 So, you know, this is not for you, it's for the film, so you don't expect anything from this mic, but good morning, my name is Daniel Uemann, and I'm the CEO and founder of Transformato Design. I'm happy to see that many people here today. They're really nice. We are a strategic service design agency, and we help organizations to put their customer in the center of their business and the center of their development and organizations. We do three things, all based on customer centricity. We are consultants doing consultancy projects with the service design methods. We educate. We do a lot of training and education in this approach, in this outside-in approach, and we offer an online-based system called Castelence for mapping and driving change based on customer journey mappings. Soon, I will give the word to Marie Jiriso from SEI and then my colleagues, Pabrolund and Sophie Andersson, that will talk about this fantastic project. I think it would be very exciting to hear this journey that you will talk about. And please, I would like to ask you not to ask any questions during their talk. It's better to save them and then take them afterwards. I think that's better. So please give Marie a warm applaud. Hi, everyone. Thank you very much for coming. So today, Pabrolund and Sophie and I will present a project that SEI, the Stockholm Environment Institute, has done in collaboration with Transformato. We work together in Kenya and in Zambia in trying to understand what motivates people to buy a new cook stove and to continue to use this stove. Very brief background on SEI. SEI is an International Research Institute. We have around 200 employees in six different countries. We have our headquarters in Stockholm. We work in the field of environment and development. And our mandate from the Swedish government is to bridge science and policy, which means that we basically work a lot on projects where we try to see how a policy goal can be implemented or how it can be achieved in practice. SEI has a couple of research initiatives which are basically hubs for research in areas that were particularly suited to do work on. This workforce under the SEI initiative on behavior and choice. And in this research initiative, we're very curious about people. We basically want to understand people's behavior and how changes in behavior can lead, for instance, to the adoption of a new technology or the formation of a new habit, a change of practice or the use of a service that is offered to you. But why are we interested in this then? One of the main reasons is that many technological interventions that are put in place to improve people's lives fail. I think cook stoves, so introducing a modern technology for people to cook food in a slightly different way or in a slightly new stove to what they're used to. They've been around for many, many years, several decades, but we're yet to see a large uptake or adoption of these new stoves. Roughly 3 billion people around the world cook on traditional biomass, so firewood, charcoal, or cow dung. And this leads to indoor air pollution, premature deaths. It's estimated that you have roughly 4 million premature deaths annually because of indoor air pollution. You see a similar situation in sanitation. So these are pictures from Jakarta and from Delhi. These are toilets. And this is an initiative to introduce hand washing, which basically means encouraging people to stop practicing open defecation and using a technology or function that's put in place for needs. But it's very, very difficult to introduce new habits. Why is it then? Why is it that it's so difficult? To motivate people or to start to support the formation of a new habit? I think one of the problems that we've often assumed that is one of the starting points is price. So in cook stoves or household energy where I have some experience, this is a picture from a refugee camp in Somalia. We see that even in cases where stoves are given out for free, so they're given to people at no startup cost, they're often still not adopted. So you'll have a situation like this, the many stoves available, they're given to people for free, but when you return six months after, you see the stove sitting on a shelf and it's not being used. And I mean, this of course tells us that the factors that motivate people to use new technology they go well beyond easily sort of measurable factors like price or the efficiency of a technology, which then does suggest that if we want to sort of crack this code of what really motivates people to develop in your habit or change their behavior, then we need to go beyond these easily measurable factors. And from SDI's perspective, this also came with the realization then that many of the standard methods that we were using for trying to understand what motivates people to develop in your habits, they weren't really adequate. So I have a lot of experience doing open semi-structured interviews with people in mostly East Africa and South Asia. So this is a picture from Northern India, from Amnabad. And my colleague Fiona and I, who unfortunately couldn't be here today, were interviewing these two women. They'd purchased this stove that would burn firewood much more efficiently than their previous version or their traditional version. So we came to their house, they showed us their stove, they lit it for us, they started cooking on it, and we talked about it and they're like, yeah, this stove is great, we like it, we save a lot of time because we don't have to spend so much time gathering fuel, it cooks very fast, we don't have to spend as much time cooking, we can put it indoors when it rains, it's great. So we're like, oh, great, nice story. But at the same time, we observed quite awkward behavior. It was clear that they weren't really comfortable using this stove. They struggled to light it, at first they didn't have these small twigs that you needed to fit this limited chamber. So we tried to ask around this, but we just didn't get anywhere. So after an hour or so, we said, thank you very much for your time, and we started to leave. And as we were leaving, we peeked into another room, this is the kitchen. So as we were having an interview here, talking about how they always cooked on this stove, the real cooking was happening in this room. This is the traditional stove, what they're used to cooking on. And if you compare this version, you see very long sticks, very long logs that are used, compared to very small twigs here, for instance. You also see a very large pot. This pot doesn't fit on this stove. So again, it was just, where it became very clear to us that the methods that we're using didn't really get us the answers we're looking for. These questions didn't, basically didn't help us get the right information, or the information we're looking for. So we started, many colleagues of mine started sort of dabbling around with generative research methods. So this is from a project in India, where we used pens and paper and cardboard and got people to design their ideal stove. We've also experimented a lot with the use of cameras and photo diaries. And we realized that we wanted, that this was helpful, this was getting us the sort of answers we needed. At the same time, we weren't experts in these interviews. So we wanted to find a partner to work with that was really skilled at sort of getting people to talk about solutions rather than problems. So then we decided to team up with transfer motor. This is us working, this is my colleague Fiona and Sophie, working together in Kenya. And this is Par that you will meet later and think that's me, sitting in Zambia. So we worked over the course of the year, we've done two case studies or loops together. We decided to work in Kenya and Zambia respectively, partly because SEI is very good partners there from previously. We also looked at two very different settings. So in Kenya, we went to a rural village with a relatively high purchasing power. So people are relatively wealthy, which means that they have the ability to actually purchase those. In Zambia, we went to Lusakis, we looked at cooking in an urban environment, which can be quite different to a rural setting. So Par and Sophie will now tell you more about how this went. And then I will come back and sort of reflect a bit about our ways of working together. So as Marie mentioned, these iterations of loops is something we use a lot in service design mythology. And usually these iterations takes place in the same place. We'll always make sure to do these iterations with new people, customers or users every time to gain deeper insights. But in this case, we actually went to two places. So it will be the first iteration or loop will take place in Kiambo County in Kenya. And the second one, Sophie will talk a little about later, is in Lusakis and the vicinity of Lusakis Zambia. So in Kenya, we started out in Kiambo County in Kenya. And two main stakeholders was, of course, Philips, who produced this improved cook stove. And also a local partner, Vep, which I think stands for... The visionary impounders. Voila. So, and the Vep was also the distributor of this advanced stove. They also set up women groups and provided saving plans and microfinance solutions. The interactions. During a five day period, we did 19 household interactions and a few local stakeholder interviews. And an interview could be between one or up to three hours, depending on the situation of the people. And a lot of times we try to make these interactions in the kitchen where it actually happened or sometimes even while they were cooking. So the research question in this case was, of course, to understand the continuous usage of the stove technology, instead of going back to prior cooking solutions, which in the case of Kenya, would be a three stone stove, like here in the picture. As it's also became very clear that you cannot detach one face of the customer journey and by isolating it, it's really hard to make sense of it. So we really need to understand the entire customer journey. An important tool in these interactions was to get the response to open up because it was a new country, a new culture, a new setting, was a lot of new things. We're trying to do some kind of research. Yeah. So we use a lot with what we call trigger material, which is visual material, sketches, containing objects or situations related to cooking. And these sketches was produced before the interview or actually during the interview and sometimes even together with the respondent. So by presenting ideas from one respondent to the next and make them reflect and react upon this trigger material, we automatically refined the ideas and actually sorted out the irrelevant ones. So when we started to interact with these stove users, a lot of them claimed they were really happy. There was no problem, there was no suggestions for improvement. So what we did was we did really simple sketches. It's like simple variations of width, height, different materials, small, like technical solutions or just ornamentation. And suddenly something happened, people started to open up and they started talking about pros and cons with different designs and starting to telling about their own cooking behaviors, like giving hints on how their current cooking solution worked. So people were like, yeah, if it was a little bit higher, then it wouldn't actually burn the food or yeah, if it was a little bit wider, it's like it wouldn't waste so much pellets in the bottom, it will combust, it's like more easily. So in the end, they actually started to come up with their own solutions of designs or services or actual solutions to the situation or problem. So to structure all this qualitative data, we use something we call a customer journey map. You heard Daniel mention it and we mentioned this as well. It's kind of a tool for sorting aggregated insights into phases and the easiest way of doing this is just like before, during and after. But it's also a way to map out like the pain and gain points in the customer journey. And it's a really useful tool to understand the entire process and actually breaking it up into manageable pieces. So here you can see a typical Kenyan stove user customer journey. And I'm gonna mention a few of the insights that we, a lot of the conclusions we came to in the first loop. And here in the beginning, you can see it's like a group of people talking to someone. And this was something that we kind of felt in the beginning of the project, but it became very clear that it was kind of a special context in Zambia. Cause the stove reseller VEP also organized these women groups. And these women groups, a lot of times were actually the church groups. So there was established trust, there was established the group of people that kind of were dependent on each other and knew each other since way before. But they also provided saving plans and microfinance solutions to these groups. And this in turn created a very important trust between the stove reseller and these women groups. But it also created a very natural distribution channel of the product. So this was one thing that will affect the insights. And so if you will talk a little bit more about this when we come to Zambia. Another thing was the five main phases. We divided them into before, the awareness and acquiring phase, the startup phase, the new habit established phase and the after phase. And as I mentioned before, it's a very good tool to structures like your insights and your conclusions. And in this case, it was very clear for example that the evaluation you do in the startup phase in the startup phase is actually dependent on the expectation you have in the awareness phase. So it's kind of interlinked and it affected each other in different ways. There's also a few main pain points. You can see the hearts in the thunder clouds here. The one insight was that there was a strong salesman culture within this organization. And in their opinion, it was kind of mission accomplished when they have sold the stove. But this was actually when kind of the journey began for the customers, like to establish a new routine or a new behavior. And then this organization was not there for the last three phases where it really mattered. And of course, waiting, you sell products and people make, these people were living on a day-to-day economy or a weekly economy and they invest a lot of savings into getting this product. And then it can take months, I mean several months to actually get the product. And this of course affected the customer experience a lot. And in addition to this customer journey map, we also did what we call an ecosystem workshop. This was together with the key stakeholders in Kjembeau County to map out the ecosystem around this customer journey where these stakeholders, what roles they had, how they affected each other and the customer and what impact they had on this system. So this was Kjembeau County, Kenya. So now Safi is gonna talk a little bit about what we did in Sambia. And in Sambia, in Lusaka, we worked with two different stove entrepreneurs or distributors, resellers. One of them had the same stove actually, the Phillips stove that had a fan. It needed to be charged and it had buttons and so on. The other one was a little bit more simple. It was designed and produced locally. And I mean, as always in our process or in our methodology, we use every loop to build on the prior knowledge. We refine, we revise, we discard some pieces. Some pieces of the knowledge, they shine even more brightly. So the overall research question remains here. That is what actually builds the continuous usage of a new stove or a new technology and keeps the user from going back to the earlier cooking solution, which in Sambia was the Mbaola as you see here, quite a simple charcoal stove as well. So in the user interactions in Sambia, we visited 17 households over the course of five days as well. But here we didn't start from scratch as we did in a way in Kenya, but we already had the customer journey. We didn't want to go in and just verify it. Yes or no, is it like this or not? But we still had the knowledge that we wanted to build on and see, okay, what is relevant here, what seemed to be just local aspects that was relevant in Kenya and so on. So we had sheets of paper as you see here. We had prepared already the faces of the customer journey, nothing else. Aside from that, the canvas was blank, but we had the names of the faces. And that became kind of like a visual agenda for the discussion or like the backbone of the storytelling of the respondent. So as we've heard before, an interview would often start off like, oh, you're here to talk about my stove. Yeah, I really love it. It's so good. And then we could go, oh, okay, but now you're talking already here in the usage. What about if we start from the beginning, the before phase? What did your earlier cooking solution look like? Were you happy with that? Were you actively looking for alternatives? So on and so on. And then come the awareness phase. How did you hear of it? From whom? Where do you usually hear of new solutions or new technology and so on? Then the decision phase, what did that look like? What parameters did you evaluate upon? Was it even a phase for you? Or was that a no-brainer? The second you heard of it, you decided without even reflecting? So in this way, we could, in a structured way, really go through the same kind of areas without steering too much in the interviews and let the respondents tell their story about the customer journey. And for each phase, we also had a prepared set of cards, cards with illustration that related to the different phases. The motives were based on the loop we had done in Kenya. It was based on knowledge that SEI had improved CookStuff since before. And we also verified them with our local partners beforehand to make sure that they were locally relative and culturally okay for Sambia. So for each phase, the customer or the respondent then would see all these cards. They would be triggered by them. They could dismiss them. No, none of this is relevant for me. I experienced this and this and that. Or they could go, oh yeah, transportation. Actually that one was relevant for me. And they could take that card and put that on the face of their customer journey. So they would actually build visually their own customer journey as we walked through it and talked about it, the whole experience. There were also blank cards. If they discarded all of them, we would draw together or write together during the interview. And this also helped us to do the analysis in seeing, okay, what did a lot of people talk about? What are the patterns here? What are the reoccurring aspects that a lot of respondents are talking about? And at the end, we also asked them to draw up their emotional journey throughout the events that they had walked us through. And this really triggered them as well. Cause suddenly they started talking about new things, more in depth and more nuanced than they had done before when they only had talked about what they had experienced one by one. But then kind of like summarizing it and telling how they felt throughout the journey that really gave us much more knowledge. Reflection was though that some of the respondents were so like intimidated with even holding or touching the pen. So that didn't work for them. Instead, we had to then go to a deck of cards with just smiley faces that express different emotions and they could display them throughout the customer journey to tell us how they felt and why. So what did we get out of this then? Well, I'm gonna share some examples that relates back to what Par talked about in Kenya. To start with the two companies, or the three companies then, one in Kenya and two in Sambia, they had different business model, different distribution models. So in Kenya, there was this women groups. You met them regularly, you had tight coherence, you really trusted them, it was well established. Well, in Sambia, one of the companies, they showed up at workplaces. They held demonstrations and then they offered installment plans to pay off. So they targeted people on a payroll. They would go to schools and target teachers or they would go to mines and distribute it for mine workers and so on. This company, as you see in the picture, they tried to build trust in a different way. Showing up at the employer, that was kind of like a trusted area. So that would make you kind of trust this company. Okay, my employer lets this company in and I see my colleagues buying it. Okay, I trust it, maybe I'll buy it as well. Well, these tried to build trust by local presence. So they would actually set up hubs, as they call them, kind of a showroom slash shop. And they would be out in the compounds where people with lower margins or like a lower cash flow lived. And they would also have a more subsidized stove. So it was actually possible to buy just straight off the shelf for many more people even if they didn't have so much money. But the different business models or the different distribution models, of course they affected the customer experience. So in detail, all the customer journeys actually looked different, but that just gave us a better sample to look upon and see what are the cross-coherent needs here, what are the cross-coherent insights and what faces actually apply to all of these customer journeys, even though they look a bit different. So that was really helpful for us in coming further into those insights. And also talking about the faces, as Par mentioned, if you're gonna go into continuous usage of this, you have to really like it. And if you like it or not, depends a lot upon what were your expectations before you bought it. What was the reasons for you to buy it to start with? And since this was not just built upon this really trusty church group where, well, maybe not, but it was a little bit like whatever you present to me, I'll buy it because I trust you so much. I almost trusted you know what's best for me more than myself. That was a little bit of the case in Kenya. Whilst here you actually had more of a sales pitch going on. You have to present the USPs, you have to really convince the customer to buy it. So this helped us get a lot of much more deep understanding of these expectations before. And we found three main behavioral groups that we could also then track back to Kenya and so yeah, they were actually there as well. So the different behavioral groups, they had different main drivers for buying and adopting the stove. There were even more drivers but they were like more sticking out but these ones were really reoccurring. So they were occurring amongst almost every single one of the respondents but with a little bit different emphasis. So they had different focus on different ones of them. The first one would be saving, saving money. Okay, if this stove can make my fuel last longer or it even comes with a new fuel that will last really much longer then it will help me save money and that's crucial. Because there's a lot of people with not so much money. So if I could actually just hire the margins for my household just a little bit that would really mean improved quality of life for us. This makes this behavioral group quite rough and tough. They really have a strong incentive. They can endure a hassle startup phase. They can endure burning the food lots of times in the beginning. They can endure traveling across the city to find the fuel. They can endure spending loads and loads of time chopping off wood so that it will fit into that little hole because they have such a concrete driver or incentive to really adopt the stove. But if this group doesn't experience or see that savings then they lose the incentives. And experiencing the saving money, it was quite difficult because there are a lot of like abstract entities going on. It's difficult to compare charcoal to pellets or use of fuel in the new stove because they come in different sizes. They have different pricing models. They last different period of time. One will allow you to cook for a long time, but low heat. The other one high heat, but for quite short time. So it was really difficult to compare and see concrete evidence, am I saving money or not? I can't really evaluate. And that might lead to this group opting out of using the stove actually. The second one, they were triggered about what the experience was convenience about this new stove. Here we would meet women saying, I hate cooking. It's the worst thing. It's the worst part of my tasks. Whatever can help me spend less time per day on cooking is brilliant. I'll take it. Or, oh, so this would actually make me be able to sleep half an hour longer in the morning without I have, before I have to go up and cook tea for the family and so on. Or, oh, it's easier to clean or, oh, I can keep this fuel indoors because it's so compact and clean. I don't have to go out and look for a charcoal vendor. The first thing I do every time I'm gonna cook. So they were really, yeah, they said triggered by the convenience factor or imagining that my life will be much more comfortable once I get this. So you can imagine that they were not so tolerant towards a lot of hassle in learning in the beginning and burning the food and understanding how to clean it and so on. They really expected the value to be realized quite quickly after purchase. Like, I bought it to be, my life should be more comfortable. What is this? Come on, no, I can't be bothered. I'd put it to the side and then go back to their old stove solution, cooking solution. Still appreciating saving money and so on, but the comfortability has to be there. Otherwise, I won't keep using it. The third group, they were really intrigued by the fact that either them themselves had not experienced this before or people in their close surrounding had not experienced it before. So one of the aspects would be it looks so shiny. No one has ever seen a stove like this. My neighbors will be so jealous. I will be so cool. I will be seen as the tech master because it has buttons and fan and it's technical and so on. They would just like go straight home, throw away the instructions and put it on straight and trying to put it on fire so that everyone should see and come and come and look and be impressed. That's one side of it. The other side is the pure amusement of trying something new. Like, oh, what is this? I have never seen something like this. I really look forward to go home and just trial and error and see what the food will taste like and what I can cook and how it works and appreciating the newness factor of it. You can see that this group has quite a short usage span. I mean, the novelty decreases quite quickly. So if you don't during this short window of usage can allow for the user to discover some of the other drivers or usps that can be fulfilled like, oh yeah, I bought it because it was new and cool but then I discovered it's actually quite comfortable or I save money. If you can't do that transfer of driver then this user will quite quickly put it on the shelf and start looking for something else that is new and exciting. So this was a way, I'm trying to link the drivers of the different behavioral groups to the customer journey. So the different drivers, they have to be reinforced in all phases of the customer journey. Otherwise you're not getting what you thought you bought. Making clear a little bit, yeah? So in this also as Par mentioned, the start of phase is really crucial. If you're not there, if you're not helping this person to see how they're saving money, if you're not helping this person that wants everything to be comfortable to really get a start-up phase really smooth and easy, you will stop using it. And if you can't, I don't know, get this one to see the other usps, usps of the stove, then that one will stop using it as well. So the information of the start-up phase really got reinforced in Zambia. And another thing that we saw was in Kenya, the buyer was the user. Whilst in Zambia, the buyer was not automatically the user. The buyer would go to a demonstration, they would trigger one of their drivers for change, would trigger, for instance, oh, this would save money for our household. Great, I'll buy it, and then I'll go home and then I'll give it to the user. The user sits there, like, what's this? This doesn't trigger any of my drivers, I'm not gonna use it, I'm gonna keep using the imbala or the three stone fire. So we saw really clearly, like for instance, I just started trying and then we had to learn from each other how to mix the fuel. This was in a household where they took turns on cooking. So everyone had to learn how to use this new one. And it was really a struggle and everyone made mistakes, but they had a system of really learning tips and tricks within the household. Or this one, I was so angry when my husband came home with it, I thought he had wasted money. So she, in a protest, just wouldn't use it at all. And she just, and her husband said, you're not allowed to buy charcoal. And she just went and bought charcoal straight away. And then he forced her to like, go sell it again. But in the end, she was really happy as her main trigger was saving money. After a while, she realized, okay, this actually does what I want to do with my household. And also in Zambia, we saw some companies that actually had some after sales support that was used and really appreciated. Like this quote, he had to come here and show us how to light it like five times. This was the hubs. The hubs targeted households that were within a 500 meters range of the hub actually. So they could show up really quickly. You just texted them when you were about to cook and they could be there and help you and give instructions and so on. So this is just like some examples of the findings we've done. And I hope you got a kind of idea of how we use the loops to really refine and revise the knowledge that we have. And then it evolves all the time. So these are the first two loops, but it's just the start of the work here. And another part of the work is the service ecosystem. And we did this kind of workshop as well in Sambia. Where local stakeholders helped us map out. Here's the customer journey. Here are the different drivers. And where within this customer journey can we meet the drivers and where do we have difficult meeting them? Because of us or because other stakeholders within the system or even because of policies. So that is kind of zooming out, scaling up and seeing how it all sticks together. Yeah, Marie are now gonna share some positive things about working this way. Just to share an immediate reflection. For me, this is quite scary. I'm not used to other people presenting my work. So it's fantastic to be able to listen to parents of Sophie talk about what was actually our work, so not my work. And do it in a setting that is also quite new to me. But very comfortable to them. Anyways, four fantastic things that I've really enjoyed in working with a transformator. This concept of a customer journey and taking this idea of what we've called behavioral groups here and laying them on top of each other and understanding how different people have different needs at different points in this customer journey has really changed the way I think about this adoption process. I have worked on this topic for quite a few years. Had you asked me a few just a year ago, I never would have realized that this before phase is just as important as this one. So just getting the experience and the insights from working with people that I think are perhaps more used to using this right or less analytical part of their brain that can illustrate a long process that's quite complicated and turn it into something like this that's very simple or looks very simple and that makes a quite a useful conversation starter has been absolutely critical. It's such a useful tool for sort of untangling different things that can go wrong here. And for understanding that what happens here, for instance, so there's this process that starts around the concept of another fuel, you may like it, but it will actually lead to another activity that you didn't foresee from the beginning. So when someone tells you here, yes, I'm gonna save money, love that. What that means here is actually adopting a new habit. It's going out to buy fuel. It's adding a new element to this perceived line that perhaps as a user, you didn't consider when you bought yourself. And I think this also in terms of understanding what type of support people might need to adopt a new habit, this makes it much easier to see that, okay, we might need, there's a lot of information given here at the point of purchase, but that information also has to be transferred to the startup phase. What does that mean in practical terms? But maybe it's just a simple thing as making pens and paper available at the point of demonstration so that people that attended can take notes and take these notes home. And when they start learning to use this though, they can go back to these notes and say, ah, okay, this was important. I have to get the dosage of the pellets right. Because at this point, if you're very susceptible to new information, you may not remember everything. And you might not remember it one week later. Also, if the person that attends the demonstration is not the same person as the one that starts cooking, the information given here has to be transferred to this point somehow. In, when I buy products, I often take a user manual for given that there will be some sort of manual that will tell me what to do. That's not always the case here. So user manuals that were written in a font size of maybe seven or eight points, which can be very difficult to read, especially if you have poor eyesight. It was not always in a language that the cook would understand. So just sort of untaggling this concept of adoption. The customer journey has been absolutely great. Another tool that we've used is this concept of this ecosystem service map. And this is basically a way, again, of, I think, very neatly illustrating how different actors contribute and play in to this user journey. So the user's experience with the technology is not just limited to influences that happen in the household, but it may be that developments, for instance, at the national level or at the local level also play in. So it could be that the reason that you're biased over is because of this women's group setting that you had in Kenya, for instance, or because your local village leader bought it. And because your local village leader is a very influential person, people tend to replicate that behavior. So then you can trace a little line from the village leader here, for instance, to say that this place in here, this place in to the before phase. Something that we saw in Zambia was that one of the reasons that people started opening up and looking for alternative cooking solutions was because of planned power outages. So electricity was very, was unavailable or unreliably available. So again, something in the before phase was sparked not just by an individual motivation but also by external events. So this gives a very sort of neat overview when you're trying to explain a complex system. My way of doing this would be to write a 10 page short report. I think this again is, it's handier. It gives a more digestible overview. Another thing that has been wonderful has been working together, both as a team of researchers, but also as a team of stakeholders and as a team during the interview setting. I think this use of trigger material and pictures in the interview setting, it really eliminated this barrier between the interviewer and the interviewee. I think it's extremely useful in highlighting the fact that it's the cook that is the expert. It's definitely not the researcher. We're there to listen, we're there to learn. So it really changes who has agency in the interview situation. It makes it much more easier to engage in a sort of trustful conversation. I think it also helps a lot to talk about things that you can't easily verbalize. It can be very difficult to answer a question that you've never been asked before or to answer a question where the answer has been someone else has told you what to say. But again, throwing pictures and pens and papers into the situation makes it easier. This use of smiley faces that we showed earlier was great. In the workshops, we also, we worked together with our stakeholders. It was not us presenting results and our stakeholders listening quite the opposite. It was a very sort of a co-creative process. And this is a picture from a late evening in Zambia when we're sitting by the pool analyzing today's insights. We did it on post-its. Again, very different for me. I'm used to writing up interview notes. I'm used to putting them into coding software, coding and looking for patterns that way. Here it's done in a much more sort of top of mind way where you use whatever's in your head as some sort of filter. Pros and cons, but it's been a great experience to try it. And then of course, just again to really stress how important this trigger material has been. And I think primarily the best thing has really been that this changed interview dynamic that both parties have sort of equal agency if not the interviewee having more. And I think that's extremely important. In terms of moving forward, I think from SCI's perspective, where from my perspective, I should say, we're very fascinated by and happy that we've gotten a chance to learn these methods. Our challenge moving forward is of course that we want to make them more research-like. For instance, the process of documentation is done very differently. So you've seen these service design maps with cards and sort of random notes. And as I mentioned earlier, that's very different to how I'm used to working. And this process of group analysis and again using what you have in your head as some sort of filter. Of course, it's a very different way of looking for patterns. Again, as opposed to coding manuscripts and counting how many times a certain word will appear, for instance. And this of course again also has consequences for the reliability of the results and also the validity. So how do you make sure that someone else gets the same findings if they were to do it again? How do we know that what we've tested is actually correct? So this is something that we're thinking about and we'll keep working on. One of the things that we're doing now is that we're writing up our results, we're publishing them. We've had them peer reviewed by external scholars which has been, or is, and it's an ongoing process. Again, quite a scary process, but I think it's important to push your boundaries sometimes. We're also doing seminars like this, presenting the whole sort of service design process and inviting questions and critique. And of course, we hope to continue working together so that we can see how perhaps transformators more sort of consultative way of working with these methods can be bridged to our research setting, which is of course done under very different boundary conditions. Our projects are often very long. We've gone to several years. So thank you very much for listening. Thank you, Marie, Sophie and Per. Please come up and the questions. And if you want to ask questions, you raise your hand and then you will get a mic. And when you have the mic, you tell the question. Yeah, please. I have a question. Is it on? Yeah. Is it on? Yeah, maybe it is. My name is Ray, I'm an architect. I was wondering the customer behavior is different from ours. Like if you are trying to find a new mobile phone, you maybe belong to these three groups. And do you look the research here and compare or does it have a connection in your work? I think in the use of social marketing methods, for instance, has become increasingly popular in the field of household energy, which is the one I know the best. It's not something that we've tried ourselves, but we're increasingly beginning to look that way. And I think that speaks, of course, to one of the sort of ironic things almost about these results is that when you present these findings here in a Western context, it seems so obvious that of course consumers have different preferences. How can that be a research finding? But normally working in a more sort of development corporation environment or setting, the way we tend to look or understand people's motivations that live in an environment with less resources, for instance, is very different. So many development organizations, for instance, haven't spent so much time understanding, again, the motivations of people when it comes to using these interventions. But we sort of automatically assume that here's the technology that's gonna solve a problem for you, use it. Without, and we've spent so much time optimizing this stuff, it's great. And we've made it really cheap. And it will help you. But it's again, it's sort of remembering that also in other, outside our own countries, we have to see the person. More questions? Please. Hi, my name is Cecilia. Just a bit curious about the last thing you said about doing this research, repeatable and to be possible to publish in a more academic way. Was that actually, I got a bit disappointed because I thought that you were looking for good, good practical means, how to improve the situation. Can you just develop that a little bit more? SCI, we are a research institute. So that means that we try to do through both. So on the one hand to come up with concrete recommendations that can help improve an intervention. But I think one of the things that's most important to us is to really publish our work and to make it available to others. But our audience is not limited to other researchers, but it's definitely also practitioners working both in Kenya and Zambia and elsewhere and NGOs and Development Corporations and things like that. So that means that we present our work in many different formats. So this will be one and an academic paper will be another one. Has there been any improvements or any changes? In Zambia, we had, I think we had quite a nice example where both these stove companies that we worked with they came to our workshop and participated very actively in that. And both of them left the workshop saying that now we're going to, there are a number of things that I've learned here now that I'm going to take home to my business and I'm going to change my business model. So they, for instance, they changed their user manual. They talked about different ways that they could provide support to their customers in this critical startup phase. So making sure, for instance, that the salesperson was actually available to answer questions by phone. So I think that's where it's extremely important that we constantly think about how we can be relevant not just to the academic community, but also to the practical community. Next question. Yeah. Hi. My name is Gustav Edsturm and I'm working with the Stove project. So I just wondered the results that you have, how will it be used in like developing new stoves? Will it be used in somehow there? You mean technically? Technically, yes. Well, we don't develop stoves. No. We've had earlier projects where we have worked with companies that design stoves where the insights have been sort of taken up and incorporated into the design. But of course, we hope that our insights can be made available to the likes of yourselves. And if you're interested in knowing more, we're very happy to share what we know. I am interested. Can I get a question? Okay. Yes. This has been really frustrating for us from Transformator as well. We're used to working with a company that company that will in the end implement the service that we're working with. So we're used to working towards implementation, realization, taking preconditions in regard during the process and so on. Working with SEI that are more on a policy level and your main purpose is to just make knowledge accessible for anyone to break it down and understanding what does it mean for me or our company or our business model and so on. That has been a difficult journey for us as well. We've been asking these kinds of questions but we wanted to change here and now. And we did in some ways, as Marie mentioned, but then we're also working with this aggregated knowledge that then has to be adopted to every local situation afterwards in a way. But I understand your question. And one thing that I really like is the iterative design and actually our concept is that we can develop those really quickly in an iterative process. So that's also, I would like to find ways in how to implement in the practical or technical stage the same type of methods. Brilliant. Wonderful. Okay, more questions? Then I take the chance to ask a question. Okay, if you would do this project again, what would you do differently? Wow. I would have Marie go our education before going to real study. She's actually doing a course in services right now. And because another part of the challenge that we had was that our methodologies were so similar that it was really challenging. Usually we come in to complement a company and organization that has really a different way of working. They have a quantitative way of working or they have one research phase, then ideation, then implementation. And we come in and we complement with our iterations. But here we were almost too similar and that was really challenging. We use the same phrases, we use the same words, but we meant different things with it. That is one reflection. Also, we all have prior experience in working in these kind of context and situations. And the first loop in Kenya, we kind of went down and just like full force, just give it to us. We kind of, we had an idea, we had our methodology, we kind of adopted on the spot. In Sambia, we had a lot of new insights and experience that we kind of made sure to prepare material because we knew we were not gonna be able to stare how it will go on the field. But we would know a lot of things that could potentially happen. So we try to make like model of systems and tools that could be used in very different ways in different situations. Not to think it's big insights in terms of Kenya versus Sambia. But we also know you can never prepare enough. You have to make it in a convenient way. I think I'm beginning to understand this concept of loops. And I see the value in working together many times. So I think we, I mean, the more we work together, the better we become at working together. I think one of the things we perhaps could have done better is to really manage expectations. We traveled far, we had five days. In five days, we did 25 interviews and we held the workshop and then we went back. That's quite a stressful situation. Sort of regardless of whether you're on holiday or working or not. So I think just managing expectations and doing that collectively, I think, is something that's always very important to do. From my perspective, it's challenging being the client and the colleague at the same time. So being the one that sort of commissioned the work, but also being part of the work and sort of knowing when I should step back and let transfer more to do the job and when I should sort of come in and say, hey, this is actually not what we were supposed to do. Okay, thank you. Thank you for listening and thank you very much for this seminar, Marie, please. Thank you for sharing this and give Sophie, Pär and Marie a warm applause. Congratulations.