Team Wastebusters

Jamie Curran, Daniel Ham, David Hoysan, Annisa Prasetyanto, Melissa Powel, Advait Tinaikar
_______________________________________________________________
Integrated Product Development
Phase 2 Report
March 7, 2017

1
 Executive Summary
When the Wastebusters team was challenged with the task of reducing food waste in an
impactful, scalable way, they began by researching the wide domain of food waste and interviewing
stakeholders at different stages of the value chain. After the team used their initial round of research to
identify the social, economical, and technological trends concerning food waste, they further translated
these factors into product opportunity gaps. By evaluating and reducing these opportunity gaps, the
Wastebusters team finally identified a narrowed opportunity that could address food waste in an
impactful and scalable way by focusing upon consumer food behavior before the food was considered
waste.
The team then continued their research by listing a set of critical assumptions that they had
about the reasons and behaviours that lead to food becoming waste within the home, and gathered
primary information through short interviews and observations to amend, reject, or accept assumptions.
Following this activity, the Wastebusters team continued to conduct more thorough interviews and
cultivated key, largely universal insights about consumer behavior that lead to food becoming or being
considered as waste while not limited to differences in values, behavior, or culture between different
consumers. By utilizing these key insights, the team continued to narrow their product opportunity gaps
to focus upon reducing waste in households with children and created a persona based on the primary
purchaser of food within the household.
The body of this report will summarize the work conducted by the Wastebusters Team and next
steps moving forward.

2
 Table of Contents

Executive Summary 2

Initial Opportunity Exploration 4

Consumer Research 6
Positioning Map 6
Mood Boards 9
Consumer Interviews 10
Key User Interview Insights 13

Focused research 14
Personas 16
Persona Focus 17
User Journey Map 17
Stakeholders and Influences 19
Research Summary 21

Value Opportunity Analysis 21

Value Definitions 21
Value Prioritization and Ranking 25
Game Changing Values 26

Solution Requirements 26

Conclusion 27

Appendix A: Interview Questions 29

3
Initial Opportunity Exploration
The Wastebusters team started the project by trying to understand the overall landscape and
used interviews with industry experts to provide in-depth understanding of the domain. Its a fact that 30
40% of all food in the United States is wasted annually1 and with a 15% reduction in waste we can
feed 25 million Americans2. Another shocking insight is the total cost of annual food waste is valued at
around $165 billion, and 97% of the wasted food (33 million tons) ends up in landfills, where it produces
methane and other greenhouse gases3. And while waste occurring across all steps in the food supply
chain, the majority, 43%, happens at the hands of the consumer. Coming into Phase 2 of the project,
The Wastebusters team reviewed initial insights from Phase 1 and started to conduct more in-depth
research in the following phase, eventually focusing their attention on the consumer.
Through interviews with industry experts, the team gleaned information about whats currently in
motion, what has succeeded in the past and what struggled gaining traction. Given that 7% of produce
on the farm is never harvested4 the team reached out to Brian Dawson, Founder & CEO of HarvestPort,
for information about what farmers are doing to help reduce food waste at the harvesting stage. He
stated that, while waste management in the agriculture industry is not sexy, theres a lot of innovation
going on to minimize waste in the agricultural sector. Moving further down the food chain to food
processing plants, food waste is both a brand and a consumer safety concern. A Yoplait Production
Manager stated that General Mills will throw away any contaminated yogurt to protect their brand and
their consumer. Unfortunately, the team learned this sometimes means that a small mistake in one
batch of yogurt can lead to hundreds of pounds being thrown out. The third major stage in the supply
chain is transportation, which is another opportunity for food to be wasted. The Co-founder of Food
Cowboy stated, pallets of product deliveries are refused because of color, shape and sugar content.
There are cosmetic standards upheld by the supermarket industry and challenges around long distance
transport that both contribute to a large portion of food waste at this stage. At point of sale with the
consumer, the issues are compounded by consumer demands for perfect produce and consumer
miseducation around labeling. One paper stated that poor labeling has caused wastage of $2,300 in
every supermarket per day5. Another waste problem is caused by poor inventory management. The
Marketing Team Leader for the East End Food Co-Op stated, we dont use software to predict
demand. We rely on the expertise of our veteran employees. Having unpredicted amount of food
needed per day increases over purchasing, which in turn can lead to massive waste, up to 30%
according to one interviewee. Considering these insights and the fact that nearly 40% of all U.S. waste
occurs at the retail level, retail and grocers were certainly an addressable market opportunity.
With the expansive nature of food waste and the relationship formed at each level of the supply
chain, the team utilized a mix of primary, secondary, and expert information to create their working
1
Gunders, Dana. How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill. National Resources Defense Council Issue Paper.
August, 2012.
2
Gunders, Dana. How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill. National Resources Defense Council Issue Paper.
August, 2012.
3
Foundation, GRACE Communications. "Food Waste." GRACE Communications Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2017.
4
Gunders, Dana. How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill. National Resources Defense Council Issue Paper.
August, 2012.
5
"ReFED | Rethink Food Waste." ReFED | Rethink Food Waste. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2017.

4
knowledge of food waste in the United States. Stepping back from the issue, they worked to identify
social, economic and technological factors that might indicate the emergence of a unique product
opportunity gap. Table 1 below outlines the factors identified by the team.

Table 1: Social Economic Technological Factors

Social factors Economic factors Technological factors

Food labeling provides Retailers plan to waste up to Rise of big data and
inaccurate information about 30% of inventory ubiquitous computing
food freshness Thin margins at every step of Automation and soil
Consumers buy and not grow the value chain monitoring for in-home
food 1 in 6 Americans are food gardening
Rising on-demand food insecure New 3D printed food
delivery services Income is proportionate to technology
No new government studies waste Aerial footage raises
since 1997 Increasing investment to awareness of waste
Misshapen food is the new food waste startups Food sharing and delivery
sexy Cheaper to discard rather platforms
No real need to avoid than donate P.O.S. technology for easier
waste purchasing

Based on the social, economic and technological trends as well as stakeholder interviews from
across the value chain, the Wastebusters team was able to brainstorm potential product and service
opportunity gaps. This exercise resulted in over 120 detailed opportunities, which were further
narrowed into 22 broad categories, including but not limited to: consumer waste; grocery retailer waste;
imperfect foods; and consumer behavior. The number of categories was reduced to eleven by using
individual preferences and feasibility, and then further down to five using a weighted matrix. The
weighted matrix took into account 6 factors: potential impact, current market saturation, feasibility,
market viability, market fit (or user demand), and team enthusiasm. The challenge for the team now
was to narrow down from five opportunities to one.
Further research and interviews revealed that the teams potential impact would best be felt
downstream, as upstream waste solutions at harvesting, production and transportation were saturated
with competitors or had high barriers to entry based on specific industry expertise. Given that consumer
6
waste is responsible for approximately 40% of food waste and that households throw away 25% of the
7
food they purchase , the wastebusters team determined that addressing food wasted at the hands of
the consumer would be both feasible within our current timeline and team competencies, and have
scalable impact. The focus was further narrowed by focusing on unconsumed or pre-waste food, as
opposed to post-waste as this has the double benefit of reducing 16% of the United States methane

6
"ReFED | Rethink Food Waste." ReFED | Rethink Food Waste. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2017.
7
Gunders, Dana. How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill. National Resources Defense Council Issue Paper.
August, 2012.

5
emissions and the billions of dollars wasted on transporting and processing food waste that ends up in
8
the landfill .
Therefore, the teams final product opportunity gap is: How might we stop food from being
wasted in the home?

Consumer Research
With a focused opportunity gap in mind, the Wastebusters team began research with a variety
of assumptions about consumers. To validate these assumptions, the team decided to do 2 rounds of
interviews. The first round was done in grocery store to understand the consumers food purchasing
habits. This information led the team to focus their attention on a specific subset of consumers,
particularly busy families. By interviewing several more people in this subset, the team was able to
create several personas and a journey map that furthered their understanding of their target
consumers behavior.
In addition to user interviews, the team performed two additional exercises to understand the
food waste landscape: they made a positioning map and a mood board. The positioning map
illuminated core strengths of products on the market today and how the team might differentiate
themselves by providing a solution that fills a consumer need gap. The mood board exercise helped to
visualize the current and possible future lifestyle trends that could influence food waste.
All three exercises, user interviews, positioning maps, and mood boards are outlined in detail
below.

Positioning Map
A positioning map was created to better understand the current landscape of food waste
reduction solutions. Products analyzed included the refrigerator, the freezer, tossing food in the trash,
doggy bags, plastic containers, expiration dates, food portioning, measuring utensils, compost, meal
planning, food scales, food delivery services, and high tech solutions such as smart features on new
refrigerators that help track food inventory.
The solutions were first plotted based on convenience and cost, as shown in Figure 1.
Comparing the products against these axes, it was determined that most of the solutions fell into the
low cost / high convenience category.

8
Gunders, Dana. How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill. National Resources Defense Council Issue Paper.
August, 2012.

6
 Figure 1: Cost vs. convenience positioning map.

The current food waste reduction solutions were then plotted on a positioning map that
compared convenience versus effectiveness to get a different perspective, as shown in Figure 2. A key
insight here was that the majority of solutions that were inexpensive and convenient turned out to be
ineffective at reducing the amount of food waste created. The refrigerator ranked high on convenience,
but only slightly effective. Consumers can easily store food in the refrigerator, however that food can
end up hidden or forgotten which will ultimately lead to waste. On the other hand, the freezer is
extremely effective at reducing waste, however, it is not as convenient as it takes effort to thaw and
prepare the frozen food. With this insight, it was determined that an opportunity existed to create a
solution that was both convenient and effective, as shown in Figure 3.

7
Figure 2: Effectiveness versus convenience positioning map.

Figure 3: Opportunity to create a solution that is both convenient and effective.

8
Mood Boards
Having done primary and secondary research, the Wastebusters team created two mood
boards to visualize consumer lifestyle trends that might lead to food waste. The first mood board
focused on the lifestyle of Americans with the current state of food waste as the focus whereas the
second looked to a possible future state to strive for where lifestyle and reduced waste go hand in
hand.

Figure 4: Current state mood board

The mood board above shows the current state of the food waste problem. The team placed
pictures of large food portions to symbolize American consumer habits of cooking more than needed.
One example of this imagery can be seen in the picture of a stack of cookies. The tall stack of cookies
represents how much food people usually cook and the one cookie on the right side represents the
volume that is actually needed or consumed. Another picture that shows an example of unnecessary
waste is the picture of condiments placed on a small bowl. People have a habit of placing condiments
in separate bowls and throwing tossing it out when unused as its a hassle to put it back. Recipes in
magazines push readers to get a long, elaborate lists of ingredients, making it harder to reuse raw
ingredients in other recipes. This mood board effectively helped the team consider the mindset of

9
consumers as they go through their day and represented the state of households today, filled with over
consumption and unnecessary food waste.

Figure 5: Future state mood board

The second mood board, pictured above, represents the future state the team aims to achieve.
One picture that the team included is a picture of a piggy bank, representing the idea that by wasting
less food, consumers will be able to save more money. The team also provide a picture of tangerine
with the tagline Tangerines, 3 ways, highlighting the need to repurpose food before it gets bad. The
team also included a picture of a set of fermenting beer bottles, to signify creative ways to preserve
food. The multiple pictures of healthy women further emphasizes the idea that food efficiency, limited
overconsumption, and more people having access to fresh produce can lead to healthier food habits.
The ideal future state, therefore, is to waste less food, save more money, and have a healthier lifestyle.

Consumer Interviews
The last of the three consumer research exercises was user interviews. To better understand
consumer behavior around food waste and to further validate assumptions, the team conducted
contextual inquiries in 6 different grocery stores. The assumptions the team wanted to validate were:

10
 1. Might families that buy and cook in bulk, and who are
less budget conscious, waste the most?
2. Might young people who cook for themselves waste a lot?
3. Might people who are very budget conscious waste less?
4. Might people who are environmentally conscious waste less?

Interviews were conducted in a variety of grocery retailers: Trader Joes, Whole Foods, Giant
Eagle, Aldis, Target and The East End Food Co-op. This allowed the team to interview individuals from
different socioeconomic levels and purchasing habits. In total, the team was able to talk to 23
individuals and capture a large set of shopping behaviors around the food buying process. The team
interviewed individuals who either buy groceries for themselves or shop for the whole family. As
anticipated, some were more budget conscious than others and are more sensitive with how they
manage their food waste. The challenge with interviews, surveys and other self reporting user interview
techniques is people tend to lie or misjudge their own behavior. This was taken into account when
analyzing interview results.
Key findings included the following. Individuals that live alone, or shop for themselves have
different shopping patterns compared to those who shops for a larger family. One single woman over
the age of 70, admitted to wasting a large amount of her groceries because she lived alone and didnt
want to eat the same thing everyday. Out of the groceries she purchased on the day of the interview,
she claimed she would waste 25% of it. A single male in his mid-thirties, claimed that milk and produce
were the hardest to finish and often had to be thrown away. He had no intention of repurposing waste
into something that was less harmful to the environment. On the other hand, those who were more
budget constrained usually didnt mind consuming food that was past the sell by date. For example, tow
flatmates interviewed in Aldis mentioned that they didnt mind drinking milk up to 2 weeks after its best
by date. They also didnt care about the dates written on non-perishables. Many interviewees
mentioned bulk purchasing and large food packaging were the two biggest causes of food waste. Many
food packages are catered to Americas high consumption trends and larger households, which causes
particular issue for those who live alone. A young single woman in her 20s said, I hate wasting food,
but if its unusable, Ill throw it out. Multiple interviewees wished there were smaller packaging options
so they wouldnt waste as much food.
Individuals who shop for families tended to shop more frequently. Some even shopped multiple
times per week. Some challenges observed with this consumer segment was a need to purchase for a
variety of food preferences in a family. One father stated, my kids are very picky about the texture of
fruit and you can only make so many smoothies. This signifies the challenge of parents shopping and
feeding food to their children. Miscommunication between couples and roommates was also a common
occurrence among interviewees. One interviewee said, Ill eat leftovers, but try to be nice and leave
them for my wife, but she often never gets around to eating them. Some families try to plan meals
ahead of time to avoid unnecessary purchases and avoid waste. However, disruption in dinner plans
often created unintentional food waste for even the most conscious consumer, leading to pre-cooked
meals getting left in the fridge.
Below is a short summary of interviews the team gathered during the grocery visits:

11

Target
Megan & Owen
Late 40s, son 8
Family of 4 from California
Composts
Weekly meal plan and list
Check labeling on produce
Feed scraps to pet chicken
Usually shops at Aldi
Claire & Ken
Couple, Mid 30s
No list. Estimate quantity on the
spot
Shop every 2 weeks
Shop at Target in small quants
Shop mainly at Sams club and
Trader Joes
Throw little waste away
No repurposing of waste
Aldi
Wyatt
SIngle man, mid 20s
No composting interests
Mold and smell when wasting
Cuts off mold from cheese
Uses grocery lists, but no meal
plan
Patrice
Mid 50s, single woman
25% of food wasted
50% produce & 25% bread
Wastes from monotony: Lets
food go bad to eat something
new
No grocery list, but meal plans
Amanda
Table 2: Interview Summaries
Trader Joes
Dana
Single mom, 40s, 1 kid
Did not waste
Cooks a lot and puts old
produce in recipes
Ben
Male, 30s, no kids
Admits to wasting leftovers
Plans meals, but sometimes
produce goes waste
Christina
Single woman, 20s, no kids
Nutrition focused
Meals planned without list
If its unusable, ill toss it
Joseph
Male, 30s, no kids
Shops with feelings
Wastes little, uses compost
Whole Foods
Mark
Male, 60s
Shops for 3
Alternates between Giant
Eagle & Whole Foods, twice
per week
Cooks everyday
Has ways to keep produce
fresh longer
Throws away food when
moldy
Conscious about not throwing
food away
Jesse
Woman, early 30s
Shops 1-2x per week
Uses her collection of recipes
Shops with grocery list
12
Giant Eagle
Gerald
Male, 50, 1 kid
Wastes on experiments
New to cooking and planning
Shops by new recipe
Chris
Male, 40s, 2 kids
Family
Kids are picky
Wastes leftovers, greens, and
fruit
Waste is not a priority
Lisa
Woman, 30s, no kids
Shops with blue apron
Almost never lets a kit go to
waste
Food has higher value
East End Food Co-Op
John
Mid 30s, male
New at groceries and cooking
No waste
Eats out a lot
Gives scraps to dogs
Often under-buys
Tyler
30yr old, Male
Food Co-op employee
Shops a little everyday (free bin
sometimes)
Composts
Throws away cheese,
otherwise doesnt waste
Cant compost cheese
Collects half a trash bag/ week
Andrew and wife
 Single woman, mid 30s, 4 kids
No waste, unless kids dont like
the food
Meal plans, but adjusts from the
kids
Very budgeted, uses calculator
Shops every 2 weeks when she
gets a paycheck
No junk food
Doesnt read labels (trusts Aldi)
Tess & Jackie
Early 20s, roommates
Throw out a lot of milk
Dont share food
Buy in bulk at year beginning
Buy produce at Pitt Shop
No list
No composting
Typically buys enough, but
over-buys at times
Feeds leftovers to dogs
Composts
Doesnt care about labels
50s - 60s
Years of experience with
recipes
Shops depending on current
household inventory
Throws food away based on
appearance/smell
Only throws away cheese
(occasionally milk if she
forgets)
Composts unless its too cold
Thinks labels are conservative

Phone Call Interview

Lynn (60 yr W)
Lives with retired husband
Used to shop for 5, now 2
Does all the shopping
Looks only with recipes
Will overbuy to complete the recipe (eg. Potatoes/onions)
Throws away the butts of produce
Doesnt rely on labels Throws away food based on time or smell
Will throw away ALL leftovers if the fridge smells in general

With the data that was gathered from the interviews, the team was able to synthesize key
takeaways from each interview. Some assumptions were proven and some still required more
research.

Key User Interview Insights

Younger people who lived alone often waste, but not as much as those who shop, cook and eat
for multiple people.
It is true that families that buy and cook in bulk often waste, but it is mostly because of the
different food preferences of the family members.
People who are environmentally conscious dont necessarily waste less but they do something
about the waste, such as repurposing and/or composting.
People who are very budget conscious often purchase bulk items because they value quantity
over quality, causing more waste when theyre unable to finish their food.

13
Focused research
With information from the initial research, the team was able to come up with more questions
and decided to pursue in home contextual interviews to observe first hand consumer shopping, cooking
and eating habit. Until this point, many different consumer profiles were considered, but it was time to
narrow the focus to highlight only opportunities that would yield the most impactful and scalable results.
Based on these guidelines and preluding research, the team eliminated the consumer profiles of those
who were highly budget conscious as well as those who were environmentally conscious given that
these profiles already were shown to produce fewer volumes of food waste.

Final two personas:

1. Busy single individual
2. Busy mother, with young pre-adolescent children

Post this the team identified users who could be interviewed for the below mentioned objective.

Objective of focused research

Understand the reasons (when, where, why) busy parents and singles waste food as well as where the
majority of food is getting wasted.

Research method
Contextual inquiry and personal interviews.

Interview protocol
Understand wastage and consumption behavior at each step of the consumption process: shopping,
cooking, and eating.

14
Through this interview process, the team observed consumers shop for groceries, cook meals, and
even captured pre-cooked and cooked food getting wasted on camera, all of which led to helping the
team form insights about the consumer shopping, cooking and eating process.

Interview details

Figure 6: At-home Interviewees: Trisha, Laura, Adilla, Adhiet, RJ

Table 3: Interviewee Details

Name Adilla & Shama Bhushan Kerri Kevin & RJ & Laura
Adhiet Trisha

Type In-home Tele-interview Tele-interview Tele-interview In-home In-home

Children Expecting 2 2 2 2 3
first child (aged: <15) (aged: <10) (aged: < 15) (aged: <15) (aged: <5)

Interview findings
Instances of food waste in participants homes

15
Personas
The following personas were developed from the interview findings.

Single Individual (Sam)

Characteristics
Is a millennial who lives without a family
Busy lifestyle shifting between work and home activities
May or may not have roommates
Cares about saving but is not driven purely by cost
Occupies an entire or part of a fridge

Behavior
Values products and services to that add convenience to life
Lacks a clear plan or routine for shopping and meal preparation
Cooks & shops for himself / herself even in a shared home
Cooks about 2-3 times during the week making bulk meals
Eats premade and frozen foods caring less about safety
Tends to toss groceries into the fridge and forget about them
Conscious of wasting food but does not actively indulge in waste
repurposing methods (like composting)

Primary reasons for food waste

Lack of routine, forgetfulness, packages too large

Busy parent (Mary)

Characteristics
Lives with husband and young children
Working parent managing job, chores and childrens needs
Does not have budget constraints but mindful of spending
Owns a middle to large sized home with ample food storage
Prioritizes childrens needs and health over all else

Behavior
Shops at different grocery stores based on needs (bulk buying,
daily needs, kid specific purchases)
Depends on routine to ensure children are well fed
Cares about abundance & quality of food over wastage
Has to manage childrens allergies and picky habits by shopping
for and preparing different food
Cooks often, ensuring children eat out less than twice per week
Does not use technology to order groceries & food
May be influenced by events in childrens school, or by kids
learning about food, waste, environmental issues, etc.

Primary reasons for food waste

Bulk buying, forgetfulness, miscommunication, prioritize children

16
Persona Focus
There are many similar behaviors exhibited by the two personas presented above that lead to
food waste, however our team has chosen to specifically focus on designing a product for the Mary
persona - a busy parent with young children who is the primary food purchaser and preparer for a
family - for several reasons. First, the additional complexity of a multi-person household adds additional
opportunities for food to be wasted. Shopping and cooking food for several people with diverse tastes
and preferences introduces opportunities for wasting that the Single Sam persona does not need to
address, such as uncertainty about portions, picky children who do not finish their plate of food, and an
increased concern by the parent about feeding old and potentially contaminated food to children.
Second, more opportunities to waste means more opportunities for the teams final product to intervene
and prevent waste.
Third, this customer segment is larger, and therefore there is larger opportunity to impact the
food waste problem. The US Census Bureau estimates that there are over 34,769,000 households with
children under 17, and over 14,641,000 households with at least 1 child under 69. They estimate that
there are only 5,765,000 Single Sams - single person households where the householder is between
the ages of 20 and 3410. In addition to being a much larger market, focusing on introducing a product or
service into a household with multiple people would mean that the product or service would have the
opportunity to reduce the food waste of several people.

User Journey Map

Throughout the research process, the team identified the key behaviors that lead to food waste.
The synthesis of these observations have been put into a journey map that represents the process that
the persona, Mary, is likely take as she plans meals, shops for ingredients, and finally prepares, cooks,
eats, and stores cooked dishes.

9
United States; Dept. of Commerce; Census Bureau; Americas Families and Living Arrangements: 2016: Family households (F table series); Family
Households, By Type, Age Of Own Children, Age Of Family Members, And Age Of Householder; US Dept. of Commerce, Nov. 2016; Table F1.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2016F.html
10
United States; Dept. of Commerce; Census Bureau; Americas Families and Living Arrangements: 2016: Households, By Type, Age Of Members, Region
Of Residence, And Age Of Householder; US Dept. of Commerce, Nov. 2016; Table H2. https://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2016H.html

17
18
Stakeholders and Influences
Throughout the journey described above, Marys behavior is influenced by many factors, which were
further analyzed using a map of influencers. Marys key influencers include:
Other members of the household (partner, children, etc.): These people are the biggest
influence on how Mary makes decisions on what to buy and cook. She must think about how to
feed her family healthy nutritious food while contending with a range of preferences, as well as
food allergies.
Delivery/Restaurants: these options may tempt Mary as an alternative to cooking ingredients
that have already been purchased, especially because of her and her familys busy schedules.
Visitors: when people outside of the family visit, it is likely that Mary will purchase snacks or
ingredients for a meal that she would not typically purchase. If not all of the unusual ingredients
are consumed, they might be forgotten.
Grocers: the main priority of a grocer is to sell as much food as possible. Grocery stores employ
marketing strategies to encourage consumers to buy more food, such as flash sales, packaging
items in bulk, accessible placement of tempting but unneeded items. All of these tactics might
influence Mary at the store to buy more than she needs.

19
 Kitchen Equipment: Marys access to food storage appliances and equipment influences how
she cooks food. For example, a slow cooker encourages cooking in bulk. Having a very large or
more than 1 refrigerator encourages buying in bulk.
Internet Trends: surfing Pinterest or other trend sites might influence Mary to experiment on a
new recipe. This will lead her to buy new ingredients, of which she may not use the entire
amount. She may not know what to do with the rest of the ingredient, which will then be
forgotten. The new meal also may turn out poorly, or not be liked by the family and not eaten.
Schools: Mary might be influenced by what the children learn in school, such as environmental
issues, cooking, gardening, nutrition, or composting.

20
Research Summary
The following summarizes of key insights from the research phase:
Most consumers are unaware of how much food they waste
The most common consumer behaviors that lead to food waste are buying in bulk, food being
hidden and forgotten in a full fridge, not cooking planned meals when routine is disrupted by
busy schedules, and uncertainty about the safety of leftovers or older ingredients.
In addition, the complexity of shopping and cooking for multiple people in a family may lead to
uncertainty about portion sizes, or uneaten food due to different tastes and preferences.
The small amount of food typically wasted per day means that cost savings is not a major
motivator for consumers to be mindful about food waste.
The highest priority for a busy parent is the health and safety of the family. This leads to
particularly cautious behavior around consuming leftovers or older ingredients. This priority may
also be a key motivator for consumers to waste less food.

Value Opportunity Analysis

A value opportunity analysis was completed to consider what attributes consumers might value
or find beneficial in a waste reduction solution. The values were derived from the categories of emotion,
interaction, aesthetics, identity, impact, performance, quality, profit impact, brand impact, and
extendability. The values were first defined with regards to food waste reduction solutions. The values
were then prioritized and ranked for the general landscape of food waste reduction, a particular waste
reduction solution, and the goal state of food waste reduction solution. Finally, select key values were
identified that could significantly change the current landscape of food waste reduction if incorporated in
a new solution.

Value Definitions
EMOTION
Adventure
The solution must create a journey of excitement and exploration that ultimately reduces the amount of
food users let go to waste. Excitement and exploration could come from buying habits, recipes, grocery
stores, cooking techniques, disposal techniques, etc.
Independence
The solution must not force users into a certain food waste reduction method or punish users for
improper food waste prevention. Instead, the solution must enable users to freely prevent food waste in
a way that integrates with their daily habits and decisions.
Security
The solution must reassure users that food waste reduction will be safe and not lead to foodborne
illness, provide stability in daily eating/buying habits, and prevent large financial burdens.
Luxury

21
The solution must offer a high-quality, luxurious experience. Food waste must be reduced in a way that
invokes a sense of pride/confidence and encourages users to show off the solution to others. Food
waste prevention must be a showpiece similar to high-end appliances in the kitchen or a Rolex on the
wrist.
Confidence
The product supports the users self-assurance and promotes motivation to use the product. The
solution must assure users that food waste reduction is beneficial to the society, the economy, etc.
Users must be confident that their contributions are making a meaningful impact. The solution much
also assure users that food waste reduction provides a meaningful impact in their daily life. The solution
must provide the right motivation for users to reduce food waste.
Superiority
The solution must promote authority, control, supremacy, or moral supremacy. The user should receive
a sense of empowerment when it comes to food waste. They should feel in control of their waste habits
and receive a sense of entitlement when realizing they are helping a greater cause.

INTERACTION
Comfort
The solution must be comfortable to interact with. Food waste must be reduced in a way that is intuitive
and does not cause mental strain. Users should not have to solve complex problems in order to
implement the solution. Food waste must also be reduced in a way that does not cause any physical
strain. The solution must not cause any pinch points, put the user in difficult situations, or require the
user to lift unnecessary heavy objects. Finally, the solution must offer peace of mind to the user through
the knowledge of waste reduction helping the environment and society.
(Ergonomics) Safety
The solution must be safe for the user to use. Food waste reduction should be harmless and benign,
both short term and long term. Management of food waste must not put the user, or other stakeholders
in a situation of mental or physical risk.
Ease of Use
The solution must be easy to use from both a physical and cognitive perspective. Food waste reduction
must be intuitive and easy for users to understand. They must not have to seek alternative instruction.
The solution must be simple enough for people with varying ability levels. Proper measures must be
taken so that the solution does not complicate a users daily activities.
Convenience
The solution must require a minimal amount of additional effort or behavior change to use. Food waste
reduction must align with users needs, activities, and plans. Users should not have to go out of their
way to reduce food waste. The solution must be suitable for all stages of the value chain including
buying, preparing, consuming, storing, etc.

Accessibility
The solution must be designed for people with special needs. Food waste reduction must be attainable
for users with varying disabilities, levels of income, geographic locations, dietary constraints, etc.

22
AESTHETIC
Visual
The solution must relate shape, color, and texture in a way that is appealing to the target stakeholders.
Food waste reduction must be visually attractive to all users. Users should receive positive emotions
when seeing the solution. To achieve this, the solution may have visual characteristics of modern day
appliances, storage containers, grocery bags, or other items directly or indirectly involved with food
waste reduction.
Auditory
The solution must determine and integrate the appropriate sounds and eliminate undesired sounds to
help reduce food waste. Sounds must relate to a positive user experience. For example, modern
refrigerators incorporate a subtle beep to notify users when the door has been left open for an extended
period. Sounds should be eliminated if they do not add value, otherwise they may discourage users.
Tactile
The physical interaction of the solution, primarily focusing on the hand but also including any other
physical contact between the product and user, must enhance the experience. Interaction must be
enjoyable for the user when reducing food waste.
Olfactory
Food waste is typically associated with unpleasant odors. Febreze scented trash bags, for example,
help mask the unpleasant odors of food waste, however they do not help reduce the total amount of
waste created. The solution must minimize or eliminate the undesirable odors associated with food
waste, avoid creating repulsive odors, and reduce the total amount of food waste. The solution must
also provide pleasant odors if they add significant value to the user experience.
Taste
The solution must avoid the consumer having to eat unpleasant food. Reducing the total amount of
food waste will naturally prevent the user from eating spoiled or rotten food. The solution, however,
must also prevent the user from repulsive tastes. Any materials used must not transfer unnecessary
flavors to food.

IDENTITY
Point In Time
The aesthetics and features of the final solution must integrate seamlessly with the current social,
economic, and technical trends. The food waste reduction solution must also align with current
infrastructure and distribution channels. A solution aimed too far in the future might require additional
infrastructure or distribution channels that have not been developed, and will not be easily adopted.
Sense of Place
The solution must not be a complete behavior disruptor. Rather, the final solution must closely align to
daily habits concerning buying, preparing, cooking, eating, and disposing of food. The aesthetics and
features must also have a sense of belonging in kitchens, grocery stores, picnics, restaurants, or other
areas where food is common.
Personality

23
The solution must have a personality that differentiates itself from competition in a way that is preferred
by the user.

IMPACT
Social
The solution must promote a positive social experience that encourages communication and interaction
amongst users. Users should encourage and be encouraged by their peers to reduce food waste. The
solution must also align with modern social communication methods (i.e. social media, mainstream
media, word of mouth, etc.)
Environmental
The solution must have a positive impact on the environment. The final solution must reduce the
environmental impact of food waste, without negatively impacting the environment through other means
(i.e increased emissions, greenhouse gases, carbon footprint, etc.)

PERFORMANCE
Reliable
The solution must work consistently and at a high level of performance over its own lifetime. The
solution must lead to a consistent reduction in food waste for the life of the product or service. If the
solution is a product, it must last the life of the product and replacements must be available at end of
life. If the solution is a service, the service must be available to consumers at regimented intervals.
Durable
The solution must meet the boundary conditions of performance. The food waste reduction solution
must withstand all cases of intended use and misuse.

QUALITY
Craftsmanship
The fit and finish of the solution should be detailed enough to meet performance expectations.
Flexibility
The solution must match changing needs of people and implementable in all environments.

PROFIT IMPACT
The solution is feasible and scalable as a profitable start up company or sustainable as a non-profit.
BRAND IMPACT
The solution can be supported by an impactful social media campaign or other means of social
awareness.
EXTENDABLE
The solution has a large reach and is extendable to many consumers.

24
Value Prioritization and Ranking
The values defined above were prioritized and ranked for the current landscape of food waste reduction
solutions, a particular waste reduction solution (the freezer), and the ideal or goal state of a food waste
reduction solution. The current state was defined by typical behaviors such as no management plan,
throwing away food when expired, etc. The freezer was examined to get a detailed look at one
particular waste reduction solution. Criteria for the goal state of food waste reduction was identified
from analyzing research and customer interviews and determining what the target customer would truly
value from a new waste reduction solution. Each value was ranked high, medium, or low for each
category, depending on the value it brings to the target customer. Refer to Table 4 below for a detailed
description for how each attribute is valued to the consumer.

Table 4: Value opportunity analysis chart.

Value attributes were ranked high, medium, or low based on the corresponding value to the consumer.

25
Game Changing Values
An analysis of the VOA chart identified key attributes which ranked low with current food waste
reduction solutions. These attributes either have a low presence, negative appeal, or are simply
missing from the current solutions on the market. A goal solution with these attributes prioritized as high
would offer a significant amount of value to the consumer, and ultimately change the current landscape
of food waste reduction. The key values identified are:

Point in Time
All of the current solutions are dated. The target customer would value a solution that integrates
seamlessly with the current social, economic, and technical trends, in addition to the current
infrastructure and distribution channels in place.

Social
The target customer would value a solution with a positive social experience that promotes
communication and encouragement from family and friends. Methods of communication could include
social media, word of mouth, etc.

Environmental
The target customer would value a solution that has a positive impact on the environment. The impact
could be a result of decreased greenhouse gases, emissions, organic farming, etc.

Security
The target customer would value a solution that keeps her food safe, provides stability in daily
eating/buying habits, and prevents large financial burdens.

Superiority
The target customer would value a solution that offers a sense of empowerment when it comes to food
waste. They should feel in control of her waste habits and receive a sense of entitlement from helping a
greater cause.

Solution Requirements
The team synthesized all of the research into a list of constraints to help guide the solution
during the conceptualization phase. The constraints were divided into must, should, and could. The
must haves are the highest priority constraints. Any solution needs to meet these constraints for
successful implementation and adaption. The should haves are second highest priority. Solutions will
have a higher chance of implementation and adaption, however they are not required. The could
haves are the constraints that would be nice to have, but the solution can be implemented and
adapted without them.

26
The solution must:
Accommodate daily routine, including changes in routine
Prevent miscommunication between family members
Provide food security
Ensure health and safety of the family and guests
Appeal to a mass market (target consumers)
Have a positive environmental impact
Minimize any chance of odor
Be intuitive to use
The solution should:
Educate consumers about the spoilage of food
Require minimal additional steps to daily routine
Be appropriate for homes, specifically in the kitchen
Be scalable as to reach a mass market, opposed to a small region
Have a viable business model
The solution could:
Provide education on food labeling
Provide inventory awareness to help consumers know what they have and where it is
Educate consumers on how much food is necessary to purchase at a given time

Conclusion
Based on primary research, assumption validation, and key insights gained over the past few
weeks, the Wastebusters team ultimately decided to narrow their focus to solve for primary food
purchasers in households with young children. Narrowing their focus away from singles was only done
after much deliberation and consideration, but ultimately, the Wastebusters Team concluded that this
would provide the greatest opportunity for scalable impact. The teams insights included the fact that
primary purchasers of family households often have increased food waste due to miscommunication or
fickle tastes of children. Finally, not only are there 6 times more households with children than single
person households in the US, but by focusing on designing for busy families, the effect of any solution
would reach not just one person, but an entire household. This means that the myriad of variances that
occur from consumer to consumer decrease when a primary purchaser represents a household of three
or more people. For the above listed reasons, the product or service will be designed for this target
consumer to be better positioned to for scale and potential impact.
Going forward, the team will take into consideration further research, both primary and
secondary, and search for solutions or products that would decrease the food that would become waste
within households. Such considerations include how best to leverage incentives or value-add for
households such as the potential savings of $640 the average American household wastes per year
and more detailed market analyses. To that end, the team developed a mission statement that best
reflected its new sphere of opportunity and priorities going forward: Find a convenient and effective
solution that prevents home food waste while enriching lives.

27
Appendix A: Interview Questions
1. How many people do you shop for?
2. How often do you shop?
3. How do you decide how much/what to get? (Bring a list? Shop w/ feelings?)
4. Do you check labels when buying food? Why, or why not?
5. How often do you cook?
6. What do you consider waste and at what point is it considered waste?
a. Mold? Labeling? Instinct? Smell
b. What do you do with scraps while preparing
7. What percentage of food is wasted? (in figs)
8. What would motivate you to waste less?
9. What influences your food waste patterns and have they changed over time? (cultural, location
influence)
10. What do you know of composting / repurposing waste?
11. Do they use online grocery services (like Jet.com) and food services (like Blue Apron)?
a. How does that impact waste creation?
12. How often do you eat out or order in? What do you do with leftovers? How does that affect your
weekly plan?
a. Do leftovers get forgotten about frequently?
13. Look inside their refrigerator, inquire about ingredients, how long they have been there, when
they plan to use it

*****Take photo of grocery cart, refrigerator, or pantry*****

*****Take photo of trash can*****

28