicated exercise . On as - is analysis of their physical store experience by walking into stores , talking to consumers casually , and listening to the Merchandising managers , it was learnt on a superficial level that the Retailer provides customers what they call as a ‘ treasure hunt experience ’ . A simple explanation of that term is - as a consumer who had been to their Manhattan store before , will not see the same assortment of merchandise when you walk - in next time . This creates a tangible consumer interest / curiosity which makes them walk - in to their stores again and again . Hence , the hypothesis was defined as follows : To generate more revenues and drive more in - store traffic with the help of e - commerce channel , it is imperative to re - create the treasure hunt experience online . Selection Retailing is a people - driven industry . The red scarf you see on a particular aisle on a particular day is a resultant of a series of decisions made by actual people - buyer , planner , vendor , distributor , and the store associate . All this is done to entice another person , in the form of a consumer , in the hopes to make her buy . Hence , it is important to talk to all involved stakeholders to understand what the treasure hunt experience means in their minds . In fact , within the broader definition of a customer , there are several segments – millennials , Gen Y etc . and they will have different interpretations . Hence , the appropriate tool to understand what a treasure hunt experience is by employing the Mind Mapping tool . This tool captures the mind maps of the involved stakeholders , and helps them co - create the design criteria that define this enigma called “ Treasure hunt experience ” . Application To conduct the mind mapping exercise , the first step we did was to identify the stakeholders across the spectrum . The list included Merchandisers from varied departments , Buyers , Planners , Allocation Analysts , Distributors , Store Managers , Store Associates , Customers in 18 - 34 age bracket , customers in 35 - 45 bracket , customers in 46 - 59 age bracket , and customers > 59 age brackets . The total size of the group was around 15 - 20 , with customers being the majority of the group , followed by merchandisers , store associates , store managers , buyers , planners , allocation analysts and distributors . Each participant was provided with a questionnaire on what treasure hunt experience means to them . Participants were also encouraged to prepare collages with pictures , post - it notes etc . The information gathered from these inputs was collated as sticky notes , posters and pasted in hall ways . Insight Then , we brought in UX experts , technology evangelists , Merchandisers , external consultants , store associates to sift through the inputs gathered . As part of the mind mapping exercise , they were asked to cluster similar insights . Some of the sample insights were – “ the front aisle should always have different types of merchandise every 2 weeks ” , “ The entire store layout should be visible from the store front ” , “ I visit the store every 4 weeks ” etc . The resultant of this exercise was that these insights translated into the design criteria that the proposed solution should have . One of the hurdles we faced came with the involvement of a varied set of stakeholders . This resulted in rather broad and unrelated insights to the problem we were facing . So , our job was to make sure that these are identified and eliminated . This resulted in unnecessary delay . If we were to redo this exercise , we will be more stringent in identifying the stakeholders . Approach The experts were given a brief about the problem statement , and informed about the hypothesis . They then went back to their drawing rooms and thought creatively on what the various possibilities are , based on the design criteria . The experts were given a free hand to conceptualize anything , using any format – tech tools , piece of paper etc . The alternative approach to solve this problem was from top - down . Looking at what technological options were available in the market , we identified those with strong resemblance to the problem statement we had . One of them we identified was Tinder , a social dating website . In Tinder , the user is presented with people who could be their potential matches . Based on whether they like that person or not , they either swipe left or right . We thought of replacing people with merchandise , and voila – we would get something closer to treasure hunt experience . But in the end , we decided not to pursue this as we faced hurdles in deciding what the first set of SKUs should be . It also did not take into account the other aspects of the store experience , namely the layout , fixtures etc . Hence , we decided to go ahead with Mind Mapping tool as it will involve the right stakeholders who can provide a clear understanding on the question we are trying to find answers for .