MS3 - EstebanRojas01/Moviles GitHub Wiki

1. Brainstorming Process (1 pt)

1.1 Research Basis and Problem Framing

Problem context:

The MS2 research revealed a discovery and decision gap rather than a lack of food businesses near campus. Students often hear about establishments through friends, Google reviews, TikTok, or physical exploration, but they lack a campus-specific resource that allows them to discover and compare the available alternatives in one place.

The interviews also showed that choosing a new establishment requires information about food type, approximate price, proximity, available time, food quality, and expected service speed. When this information is missing, students may return to familiar establishments. Even after receiving a recommendation, a place can remain difficult to find when its entrance, sign, logo, or facade is not clearly visible.

Previously delivered evidence:

Key Research Insights

Key research insight	Supporting evidence from MS2
Students often discover food establishments socially rather than through a dedicated campus resource.	Cristal learned about a new establishment through a classmate (`I1-S1`, `I1-S4`); Allison asks friends and relies on places previously visited with them (`I3-S2`).
Price, proximity, and food type are central decision criteria.	Cristal considers what a place sells, its price, and its distance (`I1-S3`); Allison considers location, price, quality, and service speed (`I3-S1`).
Time affects whether an option is viable.	Cristal uses distance to determine whether she has enough time to travel and wait (`I1-Q5`); Allison values fast service after class (`I3-S1`).
Trust reduces the uncertainty associated with an unfamiliar establishment.	Allison consults friends, Google reviews, TikTok content, and other users' comments (`I3-S2`, `I3-S4`).
Missing information encourages students to return to familiar places.	When Cristal does not know the alternatives, she returns to her usual establishment (`I1-S2`).
Knowing that a place exists is not enough if it is difficult to locate.	Allison struggled to locate a recommended establishment because its sign, entrance, and facade were difficult to recognize (`I3-S3`).
Students expect a centralized but varied guide.	Allison suggested a visible list of recommended establishments with approximate prices (`I3-Q9`); Cristal expected alternatives for snacks, lunches, sweets, and other categories.
Successful discoveries and recommendations remain dispersed.	Journey Map 1 identifies the opportunity to preserve favorites, reviews, and recommendations in a shared resource.

Main Insight

Students do not lack food options near campus; they lack a reliable and centralized way to discover, compare, and locate them.

Design Challenge

How might we help university students quickly discover, compare, and locate diverse food options near campus using trustworthy and centralized information?

1.2 Brainstorming Technique and Setup

The MS3 activity was structured as a second, evidence-driven brainstorming round. The previous MS2 concepts were treated as inputs rather than as new results. The purpose of the new round was to expand and reframe those concepts, identify unexplored alternatives, and examine how data-driven or context-aware capabilities could improve them.

The activity followed the divergence-convergence pattern described in the course material. During divergence, ideas were generated without early criticism or feasibility filtering. Initial organization by affinity was performed only after all contributions had been presented. The definitive evaluation and selection were intentionally postponed to the decision process described in Section 2.

Technique: Evidence-driven brainstorming following a divergence-convergence pattern, using piggybacking (building on teammates' ideas) during divergence and dot voting during convergence.
Purpose: Generate new alternatives and smart extensions based on the findings from Interviews 1 and 3 and Journey Map 1.
Participants: Juan Esteban Rojas Castañeda, Camilo Molina, Kevin Alvarez, Juan Jose Murillo Aristizabal, Samuel Rozen
Date: August 21, 2026
Duration: 1 hour
Tool: MS3 Padlet board for ideation and piggybacking; WhatsApp polls for dot voting in each round
Supporting materials: MS2 Wiki, Interview 1, Interview 3, Journey Map 1, and the nine concepts previously documented in MS2.

Brainstorming Rules

Prioritize quantity during the first divergent round; accept every initial contribution without criticism.
Use one note per idea and connect each idea to an interview, situation, journey-map stage, or clearly labeled design hypothesis.
Team members are encouraged to add "I like this idea, I would add..." complements to ideas they find promising, building directly on a teammate's note (piggybacking) — participation matters, not commenting on every single card.
Run the funnel in three sequential rounds: Round 1 narrows the initial set down to 6 ideas, Round 2 narrows those 6 down to 3, and Round 3 narrows those 3 down to the single semester solution.
Use dot voting in every round — each member receives a limited number of votes to distribute among the surviving ideas, and can vote for an idea even without having commented on it.
Preserve meaningfully different alternatives through Rounds 1 and 2 instead of merging them too early; only in Round 3 are compatible ideas combined into a single final concept.
Describe proposed smart capabilities through four elements: data/input, processing, user-facing output, and user value.
Do not select the semester solution until all three rounds are complete and documented with evidence (screenshots) of each round's surviving ideas.

Working Definition of a Smart Feature

For this activity, a smart feature is a capability that uses user, context, establishment, or usage data to produce a recommendation, prediction, ranking, notification, or contextual response that provides direct value to the user.

A smart feature is therefore documented as:

Data or input → analytics, machine-learning, or contextual processing → user-facing output → expected user value

The inclusion of a smart feature in this table represents a design proposal. It does not imply that the feature has already been implemented or validated.

1.3 Procedure Followed

Step	What the team did	Class concept or technique	Participants	Output
1	Reviewed Interviews 1 and 3, their situations, Journey Map 1, the main insight, and the previous MS2 ideas. The team then confirmed the HMW question that would guide the session.	Empathize, define, research traceability, and HMW framing	All 5 team members	Shared evidence base and one design challenge
2	Generated alternatives independently on the Padlet board. During this stage, ideas were recorded without discussion, criticism, voting, or feasibility filtering.	Divergent thinking and brainstorming	All 5 team members	Initial set of 12 independent ideas
3	Reviewed each other's ideas and added "I like this idea, I would add..." complements, building directly on teammates' notes.	Piggybacking and idea building	All 5 team members	Complemented and enriched set of ideas
4	Voted using dot voting to narrow the 17 ideas down to 6.	Convergent thinking — Round 1 dot voting	All 5 team members	6 shortlisted ideas: Weekly recommendations board, Daily menu feed, Campus Food Map, Lunch roulette, Today's Deal alerts, Food passport
5	Complemented the 6 shortlisted ideas further, then voted again to narrow them down to 3.	Piggybacking and convergent thinking — Round 2 dot voting	All 5 team members	3 finalist ideas: Weekly recommendations board, Lunch roulette, Daily menu feed
6	Complemented the 3 finalist ideas, discussed how smart features could be incorporated into each, and voted to select the single semester solution.	Smart-feature ideation and convergent thinking — Round 3 dot voting	All 5 team members	Selected semester solution: Daily menu feed
7	Registered the complete inventory, added research references, counted the ideas, and captured evidence of the board at each round.	Documentation and preparation for convergence	All 5 team members	Complete idea inventory and visual evidence

1.4 Complete List of Solutions Generated

1.4.1 MS2 Concepts Used as Inputs

The following nine concepts were already documented in MS2. They were reviewed as antecedents and were not counted as new MS3 results unless they were meaningfully expanded or reframed during the new session.

#	Previous concept	Purpose and research origin
1	“The Friend Who Knows” Podium	Recognizes students who provide useful recommendations, building on the importance of social validation and word of mouth (`I1-S4`).
2	“Craving” Mailbox	Allows a student to describe what they want to eat and receive suggestions from others, addressing uncertainty and fallback behavior (`I1-S2`).
3	Weekly Recommendations Board	Centralizes weekly student discoveries, approximate prices, and orders in a shared physical space.
4	Campus Food Explorer	Provides list and map views, locations, facade photographs, food categories, approximate prices, and walking distance (`I1-S2`, `I1-S3`, `I3-S3`).
5	Quick Match	Suggests options using budget, food type, available time, walking distance, and desired service speed (`I1-S3`, `I1-Q5`, `I3-S1`).
6	Student Picks	Collects student reviews, ratings, photographs, recommendations, and practical information (`I1-S1`, `I3-S2`, `I3-S4`).
7	Today's Deal Alerts	Communicates nearby daily specials or discounts to students affected by price and time constraints.
8	Student-to-Student Reviews	Restricts reviews to verified university students to strengthen trust (`I3-S4`).
9	Dietary Needs Tags	Adds dietary tags and filters. This was an accessibility hypothesis rather than a need directly expressed in the interviews.

1.4.2 New and Refined Solutions from the MS3 Round

#	Idea	Description	Contributors
1	Weekly recommendations board	Physical board in a high-traffic spot (cafeteria, SD building) with post-its/cards where students post their weekly food find, price, and what they ordered	Kevin (proposed); Juan Esteban (QR code linking to digital version; geofenced check-in smart feature); Camilo (keep only last 2–3 weeks visible)
2	"Craving" mailbox	Students drop a note with what they're craving that day and others respond with recommendations	Kevin (proposed); Camilo (learn from past answers to pre-shortlist repeated cravings)
3	Daily menu feed	Local spots post their menú del día in one shared feed	Kevin (proposed); Juan Esteban (crowd-sourced menu-change reports; automatic expiration smart feature)
4	"The friend who knows" podium	Informal recognition for whoever gives the most accurate recommendations	Kevin (proposed); Juan Esteban (auto-calculate ranking from Craving Mailbox); Camilo (weight ranking by recency)
5	Campus Food Map	Interactive map showing all food establishments, exact location, and walking distance	Kevin (proposed); Juan Esteban ("open now" filter, storefront photo on pin, compass-guided directional arrow smart feature); Camilo (sort pins by distance from student's current building)
6	Lunch roulette	One button: enter budget and available minutes, assigns a place with no options shown	Kevin (proposed; suggested factoring in budget/time/preferences/open status); Juan Esteban (shake-to-reroll accelerometer smart feature)
7	Exact Entrance Finder	Establishment profiles with storefront photographs, entrance descriptions, landmarks, and exact pins	Kevin (proposed); Camilo (let students upload their own storefront photos)
8	Student-to-student reviews	Rating system where only verified university students can leave reviews	Kevin (proposed; suggested prioritizing recent/helpful reviews); Camilo (show reviews from students in the same program/schedule)
9	Food Category Filters	Browse places by breakfast, lunch, snacks, desserts, coffee, drinks, vegetarian food, and other categories	Kevin (proposed); Camilo (combine category filter with price and walking time on the same screen)
10	Today's Deal alerts	Push notifications when nearby restaurants post daily specials or discounts	Kevin (proposed; suggested capping notification volume); Juan Esteban (reachable-time filter; proximity-triggered GPS smart feature); Camilo (daily cap on notifications)
11	Dietary needs tag	Establishments tagged with vegan, gluten-free, halal, or lactose-free options	Kevin (proposed); Juan Esteban (make it an actual filter, not just a label)
12	Food passport	Collect digital stamps for each new place visited	Kevin (proposed); Juan Esteban (stamps by category; GPS-verified check-in smart feature); Camilo (stamps expire/reset each semester)
13	Break-fit planner	Shows only places reachable, orderable, and finishable before the next class	Camilo (proposed)
14	Wait-time estimate	Shows how long a place usually takes at a given hour/day	Camilo (proposed)
15	Group lunch matcher	Finds the food/budget/time overlap for several friends at once	Camilo (proposed)
16	Report an update	Students can flag that a place moved, closed, changed hours, or raised prices	Camilo (proposed)
17	Hidden gems feed	Suggests places matching a student's habits while avoiding their usual spots	Camilo (proposed)

1.5 Incorporation of Smart Features

Candidate solution	Data or input used	Proposed processing	User-facing output	Expected user value
Weekly recommendations board	Student GPS location, board's physical location	Geofencing — detects proximity to the board	Check-in prompt when near the board	Recommendation isn't missed just because the student didn't walk by
Daily menu feed	Menu post timestamp, current date/time	Automatic expiration logic based on elapsed hours	Post auto-hidden/flagged once expired	Students never mistake yesterday's menú del día for today's
Campus Food Map	Phone gyroscope/compass, GPS location, venue entrance coordinates	Real-time directional calculation	On-screen compass arrow pointing to the entrance	Helps students locate hard-to-find storefronts
Lunch roulette	Budget, available time, pick history, accelerometer shake gesture	Randomization weighted against recent picks, triggered by shake	New suggestion generated instantly on shake	Breaks the "always the same spot" habit
Today's Deal alerts	Real-time GPS location, available time, deal radius	Proximity-based relevance filtering	Notification sent only once physically close enough to act	Avoids notification fatigue
Food passport	GPS location, venue coordinates	Location verification against claimed check-in	Auto-stamp confirmed only if GPS matches the venue	Prevents unverified/manual false stamps

1.6 Evidence of the Activity

Evidence	What it demonstrates	Link or attachment
MS2 research and previous concepts	Starting evidence and antecedents used by the team	MS2 Wiki
MS3 Padlet board	Complete set of newly generated and refined ideas, with contributor names and complements	MS3 Padlet board
Padlet screenshot — full board	Number of ideas, contributors, and team participation	MS3 Padlet board
Padlet screenshot — research traceability	Ideas connected to interview/situation codes (e.g., I1-Q5, I3-S3)	MS3 Padlet board
Padlet screenshot — smart-feature discussion	Complements describing data/input, processing, output, and user value	MS3 Padlet board
WhatsApp poll — Round 1 (17 → 6)	Team voting and participation narrowing the initial set to 6 ideas	Image below
WhatsApp poll — Round 2 (6 → 3)	Team voting and participation narrowing 6 ideas to 3 finalists	Image below
WhatsApp poll — Round 3 (3 → 1)	Team voting and participation selecting the final semester solution	Image below

Brainstorming Outcome

Previous MS2 concepts reviewed: 9
New or meaningfully refined concepts generated: 17 — 10 genuinely new concepts (Daily menu feed, Lunch roulette, Exact Entrance Finder, Food Category Filters, Food passport, Break-fit planner, Wait-time estimate, Group lunch matcher, Report an update, Hidden gems feed) and 7 MS2 concepts meaningfully expanded during this session with new complements and smart features (Weekly recommendations board, "Craving" mailbox, "The friend who knows" podium, Campus Food Map, Student-to-student reviews, Today's Deal alerts, Dietary needs tag)
Total ideas documented on the new board: 17
Main clusters identified:
- Discovery and visibility
- Contextual matching and quick decision-making
- Trust and student recommendations
- Location and navigation
- Price, time, and availability
- Collaborative information
Ideas moved to the convergence and decision process: 6 (Round 1) → 3 (Round 2) → 1 selected (Round 3): Daily menu feed

2. Problem Descriptions and Decision Process (1 pt)

2.1 Decision Objective and Problem Dimensions

The purpose of this stage was to converge from the 17 ideas documented in Section 1 into one solution direction for the semester. All the alternatives addressed the same general design challenge, but they approached different dimensions of the problem identified during MS2.

Design challenge: How might we help university students quickly discover, compare, and locate diverse food options near campus using trustworthy and centralized information?

#	Problem dimension	Prospective users	Evidence from MS2	Candidate ideas
1	Information about nearby food options is fragmented across friends, social media, reviews, and physical exploration. Students lack one current place where they can discover and compare alternatives.	University students looking for food near campus, especially those unfamiliar with the available establishments.	`I1-S1`, `I1-S2`, `I1-S3`, `I3-S2`, `I3-S4`, `I3-Q9`; Journey Map 1, stages 2-4 and 6.	Weekly recommendations board, Daily menu feed, Campus Food Map, Food Category Filters, Today's Deal alerts, Report an update, Hidden gems feed.
2	Students must make food decisions with limited time and budget. Distance, service speed, waiting time, and the number of available alternatives can make the decision difficult.	Students searching for food during short breaks or between classes.	`I1-S2`, `I1-S3`, `I1-Q5`, `I3-S1`; Journey Map 1, stages 1, 3, and 4.	"Craving" mailbox, Lunch roulette, Break-fit planner, Wait-time estimate, Group lunch matcher.
3	Unfamiliar establishments can be difficult to trust or locate. Missing entrance information and uncertainty about recommendations encourage students to return to familiar places.	New students, students exploring unfamiliar areas, and students who depend on trusted recommendations or specific food requirements.	`I1-S2`, `I1-S4`, `I3-S3`, `I3-S4`; Journey Map 1, stages 5 and 6.	"The friend who knows" podium, Exact Entrance Finder, Student-to-student reviews, Dietary needs tag, Food passport.

The dimensions above were not treated as separate projects. They were used to understand how the 17 alternatives responded to different parts of the same research-based problem.

2.2 Divergence-to-Convergence Strategy

The decision process followed the divergence-convergence pattern presented in the course material. Divergence was used to expand the solution space without prematurely evaluating the ideas, while convergence was used to progressively organize and reduce that space until one semester solution remained.

Divergence

The process began with 12 independently generated ideas on the MS3 Padlet. During the subsequent idea-building round, the team used piggybacking: participants reviewed their teammates' proposals and added comments, smart extensions, or related ideas.

Five additional proposals were introduced during this stage, resulting in a complete divergent set of 17 ideas. No proposal was eliminated before every contribution had been presented and documented.

Convergence

The team used dot voting as the main selection technique. The process was organized as a three-round funnel:

Round 1 reduced the 17 ideas to 6 shortlisted alternatives.
Round 2 reduced the 6 shortlisted alternatives to 3 finalists.
Round 3 selected one idea as the semester solution.

Each participant received a limited number of votes during each round. Participants could vote for any surviving idea, regardless of whether they had previously commented on it. Only the alternatives with the strongest team support advanced to the following round.

Divergence techniques: Independent brainstorming and piggybacking.
Convergence technique: Dot voting through a three-round funnel.
Decision date: August 21, 2026.
Decision tool: MS3 Padlet board.
Participants: Juan Esteban Rojas Castañeda, Camilo Molina, Kevin Alvarez, Juan Jose Murillo Aristizabal, and Samuel Rozen.
Why this technique was appropriate: Dot voting allowed every team member to participate in the decision while progressively narrowing a large set of alternatives. The three rounds also prevented the team from selecting a solution before reviewing the complete divergent set.

2.3 Qualitative Decision Considerations

The team did not use a weighted decision matrix. Instead, the comments, discussion, and votes represented each participant's overall judgment of the ideas. The following qualitative considerations guided the comparison:

Decision consideration	Question applied during the discussion	Research-based justification
Research alignment	Does the idea respond directly to a need, behavior, or difficulty identified in the interviews or Journey Map 1?	The selected solution had to originate from the MS2 evidence rather than from an unsupported assumption.
Direct user value	Would the idea help students discover or evaluate a viable food option more quickly?	Students currently use fragmented sources and may return to familiar establishments when information is incomplete (`I1-S2`, `I3-S2`).
Support for relevant decisions	Does the idea provide useful information about food type, price, proximity, or available time?	These were recurring decision criteria in `I1-S3`, `I1-Q5`, and `I3-S1`.
Smart-feature potential	Can contextual or usage data produce a useful recommendation, notification, update, or automatic response?	The MS3 activity required the team to examine how smart features could improve the generated solutions.
Coherence as a semester solution	Can the idea operate as the central solution rather than only as an isolated supporting feature?	The convergence process had to result in one clearly identifiable semester idea.

These considerations supported the discussion but were not assigned artificial numerical weights. The official selection result came from the three dot-voting rounds.

2.4 Round-by-Round Decision Results

Stage	Input	Technique and activity	Result
Divergence	12 initial ideas	Independent brainstorming followed by piggybacking, comments, smart extensions, and five additional proposals.	17 documented ideas.
Convergence - Round 1	17 ideas	First dot-voting round.	6 shortlisted ideas: Weekly recommendations board, Daily menu feed, Campus Food Map, Lunch roulette, Today's Deal alerts, and Food passport.
Convergence - Round 2	6 ideas	The shortlisted ideas were complemented and evaluated through a second dot-voting round.	3 finalists: Weekly recommendations board, Lunch roulette, and Daily menu feed.
Convergence - Round 3	3 finalists	The team reviewed the finalists and their smart-feature possibilities before casting the final votes.	Selected semester idea: Daily menu feed.

Finalist Comparison

Finalist	Main contribution	Smart-feature potential discussed	Final result
Weekly recommendations board	Centralizes recent student discoveries, prices, and orders while preserving word-of-mouth recommendations.	QR connection to a digital version, geofenced reminders, and removal of outdated recommendations.	Finalist; not selected in Round 3.
Lunch roulette	Reduces decision effort by choosing an option according to budget and available time.	Compatibility filtering, weighted randomization, pick history, open status, and shake-to-reroll interaction.	Finalist; not selected in Round 3.
Daily menu feed	Centralizes the current menus offered by nearby establishments in one shared feed.	Automatic post expiration using timestamps and crowd-sourced reports when menu information changes.	Selected in Round 3.

2.5 Selected Problem and Idea

Selected Problem

University students looking for food around campus lack a centralized and current source where they can see what establishments are offering and quickly compare viable alternatives during their limited breaks.

Selected Idea

Daily menu feed: a shared mobile feed where establishments near campus publish their current daily menus so students can review the available alternatives in one place.

Each menu publication can include the establishment, available dishes, approximate price, publication time, and location. Its principal smart component uses the post timestamp and the current date and time to automatically hide or mark expired menus. Students may also report menu changes so that potentially outdated information can be reviewed.

Decision Rationale

Daily menu feed received the strongest support during the final dot-voting round. It was selected because it converts dispersed and time-sensitive information into a single actionable source that students can consult before deciding where to eat.

The idea addresses the centralization problem while still supporting important comparison criteria such as food type and approximate price. The automatic-expiration mechanism also gives the solution a clear smart component: instead of displaying every publication indefinitely, the system uses contextual time data to prevent students from confusing an old menu with the current one.

Research-Based Justification

When information about alternatives is missing, students may return to familiar establishments (I1-S2).
Food type, approximate price, and distance influence the decision (I1-S3).
Available time and expected service speed determine whether an option is viable (I1-Q5, I3-S1).
Students currently consult several disconnected sources, including friends, Google, TikTok, and user comments (I3-S2, I3-S4).
A participant proposed having a visible list of recommended establishments with approximate prices (I3-Q9).
Journey Map 1 identifies opportunities to centralize discovery and comparison information during stages 2, 3, and 4.

Why the Other Finalists Were Not Selected

Weekly recommendations board: It preserves trusted word-of-mouth recommendations, but its physical location and weekly update cycle make it less immediate than a feed containing the options available on the current day. Its recommendation component may later complement the selected solution.
Lunch roulette: It directly reduces decision effort, but it depends on having reliable and current information about menus, prices, opening status, and available time. It can later become an optional "choose for me" interaction built on top of the information collected by the Daily menu feed.

The finalist ideas were therefore not considered useless. They were retained as possible supporting features or future extensions, while Daily menu feed became the central solution direction for the semester.

2.6 Evidence of the Decision Process

Evidence	What it demonstrates	Link or attachment
Complete MS3 idea inventory	The 17 alternatives considered before convergence.	Section 1.4.2 - New and Refined Solutions
Documented procedure	Participants, techniques, rounds, and the outcome of each stage.	Section 1.3 - Procedure Followed
MS3 Padlet board	Original cards, participant contributions, piggybacking comments, and voting activity.	Brainstorming MS3
Round 1 screenshot	Reduction from 17 ideas to 6 shortlisted alternatives.	Image below
Round 2 screenshot	Reduction from 6 alternatives to 3 finalists.	Image below
Final decision screenshot	Selection of Daily menu feed during Round 3.	Image below

Decision process - Round 1

Decision process - Round 2

Decision process - Final selection

3. Empathy Maps (2 pts)

Empathy Map 1 — The Time-Squeezed Explorer

"Can I make it there and back before my next class?"

Prospective user: Student deciding where to eat during a short break, grounded in Interviews 1 and 3 and Journey Map 1

Interpretation

Main insight: For the user, the real budget includes both money and minutes. Discovering that an establishment exists is not enough; the available information must also help the student compare it with other options and reach the correct entrance before the break ends.
Connection to the selected problem: The map directly reflects the lack of a reliable and centralized guide to food options around campus. Relevant information is currently scattered across friends, Google, TikTok, reviews, and physical exploration.

Empathy Map 2 — The Habit Loyalist

"I just go where I already know"

Prospective user: Student who defaults to the same establishment to avoid the risk of searching, grounded in Interview 1

Interpretation

Main insight: She's not loyal to her usual place, she's loyal to certainty. She knows its price, quality, and distance already, so it always wins over anything unknown. (I1-S2, I1-S3)
Connection to the selected problem: This shows why students keep repeating the same place: not preference, but lack of information about the alternatives. A solution has to make trying something new feel as easy as going to the usual spot.

Empathy Map 3 — The Diligent Verifier

"I research it, and I still can't find the door"

Prospective user: Student willing to research thoroughly but blocked at the final step of physically locating the venue, grounded in Interview 3

Interpretation

Main insight: She does all the research right, but still can't find the place. The problem isn't information, it's finding the door. (I3-S3, I3-S4)
Connection to the selected problem: This shows the guide can't stop at recommendations. It also needs to help people physically find the place, with things like map pins and photos of the entrance.

Empathy Map 4 — The Overwhelmed Comparer

"Too many options, not enough clarity"

Prospective user: Student paralyzed by too many scattered options, grounded in Journey Map 1 (Evaluate Alternatives stage) and the "Lunch roulette" brainstorming insight

Interpretation

Main insight: Too many options feels the same as no options. Without a way to compare fast, she gets stuck.
Connection to the selected problem: This shows the guide needs more than a long list of places. It needs filters or quick-decision tools, so more information doesn't turn into more stress.

Empathy Map 5 — The Between-Buildings Improviser

"I could have known this before leaving the classroom."

Prospective user: Student with a one-hour midday break and a tight budget, deciding on foot between campus and street options, grounded in Interview 6

Interpretation

Main insight: This user can already name the places around him; what he cannot know is anything that would let him choose between them. Line length, today's menu, the real price, and whether a place is even open are discovered on foot, inside the same hour he is trying to eat in. The decision ends up made by whatever is on the way rather than by what he actually wants.
Connection to the selected problem: Asked what would make finding food easier, he described current menus, current prices, and current availability without being prompted with any solution (I6-Q9). The map also extends the problem beyond Interviews 1 and 3: waiting time as a decisive criterion, street vendors that appear on no platform, dietary needs as a concrete group constraint, and the collapse of options after 5:00 pm.

4. Personas (3 pts)

Persona 1 — Alex, The Between-Classes Explorer

Description: Alex is a research-based composite persona representing an undergraduate student who searches for food near campus during short breaks. Alex wants to explore new establishments but needs trustworthy information about price, food type, walking time, service speed, and the exact entrance. When this information is incomplete, Alex usually returns to a familiar option.

Evidence base: This persona was developed from Interview 1 (Cristal), Interview 3 (Allison), Journey Map 1 — Discovering Food Options Near Campus, and Empathy Map 3 — The Between-Classes Explorer. The main evidence includes reliance on friends, fragmented information sources, limited break time, relevant comparison criteria, and difficulty locating hidden establishments.

Persona 2 — Diego, The Between-Buildings Improviser

Description: Diego is a composite persona built from Interview 6. He is an undergraduate student with a one-hour midday break and a tight budget who decides where to eat on foot. He can already name the places around him, but not the details that would let him choose between them: line length, today's price, or whether a place is even open. Without that information, he tends to end up wherever is easiest to reach instead of what he actually wants.

Evidence base: This persona was developed from Interview 6 and Empathy Map 5, The Between-Buildings Improviser. The main evidence includes waiting time as a decisive factor, a reliable off-campus vendor absent from any listing, dietary uncertainty as a real constraint, and the drop in options once everything nearby closes.

5. Solution Description (3 pts)

5.1 Selected Problem

Problem statement: Students who eat near campus can usually name the establishments around them, but they cannot find out what those establishments are offering right now. Today's menu, the current price, the length of the line, and whether a place is even open are only discoverable by walking there, which consumes the same break the student is trying to eat in.
Prospective users affected: Undergraduate students with short or irregular breaks, students with tight budgets, students with dietary restrictions, and students unfamiliar with the establishments outside their usual buildings.
Context in which it occurs: Between classes and after class, in and around campus, under a fixed time limit that the student cannot extend. The problem intensifies at peak hours, at the end of the month, in groups, and in the evening.
Main causes:
- Information about nearby establishments is distributed across friends, Google, TikTok, reviews, and physical exploration, with no single current source (I3-S2, I3-S4, I6-Q3).
- The information that changes daily (menu, price, availability, waiting time) is the information least likely to be published anywhere (I6-Q4, I6-Q9).
- Establishments inside campus and informal vendors have almost no presence on existing review platforms, and the ones outside are only reviewed when popular (I6-Q3, I6-Q8).
- Even when a place is known by name, its entrance or facade may not be recognizable (I3-S3).
Main consequences:
- Students fall back on familiar establishments rather than risk an unknown one (I1-S2).
- Decisions are made by proximity rather than preference, whatever is on the way wins (I6-S1).
- Group decisions with mixed budgets and dietary needs are resolved by walking, not comparing (I6-S2).
- Options collapse entirely outside peak hours, leaving vending machines (I6-S3).
- Establishments that depend on word of mouth remain invisible to most of the campus population (I6-S4).
Supporting evidence: Interviews 1, 3, and 6, Situations I1-S1–I1-S4, I3-S1–I3-S4, I6-S1–I6-S4, Journey Map 1 (stages 2-5), Empathy Maps 1-5, Personas Alex and Diego.

5.2 Proposed Solution

Solution name: UniEat - Daily Menu Feed
One-sentence concept: A shared mobile feed where establishments near campus publish what they are serving today, so students can see current dishes, prices, and availability before deciding where to walk.
Target users: Undergraduate students choosing where to eat near campus during a limited break, represented by the personas Alex (The Between-Classes Explorer) and Diego (The Between-Buildings Improviser).

General description:

UniEat organizes food information around the dimension that actually changes: the current day. Rather than maintaining a static directory of establishments, the application presents a feed of menu publications, each one attached to a moment in time.

An establishment publishes its menú del día with the dishes offered, approximate prices, and a publication timestamp. Students browse the feed, filter it according to their constraints, and decide before leaving the classroom. Because every publication carries a timestamp, the system distinguishes current information from stale information automatically, and students can report changes when a publication no longer reflects reality.

The feed does not attempt to replace friends, reviews, or exploration. It addresses the specific gap those channels cannot fill: what is available, at what price, right now.

5.3 How the Solution Addresses the Problem

User need or pain point	Solution response	General operating mechanism	Expected user value	Evidence source
The student cannot find out today's menu or actual price without walking there	A feed of publications made by the establishments themselves on the current day	Establishments publish dishes and prices, publications appear ordered by recency	The decision happens before the walk, not during it	`I6-Q4`, `I6-Q9`, `I3-Q9`
Information found somewhere may already be out of date	Every publication carries a timestamp and expires automatically	The system compares the publication time against the current time and hides or marks expired posts	The student never confuses yesterday's menu with today's	`I6-Q9`, `I3-S4`
Missing information pushes students back to the familiar option	Current alternatives are visible in one place without requiring a search across several sources	A single feed replaces the combination of friends, Google, TikTok, and physical exploration	Trying something new stops being a gamble	`I1-S2`, `I3-S2`
Budget and dietary constraints must be satisfied simultaneously, often for a group	Filters over the current publications by price range and dietary suitability	Filtering applied to the dishes actually published today, not to generic establishment labels	The group compares instead of walking	`I6-S2`, `I6-Q4`
Establishments and vendors that publish nothing remain invisible	Any establishment near campus can publish, including small and informal vendors	A low-effort publication format accessible from a phone	Options that exist only through word of mouth become discoverable	`I6-Q3`, `I6-S4`
Options appear to disappear outside peak hours	Publications indicate the window during which the offer is valid	Absence of a current publication is displayed explicitly rather than left ambiguous	The student knows whether nothing is open or simply nothing is posted	`I6-S3`
A known name does not guarantee finding the entrance	Each publication links to the establishment's location and storefront reference	Map pin and storefront photograph attached to the establishment profile	The student reaches the correct door	`I3-S3`

5.4 Main Features and Smart Components

Feature	Core or smart feature	What it does	Required data or technology	User benefit	Research or brainstorming origin
Daily menu feed	Core	Displays the menus published by nearby establishments on the current day, ordered by recency	Establishment publications, timestamps, mobile client	One current source instead of several scattered ones	Selected idea, Section 2.5
Automatic publication expiry	Smart	Hides or marks a publication once its validity window has elapsed	Publication timestamp, current date and time, expiry logic	Removes the risk of acting on stale information	Section 1.5, Juan Esteban's complement
Crowd-sourced menu correction	Smart	Lets students report that a published menu, price, or opening status is no longer accurate	Student reports, timestamps, conflict detection between reports	Keeps the feed accurate between publications	Section 1.5, "Report an update"
Price and dietary filters	Core	Filters the current publications by price range and by dishes marked vegetarian or otherwise restricted	Dish-level tags supplied at publication	Makes group and budget decisions comparable	`I6-S2`, `I6-Q4`, Dietary needs tag
Establishment profile with location reference	Core	Shows the exact pin, storefront photograph, and entrance description for the publishing establishment	Coordinates, storefront images	The student recognizes the place on arrival	`I3-S3`, Exact Entrance Finder
Availability window indicator	Core	States the hours during which a publication applies and distinguishes "closed" from "not published"	Publication metadata, current time	Removes ambiguity in the evening	`I6-S3`
Relevance-ordered feed	Smart	Prioritizes publications that fit the student's stated budget and typical schedule	Stated budget range, previous filter use, current time of day	The feed opens on what is actually viable	`I6-Q2`, Quick Match, Break-fit planner

5.5 General User Flow

The student finishes a class and has a limited window in which to eat.
The student opens UniEat and sees the publications made by nearby establishments today, most recent first.
The student applies filters if needed: price range, dietary requirement, or currently open.
The student compares the current dishes and prices across the visible publications.
The student selects a publication and reviews the establishment's location, storefront photograph, and validity window.
The student walks directly to the chosen place, having already decided.
If the published information turns out to be inaccurate, the student reports it, and the correction becomes visible to the next student.

5.6 Traceability to Research, Empathy Maps, and Personas

Solution decision	Research finding	Empathy map(s)	Persona(s)	Resulting feature or behavior
Organize the application around the current day rather than a static directory	The information students lack is the information that changes daily (`I6-Q4`, `I6-Q9`)	Map 5	Diego	Daily menu feed
Expire publications automatically	Cross-checking scattered sources costs more time than the decision is worth (`I3-S4`)	Maps 3, 4	Alex	Timestamp-based expiry
Show price at the level of the dish, not the establishment	Price is a primary criterion and is rarely published (`I1-S3`, `I3-S1`, `I6-Q2`)	Maps 1, 5	Alex, Diego	Price filter over current publications
Treat dietary needs as a filter over real dishes	A single vegetarian member reshaped an entire group's decision (`I6-S2`)	Map 5	Diego	Dietary filter
Attach location and storefront reference to every publication	Knowing a place exists does not mean being able to find it (`I3-S3`)	Map 3	Alex	Establishment profile with pin and photograph
Allow students to correct published information	Students already act as an informal information network (`I1-S1`, `I3-S2`, `I6-Q8`)	Maps 1, 2	Alex	Crowd-sourced correction
Make absence of information explicit	Students assume everything is closed rather than checking (`I6-S3`)	Map 5	Diego	Availability window indicator
Reduce the number of options shown to those that fit	Too many scattered options produce the same paralysis as too few	Map 4	Alex	Relevance-ordered feed

5.7 General Resolution Summary

The research did not find a shortage of places to eat near campus. It found a shortage of current information about them. Students know where the establishments are; what they cannot know, without walking there, is what is being served today, what it costs, how long the line is, and whether the place is open at all. Because that information is only obtainable on foot, it is obtained during the same break the student is trying to use, and the decision ends up being made by proximity rather than preference.

UniEat responds by making the current day the organizing unit of the application. Establishments publish what they are offering, each publication carries a timestamp that determines how long it remains valid, students filter those publications by the constraints that actually bind them (price, dietary requirement, and time) and decide before leaving the classroom. When a publication stops matching reality, students correct it, and the correction reaches whoever looks next.

The result is a shift in when the decision is made. Instead of discovering constraints by walking into them, the student arrives at an establishment already knowing what is there, what it costs, and how to find the entrance. For Alex, this means a short break spent eating rather than searching. For Diego, it means choosing deliberately instead of settling for whatever happened to be on the way.

6. Appendix - Additional Interview Conducted for MS3

6.1 Purpose

The MS2 research included five interviews, but only two of them (Interviews 1 and 3) addressed the problem selected for the semester. An additional interview was conducted during MS3 to expand the evidence base supporting the empathy maps and personas.

The instrument used was the same one applied in Interview 3, so that the responses would remain comparable across participants studying the same problem.

6.2 Interview 6 — Camilo Molina — No centralized guide to food options around campus

Participant: Santiago, 19 years old, third semester of Ingeniería Industrial. On campus Monday to Friday, approximately 7:00 am to 5:00 pm.

Date: August 21, 2026 Instrument: Same question set as Interview 3 Format: Interview notes (paraphrased responses, translated to English)

#	Question	Purpose
1	Can you tell me about the last time you looked for a place to eat or drink near the university?	Explore a recent and specific experience related to finding food options near campus
2	What were you looking for on that occasion, and which factors were important to you?	Identify the participant's needs and main decision criteria
3	How did you find out about the food and drink options available at that moment?	Understand the channels currently used to discover nearby establishments
4	What information did you have before making your decision, and what information was difficult to find?	Identify information gaps that may make the decision process harder
5	What made you choose that establishment instead of another option?	Understand the priorities and trade-offs involved in choosing a place
6	Can you describe a situation in which it was difficult to find a place that matched your needs near the university?	Discover specific problems, frustrations, and barriers experienced by the participant
7	How do you usually discover food or drink establishments that you have not visited before?	Understand current discovery habits and alternative methods used by the participant
8	Which sources of information or recommendations do you trust when choosing a place, and why?	Explore the role of trust in recommendations, advertisements, and online information
9	Based on your experiences, what could make finding and choosing a food establishment near the university easier?	Identify unmet needs and improvement opportunities without suggesting a specific solution

6.3 Interview Notes

1. Yesterday, between classes at 12. He went to Ajiaco y Frijoles, saw the line, turned around, and bought a bowl from the vendor in front of Centro Cívico instead. The decision took about five minutes but required walking between two buildings.

2. Fast, cheap, and close to his next class. Ideally under fifteen thousand pesos. Line length is the most important factor — at 12:30 everything is packed and he only has one hour. If a place is outside campus, the walk back counts double.

3. He did not look anything up. Inside campus he knows the four or five spots from walking past them for three semesters. Outside there are many more options but he only knows the ones he has been taken to. Much of what he eats comes from street vendors, which are not listed anywhere by definition, you only know about the bowl vendor because you have seen him standing there.

4. He knew roughly what each place serves and roughly what it costs. He did not know whether the line was long, whether they had menú del día that day, or the actual prices. He also does not know which places offer anything vegetarian, even though friends ask him.

5. Because the other place had a line and this one was on the way to his class. The choice was not about the food.

6. End of the month, four people, one vegetarian, all short on money. They spent twenty minutes moving between spots outside and the cafeterías in other buildings before settling on empanadas from Saudade, the only option that worked for everyone. He noted that the information needed to solve this exists somewhere, but not anywhere reachable in the moment.

A second difficulty occurs after 5:00 or 6:00 pm. Most places close, and if he stays for a project or waits out traffic in the library, his only remaining option is vending machines.

7. Someone takes him there. There are shops in buildings where he has no classes that he has never entered in three semesters, and the situation is worse outside campus because there are more options and he knows fewer of them.

8. Friends, mainly, because they know his budget and his schedule. Reviews are of little help — establishments inside campus have none, and those outside are only reviewed if they are popular, which usually means they are not the inexpensive ones he would choose.

9. Current information above all: what is open now, today's menu and price, and how long the line is at a given hour. He also asked for a genuine vegetarian filter, meaning an actual dish rather than a label. He summarized his need as wanting to stop walking so much to find out something he could have known before leaving the classroom.

6.4 Situations — Interview 6

Situation	What	How	Why
1. Abandoning a queue for a street vendor	Left Ajiaco y Frijoles without ordering and bought from a street vendor in front of Centro Cívico	Saw the length of the line, turned around, and chose a vendor that was on the way to his next class	With a one-hour break, waiting time matters more than the food itself, and there is no way to know the line length before walking there
2. Failing to reconcile a group's constraints	Spent twenty minutes with three friends before settling on empanadas at the end of the month	Walked between establishments outside campus and cafeterías in other buildings, comparing prices and vegetarian options on foot	Budget limits and one vegetarian member had to be satisfied simultaneously, and no source combines current prices with dietary information
3. Losing all options after 5:00 pm	Falls back to vending machines when he stays on campus in the evening	Does not search for alternatives, since he assumes everything nearby has closed	Opening hours are not published anywhere he can consult, so the absence of information is indistinguishable from the absence of options
4. Discovering places only through others	Has never entered establishments located in buildings where he has no classes, after three semesters	Waits until a classmate or friend takes him somewhere new	Nothing prompts him to explore, and outside campus the number of unknown options is even larger

6.5 Evidence Key — Interview 6 (Santiago)

Code	Evidence
`I6-S1`	Abandoned the line at Ajiaco y Frijoles and bought from a street vendor because it was on the way to class
`I6-S2`	Group lunch at the end of the month: four people, one vegetarian, twenty minutes of walking, resolved with empanadas
`I6-S3`	After 5:00-6:00 pm his only remaining option on campus is vending machines
`I6-S4`	Discovers new establishments only when someone takes him, buildings unentered after three semesters
`I6-Q2`	Prioritizes speed, price under COP 15,000, and proximity to his next class; line length is the decisive factor
`I6-Q3`	Street vendors form a significant part of what he eats and are not listed on any platform
`I6-Q4`	Could not find out line length, whether there was menú del día, actual prices, or vegetarian availability
`I6-Q8`	Trusts friends because they know his budget and schedule, reviews rarely cover inexpensive or on-campus options
`I6-Q9`	Wants current information, what is open now, today's menu and price, line length, and a genuine vegetarian filter

6.6 Relationship to the Selected Solution

This interview reinforces the direction selected in Section 2.5. When asked what would make finding food easier, the participant described current menus, current prices, and current availability without being prompted with any solution (I6-Q9). His difficulty was not a shortage of establishments but the absence of information that is valid at the moment of deciding (I6-S1, I6-S3).

The interview also introduces findings not present in Interviews 1 and 3:

Waiting time is a decisive selection criterion, not a secondary one (I6-S1, I6-Q2).
Street vendors are a real part of the food landscape and are absent from every existing platform (I6-Q3).
Dietary requirements appear as a concrete group constraint rather than a hypothesis (I6-S2, I6-Q4).
Availability collapses in the evening, a time window not covered by the previous research (I6-S3).