Micro Sprint 3 (O2): Empathy Maps

Problem Domain: CampusSwap Marketplace (peer-to-peer academic materials exchange)

<- Back to Home

Brainstorming Process

During the initial idea, we had a broad brainstorming session focused on identifying problems and opportunities within the university environment. We explored four different product ideas from the problems we had in the course’s padlet: Second-Hand Items Seller App, Educational Items Marketplace, Recycling Points in the City, and University Parking Finder. For each concept, we first identified possible situations and pain points experienced by university students and then generated multiple potential solutions without immediately evaluating their technical workability. This allowed us to maintain a divergent thinking process and explore different opportunities before converging on two options.

Brainstorming

Recycling Points in the City

This concept addressed the difficulty students may experience when trying to dispose of recyclable materials responsibly. During brainstorming, we considered situations such as students having recyclable materials at home or university but not knowing where to take them, recycling points being difficult to locate, or users being unsure about what materials each point accepts. We found some smart features that could be included as: recommending the closest recycling point based on the user's location and material type, predicting which recycling point is most convenient based on opening hours and distance, and using image recognition to help users identify whether an item is potentially recyclable.

University Parking Finder

This concept was focused on the difficulties students and university visitors may experience when looking for parking close to campus. The brainstorming considered situations such as arriving late to class because of time spent searching for a parking space, not knowing which parking lots are available, uncertainty about prices, and having to move between different locations before finding an available space. Smart features that we found could include predicting parking availability based on historical patterns, recommending the best parking lot according to the user's arrival time, price and distance, and dynamically suggesting alternative locations when a parking lot becomes unavailable.

Second-Hand Items and Marketplace App

We finally decided to use those ideas for the next process! Those concepts focused on the difficulties students experience when trying to sell or buy second-hand or academic products within the university community. During the brainstorming, we identified that students frequently have products they no longer use, either they are clothes, books, or any other educational items; students have difficulty finding an appropriate buyer and end up throwing them away or not knowing what to do with them. Existing channels such as WhatsApp groups can become disorganized because messages are continuously posted and daily deleted, products are difficult to search for, and previous listings quickly become buried. There can also be uncertainty regarding whether the person on the other side of the transaction is actually part of the university community or not. A relevant situation identified in the research was that students can finish a course with materials that are still useful but no longer necessary for them, while another student may need exactly the same product. We also identified difficulties related to finding specific editions or models, determining the condition of used products, and finding academic materials through general marketplaces or WhatsApp groups. Some smart features that we could include are course, degree and semester-based recommendations, intelligent search, automatic product categorization, smart matching between buyers and sellers, and price estimation based on the product's condition and similar listings.

Divergence phase

During the divergence phase of the Second-Hand Items Seller App and Educational Items Marketplace, the objective was to explore different ways students could safely and efficiently buy, sell, exchange, and rent items within the university community. Through unfiltered sticky-note brainstorming, we generated ideas related to product listings, including prices, conditions, descriptions, photographs, categories, and availability status. We also explored features to improve search and personalization, such as filters by faculty, degree, textbook, size, brand, color, and condition, as well as wishlists, notifications, and recommendations based on degree and semester. In addition, we considered trust and transaction features, including student verification, buyer and seller ratings, user profiles, messaging, price negotiation, offers, auctions, and recommended meeting points inside the university. In addition, we explored renting and pricing functionalities, such as rental calendars, returns and refunds, suggested prices based on similar products, and price estimation from photographs. At this stage, no ideas were discarded, allowing the team to fully explore the solution space before moving into the convergence phase.

Congervence phase

After completing the divergence phase for the Second-Hand Items Seller App and Educational Items Marketplace, we transitioned into a convergence phase to organize and prioritize the ideas we had. Similar concepts were merged and grouped according to their main functionality, while secondary or more complex features were deprioritized. The selected ideas were organized into key areas, including product publication and information, with features such as descriptions, photos, condition, price, availability status, degree, faculty, semester relevance, and academic categories. We also prioritized search and discovery, including textbook and academic equipment searches, filters, and wishlists. In addition, the convergence process identified marketplace interaction and trust as core areas, incorporating university verification, real product photographs, buyer and seller ratings, communication, buying and selling, exchanges, and posting needed items. Finally, exchange coordination was defined through university meeting points and coordination of location and time, resulting in a more focused and achievable feature set for the final solution.

2. Decision Process

To decide which problem to focus on for the semester, we applied an additional convergence step following the Divergence-Convergence Pattern taught in class. Initially, our team explored four different product ideas: Second-Hand Items Seller App, Educational Items Marketplace, Recycling Points in the City, and University Parking Finder.

After conducting brainstorming sessions for each concept and reviewing the resulting idea boards, we evaluated the potential of each problem in terms of user impact, feasibility, and relevance to common student challenges. While all ideas addressed valid needs, the combination of the Second-Hand Items Seller App and Educational Items Marketplace stood out. Students frequently possess academic items they no longer use and face significant friction when trying to sell them, while buyers struggle with disorganized channels and a lack of trust.

To deepen our convergence process and guide feature prioritization, we applied the Four Categories framework introduced in class to our generated ideas. This method allowed us to evaluate our features beyond basic functionality, considering technical feasibility, user delight, innovation potential, and long-term vision.

Each feature was classified into one of four categories, allowing us to structure our development roadmap:

• The Rational Choice: Forms the core experience. Features include publishing items, setting prices, showing product conditions, filtering by faculty/degree, searching for specific textbooks/calculators, and ensuring trust through university student verification and direct buyer-seller communication.
• The Most Likely to Delight: Enhances user engagement. Includes creating wishlists, receiving notifications for matching products, rating buyers/sellers, negotiating prices, and providing recommended meeting points inside the university.
• The Darling: Represents innovative, smart differentiators. Features include approximating prices from a photograph, suggesting items based on degree/semester, and recommending meeting points based on the user's live location.
• The Long Shot: Encompasses complex or future-vision features. Includes renting academic items with availability calendars, returning rented items for refunds, conducting limited-time auctions, and processing in-app payments.

Based on this classification, our initial development focus will strictly target The Rational Choice features, as they directly address the most critical user pain points (trust and organization) with high feasibility and immediate value. Once a stable and reliable core experience is established, features from The Most Likely to Delight will be introduced to improve motivation and retention.

The Darling and The Long Shot features represent opportunities for differentiation and long-term growth, and will be explored in future iterations as the product matures. From this point onward, all documentation and design decisions focus exclusively on the CampusSwap Marketplace as the selected solution for the semester.

3. Empathy Maps

5 empathy maps were developed for prospective users identified during MS2 interviews, representing the sides of the marketplace: a student with unused materials and a frequent comparison-driven buyer.

Empathy Map 1 — Isabella

Made by: Daniel Diab

1. Who are we empathizing with?

Isabella, 22, Audiovisual Communication student at Universidad de La Sabana. Owns unused course materials (calculator, books); has bought and sold secondhand academic items with mixed success. Her role spans both sides of the marketplace — she has things to sell and also buys occasionally.

2. What does she need to DO?

• Decide what to do with materials she no longer uses instead of letting them pile up in her room.
• Find real buyers for niche used items (e.g. language textbooks), without relying only on classmates.
• Trust an item's condition before buying it, without seeing it in person.
• Quickly filter listings relevant to her program, avoiding noise from other majors.
• Success looks like: selling what she doesn't use without extra effort, and buying secondhand with the same confidence as buying new.

3. What does she SEE?

• Her unused Introduction to Economics calculator sitting in her room.
• Informal, disorganized channels with no categories by academic program.
• Classmates who'd rather pay more for a new book than buy a used one with no guarantees.
• No photos or clear evidence of condition in the few secondhand listings she comes across.

4. What does she SAY?

• "It's just laying around in my bedroom." (about her calculator)
• "I usually just get things from my siblings."
• "The condition needs to be really clear — new, old, or stained."
• "I tried to sell my French book but nobody wanted the used one."

5. What does she DO?

• Buys a calculator for class, barely uses it, and defaults to her phone's calculator app instead.
• Relies on hand-me-downs from her siblings instead of searching among strangers.
• Attempts to sell a used book directly to classmates who need it.
• Imagines an ideal platform with condition tags and program-based categories.

6. What does she HEAR?

• Classmates saying they'd rather buy new "just in case" when there's no way to verify a used item's condition.
• Her siblings mentioning what materials they already have available before she buys anything new.
• Scattered comments from other students about how hard it is to find something specific to their major among posts from other programs.
• Little to no mention of a trustworthy secondhand platform within the university — the option barely comes up.

7. What does she THINK and FEEL?

PAINS	GAINS
Ends up with unused materials taking up space with no easy resale channel.	Already has a family network that solves part of her sourcing needs, she knows the value of easy access.
Buyers prefer brand-new over used when trust/condition isn't clearly established.	Would adopt a platform that gives visual proof of condition and filters by program.
No categorization by academic program, browsing is inefficient and frustrating.	Feels optimistic and engaged when picturing a more organized, trustworthy system.

Additional thoughts and feelings: Mildly frustrated about money spent on something redundant (the calculator); comfortable and low-stress when the source is family; disappointed and a little discouraged after failing to sell the French book.

---

Empathy Map 2 — Maria

Made by: Daniel Diab

1. Who are we empathizing with?

Maria, university student at Universidad de los Andes, a frequent online buyer who treats every marketplace purchase as a comparison exercise. Her role is that of a repeat, experience-hardened buyer who demands proof before committing to a purchase.

2. What does she need to DO?

• Compare price, quality, and delivery conditions across multiple listings without manually opening and cross-referencing every tab.
• Verify a seller's real reputation before messaging or paying.
• Spot red flags (new sellers, suspiciously low prices, photos that don't match reality) before wasting time or money.
• Success looks like: deciding with confidence without having to do the verification work the platform should already provide.

3. What does she SEE?

• Multiple open tabs with different listings she has to compare manually.
• Seller profiles with inconsistent history — some new, some with few reviews.
• Product photos that, in the past, didn't match what she actually received.
• Very low prices with no supporting information behind them.

4. What does she SAY?

• "I open a bunch of listings at once to compare them."
• "The first thing I check is the seller's reputation."
• "I've been burned by photos that don't match what showed up."
• "I want to see number of sales, response speed, and reviews — not just the price."

5. What does she DO?

• Keeps multiple tabs open, manually cross-referencing price, quality, and delivery conditions across listings.
• Screens seller profiles for history, activity, and prior reviews before messaging.
• Discards listings from new, low-activity, or suspiciously cheap sellers.
• Has messaged sellers directly to verify details when descriptions or photos feel incomplete.

6. What does she HEAR?

• Other buyers' stories of being scammed or receiving items that didn't match what was advertised.
• Informal advice to "check the profile carefully before buying from someone."
• Complaints that current platforms don't offer real protection to buyers.
• Little to no mention of any shared trust standard across sellers — everyone evaluates it their own way.

7. What does she THINK and FEEL?

PAINS	GAINS
No platform consolidates price/quality/reputation comparisons — she has to do it manually.	Values structured trust signals (seller history, response speed, reviews) as a real substitute for the lack of formal buyer protection.
Listing quality is inconsistent; the verification burden falls entirely on the buyer.	Would engage more readily with a platform that surfaces comparison data and verified condition/reputation up front, reducing her manual research effort.
Reputation systems are one-directional — she has no way to signal trust back, and no shared standard exists across sellers.	Feels relieved when reputation signals are strong enough to move forward with a purchase.

Additional thoughts and feelings: "Is this seller even real? Their profile looks new." — distrust as her first instinct; mentally taxed treating routine purchases like research tasks; defensive and cautious, actively looking for reasons to distrust; frustrated when she has to do extra legwork the listing should have covered; her biggest fear is paying and never getting the item.

---

Empathy Map 3 — Valentina, a Student Buyer

Made by: Carla González

1. Who are we empathizing with?

Valentina, 18, first-year Business Administration student at Universidad de los Andes. She is a budget-conscious, risk-averse buyer who needs to purchase expensive introductory textbooks and academic materials for her first semester while keeping costs as low as possible.

2. What does she need to DO?

• Find all required first-year reading materials without spending her entire semester budget at the campus bookstore.
• Ensure she is buying the exact book edition required by her professors without risking buying outdated material.
• Avoid scams or paying upfront to sellers she doesn't know.
• Success looks like: securing all her required course materials at a fraction of the retail price with zero financial risk.

3. What does she SEE?

• High retail prices for new textbooks and course materials at official stores.
• Unorganized secondhand listings scattered across WhatsApp and Facebook groups.
• Older students selling previous editions without specifying if they match current course syllabi.
• Postings with vague condition descriptions like "good shape" without showing highlighted or damaged pages.

4. What does she SAY?

• "I can't afford $300,000 COP for a single finance textbook I'll only use for four months."
• "Is this the 5th or 6th edition? The syllabus specifically asks for the 6th."
• "I'm nervous about transferring money to someone I've never met before seeing the book."

5. What does she DO?

• Asks senior students in student associations for advice on which materials are strictly necessary.
• Cross-checks course reading lists with listings on informal social groups.
• Requests extra photos of book pages to verify how much highlighting or wear exists before buying.

6. What does she HEAR?

• Professors insisting that having the exact textbook edition is mandatory for homework.
• Parents advising her to be cautious with online transactions and meet in safe campus places.
• Senior students telling her that buying brand-new books is a waste of money.

7. What does she THINK and FEEL?

PAINS	GAINS
Anxiety over making financial mistakes or buying the wrong book edition.	Transparent edition details linked directly to specific university courses.
Fear of losing money in scams when paying upfront to unknown sellers.	Confidence when purchasing from verified peers within the university campus.
Overwhelmed by the transition to university expenses and material requirements.	Empowered and smart when saving money on essential academic supplies.

Additional thoughts and feelings: Stressed about starting university costs; cautious about peer-to-peer transactions; relieved when she finds structured, clear course-specific listings.

Empathy Map 4 — Mateo, Student Seller

Made by: Carla González

1. Who are we empathizing with?

Mateo, 20, Industrial Engineering student at Universidad de los Andes. He is a frequent seller and opportunistic buyer who wants to monetise his past course materials and buy specialized engineering tools (e.g., drawing sets, scientific calculators) without overcomplicating transactions.

2. What does he need to DO?

• Post items for sale in under 2 minutes without filling out lengthy, non-relevant forms.
• Coordinate safe physical handoffs on campus between classes without sharing his personal phone number with strangers.
• Sell off last semester's specialized materials to fund current course requirements.
• Success looks like: clearing out unused course items efficiently and closing sales with minimal back-and-forth messaging.

3. What does he SEE?

• Messy, unorganized WhatsApp group chats flooded with irrelevant chatter and buried listings.
• Fellow engineering students asking to buy specific tools in last-minute study sessions.
• External platforms demanding personal phone numbers or off-campus logistics for simple, low-value items.

4. What does he SAY?

• "I don't have time to answer twenty questions from someone who isn't actually going to buy."
• "I just want to hand this over near the Mario Laserna building between my 10 AM and 11 AM classes."
• "Why do I have to post this three times on different chats just to get one reply?"

5. What does he DO?

• Drops items in large university WhatsApp groups and hopes someone sees them before the chat moves on.
• Prefers cash or instant bank transfers on the spot during campus meetups.
• Abandons listings if potential buyers ask for time-consuming shipping or off-campus meetings.

6. What does he HEAR?

• Friends complaining about buyer ghosting after agreeing on a price.
• Classmates saying they can't find specific engineering gear on general marketplace apps.
• Warnings from peers about sharing personal contact information on open social media groups.

7. What does he THINK and FEEL?

PAINS	GAINS
Waste of time negotiating with non-serious buyers or dealing with ghosting.	Having a centralized, campus-only space where buyers are verified students.
Privacy concerns when giving out personal contact info in public chats.	Frictionless listing and quick in-person campus exchanges.
Inability to reach students outside his immediate social circle who actually need his specific items.	Feels relieved when he converts unused gear into instant pocket money.

Additional thoughts and feelings: Slightly annoyed by the inefficiency of current channels; skeptical about complex platforms; motivated by quick cash and hassle-free campus logistics.

Empathy Map 5 — Camilo, Graduating Seller

Made by: Carla González

1. Who are we empathizing with?

Camilo, 22, graduating Architecture student at Universidad de los Andes who is moving out of his student apartment near campus. He is a bulk seller under time pressure who needs to clear out furniture, drawing boards, and design supplies within two weeks.

2. What does he need to DO?

• Sell multiple items quickly before his apartment lease ends.
• Coordinate pickup for larger items directly at his apartment or nearby campus spots.
• Bundle related items (e.g., cutting mats + drafting tools + scale rulers) to sell them together efficiently.
• Success looks like: emptying his apartment, recovering capital, and handing over items to younger students in his major before his move-out deadline.

3. What does he SEE?

• A room crammed with architecture models, drafting boards, and mini-appliances he can't take home.
• Incoming freshmen looking for cheap apartment setups and specialized design tools.
• Unresponsive buyers on generic secondhand apps who live too far from the university area.

4. What does he SAY?

• "I'm moving out next week and I can't take any of this furniture with me."
• "If you take the drafting table, I'll throw in all these cutting mats for free."
• "I need buyers who can pick this up nearby; I don't have a car to move things."

5. What does he DO?

• Creates multi-item bundle posts on social media with discounted prices.
• Prioritizes buyers who live near the campus area and can pick up items immediately.
• Lowers prices progressively as his moving deadline gets closer.

6. What does he HEAR?

• Landlord reminding him that the apartment must be completely empty by the end of the month.
• Junior architecture students complaining about how expensive design tools are to buy new.
• Friends telling him to just donate or throw away items if he can't sell them in time.

7. What does he THINK and FEEL?

PAINS	GAINS
High stress due to strict move-out deadlines and logistical constraints.	Quick bundle sales that clear space fast.
Dealing with unreliable buyers who reschedule pickup times at the last minute.	Connecting directly with incoming students from his same major who need his exact setup.
Financial loss if forced to give away or discard valuable supplies.	Satisfaction in passing down tools to younger students while recouping money.

Additional thoughts and feelings: Anxious about timing; overwhelmed by moving logistics; practical and willing to discount prices for speed and convenience.

4. Personas

Following the guidelines from workshop, 4 different personas were defined and presented below:

Persona 1: The Cost-Conscious Academic

Persona 2: The Academic Recycler

Persona 3: The Conscious Declutterer

Persona 4: The Cautious Newcomer

5. Solution Description

University students frequently accumulate academic materials like textbooks, calculators, lab equipment, and other course-specific items, that become unnecessary once a course ends. At the same time, other students within the same institution often need those exact items for the courses they are currently taking. Today, this exchange happens through disorganized, informal channels such as WhatsApp groups, where listings are quickly buried under unrelated messages, there is no way to filter by faculty or course, and buyers and sellers have no reliable way to verify who they are dealing with. This creates friction on both sides of the transaction: sellers give up trying to find a buyer and let items pile up or get thrown away, while buyers waste time scrolling through irrelevant posts and hesitate to commit to purchases they cannot fully trust.

We present to you:

CampusSwap: Buy. Sell. Swap. All on campus

This app addresses this problem as a peer-to-peer marketplace built exclusively for university students, enabling them to buy, sell, and exchange academic materials within their own university community. Rather than relying on informal social channels, CampusSwap centralizes listings in a single, organized space designed specifically around academic life.

The solution addresses the problem along three general fronts:

• Organization and discovery: Items are categorized by faculty, degree, and course, allowing students to search and filter for exactly what they need instead of manually scanning through unrelated posts. This directly responds to the friction identified in interviews, where students like Isabella and Valentina struggled to find relevant items among general or disorganized listings.

• Trust and safety: Access is restricted to verified members of the university community, and listings include seller ratings and clear item-condition information. This replaces the guesswork buyers like Maria currently rely on — manually cross-referencing seller history across multiple tabs — with structured trust signals built into the platform itself.

• Transaction coordination: In-app messaging and suggested on-campus meeting points simplify how buyers and sellers agree on logistics, reducing the back-and-forth and privacy concerns raised by sellers like Mateo, who currently have to share personal contact information in open group chats to close a sale.

Together, these three fronts form the core experience of the app, corresponding to the "Rational Choice" features identified during the convergence phase: publishing items with clear pricing and condition, filtering by academic relevance, and enabling trustworthy, verified communication between students. This core is intentionally scoped to solve the most critical pain points trust and organization, with high feasibility, before layering in engagement-driven features such as wishlists, notifications, and price negotiation, and eventually more advanced differentiators such as photo-based price estimation or live-location meeting recommendations as the product matures.

Key Features of the App

To achieve this, the application blends core marketplace functionalities with smart features that reduce friction and respond dynamically to user behavior:

• University Verification: Restricts platform access exclusively to verified institutional emails, establishing immediate baseline trust.
• Smart Matching (Smart Feature): Automatically notifies buyers the moment a new listing matches their predefined wishlist, specific degree, or current semester courses.
• AI Price Estimation (Smart Feature): Allows sellers to upload a photo of their item (e.g., a calculator or textbook), using image recognition to suggest a fair, competitive selling price based on its visible condition.
• Dynamic Meeting Points (Smart Feature): Recommends secure, convenient on-campus exchange locations based on the real-time location or class schedules of both the buyer and seller.
• Categorized Academic Discovery: Organizes all listings by faculty, degree, and course, eliminating irrelevant noise from the feed.

Use of Generative AI

In accordance with the course guidelines on the use of AI, this team used AI tools only for brainstorming, outlining, and idea generation. We dont use AI for content generation; the text was written, verified, and edited by the team.

Tools used [Claude and ChatGPT]

How we use:

• Language and clarity. We write our own descriptions and then asked the AI for feedback on grammar, wording, and clarity, since English is not our first language.
• Brainstorming synthesis. We use AI to organize and summarize the raw output of our brainstorm sessions into clearer groups, so we could identify themes most easy.
• Personas. We reviewed AI suggested reference examples for the personas and reference cases, which we used for improving the personas we had written.
• Idea refinement. We presented the ideas we generate ourselves and asked the AI to challenge them and suggest alternative directions, which helped us to compare options before deciding as a team.