Teknik och samhälle
Datavetenskap
Examensarbete
15 högskolepoäng, grundnivåCOST EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE GROCERY
SHOPPING
A
STUDY
INVESTIGATING
THE
USABILITY
OF A
DIGITAL
TOOL IN
AN
EVERYDAY
GROCERY SHOPPING
ENVIRONMENTERIK LUNDOW
OSCAR ANDERSSON
Examen: Kandidatexamen, 180 hp Huvudområde: Datavetenskap
Program: Datavetenskap och applikationsutveckling Datum för slutseminarium: 2020-06-04
Handledare: Agnes Tegen Examinator: Dipak Surie
ABSTRACT
The aim of the study is to see if a digital tool can combine the benefits of shopping online, with the perks of purchasing groceries in a physical store. Previous research in the area has found that grocery shopping online isn’t growing at the same pace as normal retail shopping online. The previous studies have narrowed this down to mainly being because consumers want the touch, feel and inspect groceries with an expiry date. Previous research has also found that consumers don’t want to wait for the delivery of groceries, and that some consumers consider the process of walking around in a grocery store relaxing and enjoyable. There’s also been previous research made around the concept of cross-shopping, something this study made use of, as well as consumers' different transportation methods in conjunction with shopping.
The study first conducted a survey, which gathered input from 140 consumers, from different demographics. The survey was aimed to be used as a foundation for the app that was developed. The initial survey was also inline with both the hypothesis of the researchers, as well as previous work in the area. The app was then pushed out as an alpha release to 16 testers, who gave their input on what was working well, what wasn’t working, and which features they could see giving a better experience. Already here, the result was positive, showing several good effects of the app, with a vast majority of users both finding it useful and money saving.
Based on the input gathered from the alpha testing, the app was further developed and pushed out in a beta release to three testers of different age groups, with whom more in-depth interviews were conducted. The main purpose of the interviews was to get an overview of how different generations used the application and if it changed their behavior somehow while testing it.
75% of the Alpha testers responded that they managed to save money while testing the app and 95% felt that it had in some form helped them plan their grocery shopping. The beta interviews showed a shift in store loyalty and a change for the better in their shopping behaviour. Features such as collaborative shopping lists were shown to be very useful during the COVID-19 pandemic as it helped families carrying out the shopping for their elders. Participants also stated that the app helped them become more conscious about both cost and the environmental effects their shopping can have.
The data gathered from the surveys and interviews indicate that a majority of consumers are more interested in features that involve planning and price comparing and not so much the buying or ordering of products itself. A digital tool developed for grocery shopping should focus on being a part of a consumers shopping journey and not replace it. Key features that this study has deemed to be essential are primarily the ability to create and share shopping lists containing real time information from handpicked stores and displayal of promotions and price comparison in a highlighted manner.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 2
I. INTRODUCTION 5
A. BACKGROUND
5
B. CONCLUSION OF PREVIOUS WORK
7
C. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS
8
D. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
8
II. METHOD
9
A. RESEARCH METHOD
9
B. DATA GATHERING
9
III. RESULT
11
A. SURVEY
11
1. Demographics
11
2. Consumer behaviour
12
3. Consumers and stores
15
4. Consumers and online grocery shopping
18
5. Consumers and the Environment
19
6. Track of interest in digital aid functionality
20
B. DEVELOPED ALPHA APPLICATION
23
1. App foundation
23
3. Browse products
25
4. Shopping list with real products
26
5. Recipes 27
6. Collaborative shopping lists
27
C. ALPHA TESTING USER SURVEY
28
1. General questions about the user
28
2. Questions about the app as a tool
29
3. The app’s usability
31
4. The app’s areas of improvement
33
D. BETA TESTING INTERVIEWS
35
IV. ANALYSIS
37
A. SURVEY
37
1. Shopping behaviour
37
2. Online shopping behaviour
37
3. Areas of improvement
37
C. BETA TESTING INTERVIEWS
38
V. CONCLUSION
39
BIBLIOGRAPHY
41
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
In the Swedish society of today, consumers have shown to be very knowledgeable when it comes to shopping clothes and technical products online, and they do it very frequently [1]. Between 2004 and 2015 online shopping had a yearly growth of approximately 20% and in total it constituted 7.7% out of all retail sales [1]. The act of shopping groceries online however has not seen the same boost in usage [2]. In fact, according to a recent study from 2017, online grocery shopping constitutes no more than 1.4% out of the total amount of grocery sales in Sweden [1].
One study investigates the reasons behind this, and describes the major differences between buying clothes and electronics online, compared to buying groceries. The biggest factor for the consumers was the time difference, where they could afford to wait a couple of days for a piece of attire, but wanted, and needed, the groceries immediately [4]. Another big difference is the hedonic needs for consumers, to be able to touch and feel the products. Where a t-shirt can be exchanged for a different size, that isn’t the case with a fresh avocado. The study also explained that for the small amount of consumers who actually purchase groceries online, the key factors are to get a good overview of the assortment, as well as not having enough time in their everyday life. The consumers who shop in a physical store express a different view, considering grocery shopping a fun activity, that also helps with planning the weekly menu, with all the inspiration available in store [4].
Even though digital aids in the form of websites and mobile applications have been developed and introduced in an attempt to persuade consumers into carrying out their grocery shopping online, consumers' user behaviour and shopping process still largely looks the same as it has been over the last 100 years [3].
A study conducted by the Swedish Retail and Wholesale Council states that the applications that are available today are mostly designed to feel familiar to consumers [2]. Utilities that are already in their habit of usage such as pen and paper, grocery flyers and checkouts have been ported in to a digital interface, which can be handy and neat but it doesn’t break any new grounds or change the overall process and experience of grocery shopping. Furthermore the study states that the difference between digital and physical shopping will, in the future, be harder to distinguish as the two will feed off each other. There will be online stores with physical showrooms as well as traditional stores with digital aids that enhance the practical and emotional experience of shopping. Digital shopping will no longer be an alternative or a competitor to the traditional shops. It will be more of a complementary combination of both that can be described as an “omnichannel”. In addition to this, consumers are also more prepared heading into a physical store, an outcome of the digitalisation and increasingly available information about products and prices [4].
For some customers, shopping groceries can be a tiresome and boring experience. The smartphone can make that process a more joyful experience by providing a feeling of distance to the actual store [5]. It’s common for consumers to interact with their smartphone while shopping by listening to music and communicating with friends. The physical store and the smartphone can together create a hybrid environment that lets the customer carry out the shopping within their own private bubble. The challenge is to find a way to let the store be a part of this private bubble and in doing so contribute to a pleasing shopping experience [5]. Smartphone usage, that can be directly tied to the shopping process, is very limited. [2]. Devices are mostly used in planning before the visit and are not as
applicable to the shopping process itself. For that reason, it’s necessary to find new practical usages that introduces the smartphone into the customers shopping routine.
Cross-shopping is a frequently used term when it comes to shopping groceries, and is described as “consumers preference to shop in multiple stores, to satisfy their needs”. [6] The different causes of this behaviour are store loyalty, discounts and offers, as well as whether or not a store has something in stock. Cross-shopping as a
phenomenon is more visible in sub-urban areas, where there live more families and there exist bigger supermarkets, than in the bigger and more densely populated urban areas [6]. Loyalty to different retailers are also a key factor in purchases, but gets overshadowed by cross-shopping in some cases. This doesn’t mean loyalty is insignificant, it just means that consumers prefer low prices and better products, over shopping in a specific store. The study conducted by J. Kaspersson and I. Olsson explains it as stores layout, discount frequency and relevance, as well as personnel play a big part in the loyalty experience, but that consumers have more and more shifted in their mindset. This is summarized to be a result of stores becoming bigger and no longer being a local shop [6].
Another important issue with today's grocery shopping is the transportation. A study was conducted by C.
Fredriksson et al., investigating the current situation in Helsingborg, a semi-urban area, with plenty of supermarkets and a decreasing city trade situation [7]. The study was conducted by having 100 consumers to fill in daily diaries about their consumption journeys, e.g. going to supermarkets, convenience stores or regular retail shops. The consumers were then asked to describe the purposes of their journeys, and what kind of transportation that was used. The consumers were from a broad range of ages, financial situations and domestic living situations [7].
During the study by C. Fredriksson et al., 1170 journeys for consumption were made, and the study found that in approximately 1 out of 5 cases, journeys to shop were made by car. This was mostly because of the convenience to go with a car. If you removed students from the test group, the number rose to 2 out of 5 journeys [7]. The study also showed that one quarter of the group made over 5 consumption journeys by car each week, and another quarter made between 1 to 4 journeys by car a week [7]. None of the participants of the study mentioned the climate aspect of using the car, or the economical factor of using a car, with taxes, value reduction or the price of gas, however several participants mentioned parking fees [7]. The participants also had a clear pattern of planning their grocery shopping to be conducted on a weekly basis, but they still made, on average, 5 more consumption journeys, where the two main reasons were that the participant had either forgotten something, or impulsively wanted something [7]. The study also showed that it’s possible to decrease the amount of travels required, by planning the shopping better, either by making a more effective weekly plan or by planning the shopping routes in a different way (for example, which route to take with the car). Another thing the study discovered was that albeit the car was used very frequently, it was also in combination with other errands, for example going home from work [7].
During the study, the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded as well, leading to major disrupts in people’s everyday lives, affecting everyone. Social distancing and other means of damage control were brought into effect, leading to a shift towards online shopping. During Q1 in Sweden, e-commerce grew by 16% [14]. Just from February to March, when the pandemic hit Sweden, consumers estimated an increase with more than 30%. For the first time in Swedish e-commerce history, for as long as it’s been measured, health and beauty was the biggest category of purchases. Both pharmaceutical goods and groceries were the categories with the biggest growths, both increasing by around 30% [14]. The increase in grocery sales online could certainly come to affect the outcome of this study, but bearing in mind the low figures in online grocery sales, the 27% increase shouldn’t make too much of a difference [14].
B. CONCLUSION OF PREVIOUS WORK
Based on the different studies conducted within the area, certain common findings can be identified. Consumers seek benefits wherever they look, and are pleased with the benefits shopping online gives, but are still hesitant to transfer that experience into the area that is grocery shopping. One main reason for this has been that shopping online does not fulfil the desire to see, touch and feel the products, which consumers value highly when it comes to products with a limited period of time where it’s edible. Another key reason is that it takes too long to deliver the food when consumers order online (something that was applicable when the study was conducted by A. Gren and N. Nydeström, although is not a huge factor now, when deliveries are made every day within a couple of hours). A third reason was that consumers found the activity of shopping groceries to be both fun and relaxing, as well as part of their inspirational journey [4].
Since the two main reasons both are factors that are difficult to circumvent, there will always be a barrier between shopping online and shopping for groceries. Consumers value the ability to touch and feel more than the perks of shopping online where they have all possible information available. With that considered, and how frequent the car is used among all demographics in connection with purchasing groceries, it’s easy to draw the conclusion that grocery shopping will remain in its current state for a while, as will the car. In regards to this, there’s plenty of undiscovered land, trying to bridge the gap between grocery shopping and online shopping.
Another big difference is, while shopping online loyalty towards stores is a factor with lower priority than shopping in a physical store, leading to consumers purchasing from several vendors with ease. A prime example of someone enabling this is Amazon, who not only sell their own products, but also act as a middle-hand for other retailers and vendors to sell through [8].
From a grocery shopping point of view, there’s always different discounts and offers at the different retailers, which would mean consumers could save plenty of money, with the right information and guidance. There already exists a group of people doing this, usually referred to as ‘coupon hoarders’, who keep track of the different offers available everywhere, and use that to the hoarders advantage [9].
In the study made by C. Fredriksson et al., it was highlighted that a large amount of the consumption journeys made by car, could’ve been prevented if the consumer would plan their purchases better [7]. This will be examined further in this thesis, to see whether or not a digital tool could help.
It is also known that the smartphone is used frequently in the grocery stores, but not really as a tool to help a customer fulfil their journey [2]. Devices are mostly used in planning before the visit and are not as applicable to the shopping process itself. This thesis will for that reason examine the possibilities in finding new practical usages that introduces the smartphone into the customers shopping routine.
There has also been several studies which have concluded that grocery shopping is not running the same risk as normal retail shopping, to be overtaken by online sales [2 - 4]. Those studies describe why, and also explains the potential role of digital aids in the physical grocery store environment. Future applications are estimated to be symbiotic with the real life shopping experience rather than an alternative to it. This thesis will examine the possibilities of this concept by identifying and adapting the application to how consumers traditionally carry out their shopping, and investigating ways to evolve this into a more digital experience.
C. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS
The amount of available applications and websites tied to online shopping are growing at a fast rate. The user frequency of these digital aids are however not growing as fast as one might have expected [1]. The purpose of this thesis work is to develop an application that correlates to what consumers desire in relation to their shopping process and furthermore identify eventual areas that currently available applications fail to realize. There seems to be a gulf of a gap to fill, between the comfort of shopping online to the convenience of shopping in a physical store. This thesis aims to explore the possibilities of this. Another aim of the study is to find different ways to communicate the environmental and economical effects of different choices, to see whether or not interesting and visible data can help consumers make more positive choices, for the planet and for the wallet.
This survey is limited to only Ica and Coop, two big grocery retailers in Sweden. This choice was made because of their APIs accessibility as well as how big market share they have. The study is also affected by the COVID-19 situation, meaning consumers aren’t as much in grocery stores as they were a couple of months ago, especially not elders. Human contact has been forced to a minimum, leading to interviews being conducted online, and the ability to inspect consumer behaviour in a physical store made practically impossible.
D. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
● How can you create a digital tool to streamline grocery shopping?
○ What kind of features are necessary to attract consumers to use it? ○ How can a digital tool increase consumers' cost consciousness? ● How can such a tool be implemented?
II. METHOD
A. RESEARCH METHOD
This study is based upon the Design & Creation research strategy which consists of five general steps that are iterated in an effort to contribute knowledge by designing, implementing and evaluating artifacts [10, 11].
Awareness of problem
The first step is to gather information regarding the problem and narrow down an area of research that requires further investigation. This can come from multiple sources, such as literature, field research, observations and existing developments in technology. The output of this step is a proposal for a new research effort.
Suggestion
In this step a tentative idea of how the problem might be addressed is envisioned and a general outline of the system is documented. The design can be a configuration of existing elements or new envisioned functionality.
Development
The tentative design is developed and implemented into artifacts. An artifact can be of many forms, such as concepts, processes, instantiations or models. Depending on the type of artifact that is to be created the choice of techniques for implementation will vary. The novelty of the study lies primarily in the design of the artifact rather than the construction.
Evaluation
The constructed artifact is evaluated according to the criterias that has been stated in the proposal phase. Metrics and measurements such as functionality, completeness, performance, usability, and aesthetics are analysed and compared with the hypothesis. Does the analysis contradict or confirm the hypothesis? The result of this step is performance measurements, which can lead to either new awareness which suggests a new design or to a conclusion.
Conclusion
The conclusion can either be the end of an iterative research cycle or the finale of a research effort. Knowledge that is gained during each cycle is documented and can be categorized as either firm or loose ends. Firm knowledge are facts that can be recreated and repeatedly invoked while loose ends are irregular behavior with insufficient explanation that needs further research.
Since solutions to the problem aren’t known at the start of the study, development and research needs to be done alternately. Design and creation is a great method when it comes to identifying strategies and solutions for a problem that might not be as apparent from the start [10]. By following the five steps and implementing identified solutions based on data gathered the application will effectively be designed in a manner that satisfies the means of the study.
B. DATA GATHERING
This research was done iteratively, but with three core steps. The first data gathering method was a small survey, with questions about the respondents demographics, and questions about their current shopping situation. How frequently do they shop, how do they travel and if they’re usually using discounts. The survey also contained a
segment about what kind of features they would be interested in, if they were to use a digital tool to assist in their grocery shopping.
Finally respondents were invited to enroll in our testing group and take part in our further surveys. The participants for the first survey were partly chosen on random via social media channels, as well as targeting specific age groups to get a broad demographic.
For a detailed view of the survey, please refer to APPENDIX 1.
From the results of the survey, an alpha version of the app was developed, which then were used as material for the second survey. The second survey was targeted for the testers of the tool, with more detailed questions concerning usability, quality and design of the tool. Testers were also asked to discuss different features that could be useful or not. The participants for the Alpha survey were the people who said they would like to participate in testing the app, and were people from different demographics.
For a detailed view of the survey, please refer to APPENDIX 2
The reason for choosing surveys as a method of data gathering is that it is proven to be an effective method for describing characteristics of a large population [12]. It is also inexpensive and requires minimum effort of the respondents. The anonymity of the respondents is also a factor that has been weighed in, as it allows respondents to answer freely and without hesitation. Furthermore the data gathered from surveys are easy to analyse and compile into one data set [12]. Surveys is also the method that has been used in the previously performed research that has been examined for this study [2 - 4]. Questions that were asked in previously conducted studies were considered as a template for the surveys of this study. This allowed for comparison of our data with existing data which entitled a possibility to identify eventual changes in trends or similarities in customer behaviour.
Both surveys consisted mostly of single-ended questions and rating scales, as the study needed measurable data that could easily be compared with the previously conducted research. The ending segments however offered a few open-ended questions that received answers of a more qualitative nature. These answers were used to pick up eventual flaws in the application as well as further improvements that can be made.
The participants were asked to use the Alpha app in their everyday life, and to try integrating it into their usual shopping routine. Therefore, no specific tasks or user flows were assigned, for the study to attain answers just as if it was a completely new app no one had used before. The reason for this was to get a good overview over how straight-forward the design was, and to pick up on where users had pain points we otherwise maybe wouldn’t have noticed. It also helps to investigate whether or not the participants actually felt the app could make a difference in their everyday lives.
A beta version of the application was then developed based on the feedback from the second survey. The beta version was tested by three alpha testers of different age groups and more in-depth interviews were conducted. The interviews were conducted over phone with prepared questions of a semi-structured nature. This method was chosen as it has been proven to be a suitable tool for interpreting consumers opinions and distinguishing behaviour patterns [13]. Observation was considered to be used in combination with the interviews, but it was not as
unconstrained to do, due to the current pandemic COVID-19. For a detailed view of the interviews, please refer to APPENDIX 5-7.
III. RESULT
A. SURVEY
The survey received answers from 140 unique respondents with a wide demographic spread. For a detailed view of the responses please refer to APPENDIX 3.
1. Demographics
Age (Figure 1)
Figure 1, Age of respondents
Gender (Figure 2)
Figure 2, Gender of respondents
Living Situation (Figure 3)
2. Consumer behaviour
Weekly frequency of grocery shopping (Figure 4)
Figure 4, Weekly frequency of grocery shopping
Frequency of planning for grocery shopping (Figure 5)
Figure 5, Frequency of planning for grocery shopping
Choice of transportation in relation with shopping (Figure 6)
Frequency of shopping trips in combination with other activities (Figure 7)
Figure 7, Frequency of shopping trips in combination with other activities
User frequency of digital aids such as self scanning devices in stores (Figure 8)
Figure 8, User frequency of digital aids such as self scanning devices in stores
Reasons for not using digital aids (If answered no on previous question) (Figure 9)
User frequency of cell phones while shopping (Figure 10)
Figure 10, User frequency of cell phones while shopping
What do they use it for (If answered yes on previous question) (Figure 11)
3. Consumers and stores
Stores consumers frequently buy their groceries at (Figure 12)
Figure 12, Stores consumers frequently buy their groceries at
Distance to closest grocery store (Figure 13)
Type of grocery store consumers frequently buy their groceries at
(Figure 14)
Figure 14, Type of grocery store consumers frequently buy their groceries at
Frequency of consumers who plan their shopping according to promotions and sales
(Figure 15)
Figure 15, Frequency of consumers who plan their shopping according to promotions and sales
Weekly frequency of shopping at a supermarket (Figure 16)
Reasons for being loyal to a certain store (Figure 17)
Figure 17, Reasons for being loyal to a certain store
Frequency of consumers shops at multiple stores (cross-shopping) in order to get the best prices possible (Figure 18)
Figure 18, Frequency of consumers shops at multiple stores (cross-shopping) in order to get the best prices possible
4. Consumers and online grocery shopping
Frequency of consumers who usually shop groceries online (Figure 19)
Figure 19, Frequency of consumers who usually shop groceries online
Frequency of consumers who preorders their groceries for pickup, out of the ones who do shop online (Figure 20)
Figure 20, Frequency of consumers who preorders their groceries for pickup, out of the ones who do shop online
Reasons for not pre ordering their groceries for pickup has been answered with open ended responses. The most frequent responses mentioned that they like to look and feel their groceries. For a detailed view of the responses please refer to APPENDIX 3.
Frequency of consumers who preorders their groceries for delivery, out of the ones who do shop online (Figure 21)
Figure 21, Frequency of consumers who preorders
their groceries for delivery, out of the ones who do shop online
Reasons for not pre ordering their groceries for delivery has been answered with open ended responses. For a detailed view of the responses please refer to APPENDIX 3.
5. Consumers and the Environment
Frequency of consumers who usually shop organic products (Figure 22)
Figure 22, Frequency of consumers who usually shop organic products
Frequency of consumers who considers the environmental impact in their choice of transportation in relation to grocery shopping (Figure 23)
Figure 23, Frequency of consumers who considers the environmental impact in their choice of transportation in relation to grocery shopping
Frequency of consumers who would, if well presented, let the environmental impact of groceries affect their decision when choosing groceries (Figure 24)
Figure 25, Frequency of consumers who would, if well presented, let the environmental impact of groceries affect their decision when choosing groceries
6. Track of interest in digital aid functionality
The following questions have been answered in a scale of one to five where one represents “Not at all interested” and five represents “Very interested”.
Interest in being able to create and edit grocery lists digitally on their phone and have access to said lists at any time and anywhere (Figure 26)
Figure 26, Interest in being able to create and edit grocery lists digitally on their phone and have access to said lists at any time and anywhere
Interest in being able to share and cooperate in shopping lists (digitally in real time) (Figure 27)
Figure 27, Interest in being able to share and cooperate in shopping lists (digitally in real time)
Interest in being able to add products to their shopping lists that are directly tied to a recipe (Figure 28)
Interest in being able to add products to a list that resembles real products, instead of plain text such as “Banana” or “Ham”, and in doing so get an idea of the price?
(Figure 29)
Figure 29, Interest in being able to add products to a list that resembles real products, instead of plain text such as “Banana” or “Ham”, and in doing so get an idea of the price?
Interest in being able to see the actual prices of products in stores in their nearby location and in doing so help them find current promotions and offers. (Figure 30)
Figure 30, Interest in being able to see the actual prices of products in stores in their nearby location and in doing so help them find current promotions and offers.
Interest in being able to order a list of groceries from a store of their choice directly based on their grocery list. (Figure 31)
Figure 31, Interest in being able to order a list of groceries from a store of their choice directly based on their grocery list.
An open ended question has been asked about what other functionality consumers could find to be helpful in planning their grocery shopping. The most frequent responses mentioned that they would be interested in statistics regarding the environmental impact of their shopping.
For a detailed view of the responses please refer to APPENDIX 3.
B. DEVELOPED ALPHA APPLICATION
In the first iteration of developing the application we’ve focused on implementing the core functionality for the user cases that attracted the most interest amongst the survey respondents.
1. App foundation
The application is developed with the framework React Native, which allows for cross-platform development. This means it’s possible to develop for both iOS and Android, sharing code between the platforms. React Native is also similar to React for Web, because the code is written in JavaScript and the design blocks are very similar to HTML which is used for web development. Because of this, transferring the app to a web page wouldn’t be too much work either.
Another very valuable thing with React Native is, as the name suggests, that it renders everything in native code, which means the performance is as good as it gets, and in comparison to a web app, it can access native features such as the camera feed.
Back-end wise, the app uses a realtime database in Firebase to store user details and shopping lists. This allows for instant updates in the app when some data has been modified, which is important to implement features like a collaborative shopping list. On Firebase there’s also several cloud functions, which supplies endpoints for searching for products, fetching product information and store availability.
To reach out to alpha and beta participants the app has been published at the two major app stores. For Android, the app has been published to the Google Play Store as a publically available release candidate. For iPhones, the app is published in TestFlight, via the App Store, where it’s available for a selected tester group.2. Store dependent results While signing up in the app, the users are also prompted with a map of local stores. The users select which stores they usually shop at, and these stores will then be used throughout the app. The stores are used in the search results, the product details and in the shopping lists, so the app always contains the latest pricing, discount and availability information. This has been fully implemented for ICA and Coop for an Alpha version (Figure 32)].
User case:
1. A user is registered to the application a. The user signs in.
2. A user is not registered to the application
a. The user provides a combination of email and password that satisfies the constraints. b. On success the user is navigated to a store page.
c. Stores are generated on the map based on the location of the user. The user can update their location by providing another zip code.
d. The user chooses a number of stores that they would like to carry out their shopping with.
3. Browse products
The functionality to browse and find products has been implemented to some extent. The users are able to search for products, but it isn’t possible to browse products by categories for example. The search is conducted by searching through the retailers search APIs, and then matching the results with each other (Figure 33).
User case:
1. The user provides a search term
a. A list of products that are related to the search term is displayed 2. The user clicks on a listitem
a. A more detailed page about the selected product is displayed. b. The user can select an amount of the products by using a spinner.
c. The user can add the product to their list by clicking the green checkmark. 3. The user swipes up from the bottom
a. A drawer containing the shopping list is expanded
b. The user can edit the list by pressing on the quantity of a product c. A more detailed page about the selected product is displayed. d. Any change of quantity is saved by pressing the green checkmark e. A product can be removed by pressing the grey x to the left of the spinner
4. Shopping list with real products
Users are able to add, change and remove products from their list, as well as see prices, store availability and promotions. Users are also able to move on from their list into a so-called ‘picking mode’, where the users, based on their preference, can see where they should buy their products. The app currently supports two different preferences, the environmentally friendly option, and the most economically beneficial option. The difference between the two is that the environmentally friendly option, only opts for one store, to reduce transportation between stores, and the economically beneficial option gives the user a list which combines the different stores, to serve the cheapest price
(Figure 33), (Figure 34).
5. Recipes
The users are able to search for recipes that contain a specific word or a product. For the Alpha the users could just find recipes, and read ingredients and instructions (Figure 35).
Figure 35, Alpha version of recipes
6. Collaborative shopping lists
The core functionality for collaborative shopping lists is in the app, the only thing missing is the ability to share it, by the Alpha release. The shopping list is implemented using the Firestore realtime database, which means every device accessing the data, will update when the data is modified.
C. ALPHA TESTING USER SURVEY
We pushed out an alpha version of the application to a test group of 16 users. After installing the app and testing all of the functions, we asked them to answer a small survey regarding their experience of using the app and provide input that may improve its functionality, usability and design.
1. General questions about the user
What type of smartphone do you use? (Figure 36)
Figure 36, What type of smartphone do you use?
Do you usually shop in more than one store? (Figure 37)
Do you usually shop groceries for the entire week? (Figure 38)
Figure 38, Do you usually shop groceries for the entire week?
2. Questions about the app as a tool
Has the app helped you with your grocery shopping? (Figure 39)
Figure 39, Has the app helped you with your grocery shopping?
Has the app helped you plan your grocery shopping? (Figure 40)
Has the app helped you find discounts? (Figure 41)
Figure 41, Has the app helped you find discounts?
Has the app helped you reduce your grocery costs? (Figure 42)
Figure 42, Has the app helped you reduce your grocery costs?
On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘very bad’ and 5 is ‘very good’, how good would you say the app’s worked for you? (Figure 43)
Figure 43, On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘very bad’ and 5 is ‘very good’, how good would you say the app’s worked for you?
3. The app’s usability
On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘very bad’ and 5 is ‘very good’, how good would you say the app’s design has worked for you? (Figure 44)
Figure 44, On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘very bad’ and 5 is ‘very good’, how good would you say the app’s design has worked for you?
Has all of the information been presented in a clear way? (Figure 45)
Figure 45, Has all of the information been presented in a clear way?
What could have been better?
The most frequent responses mentioned that they would like to easier find discounted prices and that they would like to be able to import products to their shopping list from a recipe. This is a question with open ended responses, for a detailed view of the responses please refer to APPENDIX 4.
Is it easy to find products? (Figure 46)
Figure 46, Is it easy to find products?
Is it easy to edit your shopping list? (Figure 47)
Figure 47, Is it easy to edit your shopping list?
Does the app crash on some occasions? (Figure 48)
4. The app’s areas of improvement
This section of the survey was intended to get a clear overview of what features were highly requested.
Would you like to save your favourite recipes? (Figure 49)
Figure 49, Would you like to save your favourite recipes?
Would you like to be able to import products to your shopping list from a recipe? (Figure 50)
Would you like to be able to share and collaborate on shopping lists with friends and family? (Figure 51)
Figure 51, Would you like to be able to share and collaborate on shopping lists with friends and family?
Would you like to be able to scan barcodes, and instantly find detailed information about the product and its availability and pricing? (Figure 52)
Figure 52, Would you like to be able to scan barcodes, and instantly find detailed information about the product and its availability and pricing?
Which function would you value the most? (Figure 53)
Which function would you value the least? (Figure 54)
Figure 54, Which function would you value the least?
Is there something else you would like to change with the app?
The most frequent responses mentioned that they would like to easier find discounted prices, to be able to get a better overview of which stores they should shop at, filtering of search results, and to have template shopping lists, so the user doesn’t have to create a new one each time. This is a question with open ended responses, for a detailed view of the responses please refer to APPENDIX 4.
D. BETA TESTING INTERVIEWS
The beta version of the application featured a few minor bug fixes and updates. Mostly backend solutions that optimized the communication between our api and client as well as smoother transitions between screens. A major feature that was implemented is the ability to create multiple lists and share them with other users as it was heavily requested amongst the alpha test group.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three beta participants, one young male adult , one female adult and one female elder. To start off the interview, some basic questions about the participant and their shopping habits were asked. The interviews were continued with questions about their experience about the developed product, and finished off with areas of improvement as well as if the participant had noticed a change in their own behavior in regards to grocery shopping.
The main purpose of the interviews was to get an overview of how different generations used the application, if they found it useful and if it changed their behavior somehow. The original idea was to have certain test cases, and examine how they interacted with the application, and then follow their journey around stores. The current COVID-19 situation, with social restrictions, meant this wasn’t possible to execute, so instead the interviews were quickly conducted using regular phone calls, and notes were taken [APPENDIX 5,6,7].
For the study, the interview had the following questions prepared:
Questions about participant
● What’s your age?
● In what kind of area do you live, and how close do you live to your stores? ● Explain your usual shopping routine
○ How often do you shop for groceries? ○ Do you plan ahead?
Questions about experience and areas of improvement
● How did you feel about the application? ○ What was good and what was bad? ○ How could it improve?
● Would you consider implementing the application in your future shopping routine? ○ If so, in what ways?
○ If not, what is putting you off?
● How did you like the design, and in what ways could it improve?
○ Did the design feel fluent, intuitive and natural? Was it hard to understand? ○ Did the design make you want to use the app more?
Questions about participants change in behavior
● Have you shopped in stores you usually don’t go to?
● Did your shopping routine change in any way while using the application? ○ Did you plan more or less?
○ Did you find the recipes to be helpful while planning? ● Has the application affected your cost consciousness in any way?
● Is there anything else you’d like to add about your experience with the application?
The interviews had a generally speaking good outcome, even if they couldn’t be executed in the manner that was first intended. All age groups seemed to have changed their behavior in one way or another, and they were all pleased with the designs. They also had pretty good input regarding features that can be improved in future versions, mostly regarding the handling of recipes. As another effect of COVID-19, the participants seemed positive about collaborative shopping lists.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. SURVEY
The survey had 140 respondents, from different age groups, living situations and genders. Most respondents were living in a smaller city, which means there might be easier access to larger store formats, compared to what’s on offer in bigger cities.
1. Shopping behaviour
According to our survey, reaching 140 respondents with a broad demographic, the general consumer plans their grocery shopping on a weekly basis and they go to a store 1-3 times a week [APPENDIX 3]. The majority of these consumers, 59.3%, do not bother to check for discounts or compare prices between stores while planning, as they feel that it takes up too much of their time. 66.4% confirm that they use their phone while shopping, mostly for reading recipes or checking their grocery list. 66.4% also acknowledges that the reason for going to a particular store is that it is within the most convenient distance from their home. A majority of the consumers, 82.8%, rarely choose to buy ecological products and on the off chance that they do the ecological products have a reduced price. 70.7% would however consider buying more eco-friendly products if the environmental impact was displayed in a clear way.
2. Online shopping behaviour
88.6% of the respondents rarely or never carry out their grocery shopping through online services. When asked why they don’t use the available services they responded with a variety of answers. The most frequent reasons were that consumers prefer the in store experience, to be able to see and feel the products, that they most often aren’t sure about what they want until they see it and that they consider the act of shopping as a part of their weekly activities that they enjoy. These answers are very much in line with studies that were conducted in 2017 by Handelsrådet, consumers generally enjoy shopping for groceries and the purpose of online services should not be to replace the activity as a whole [2].
3. Areas of improvement
In the survey we asked the respondents for areas within their shopping routine that they feel an application could improve the experience and efficiency. 65.7% stated that they would be interested in a digital tool that would assist them in managing their shopping lists. 78.6% responded that they would like to be able to compare prices and offers of products between stores of their choice. 62.2% showed little to no interest for an application that can place an order from the store that offers the items of their shopping list for the best price. The answers showed an overall more interest in functionality tied to the preparing and planning phase of their shopping rather than the actual act of buying or ordering the groceries. This once again indicates that digital tools and services that are tied to grocery shopping should focus on being a part of the consumers preparation and not so much on being an alternative choice, as earlier stated by multiple studies conducted through the years of 2015 and 2017 [2 - 4].
B. ALPHA TESTING SURVEY
The Alpha testing survey asked questions about the application performance, and how the participants felt it catered to their needs. Most features proved to be appreciated by the majority of the participants. Over 95% of the people answered Yes or Yes, a bit about the app helping them plan their grocery shopping, and to top it off 3 out of 4 of the participants managed to save money using the app. This shows that the app has been good enough for people to use, and integrate in their shopping routine. It also shows that it has had a significant economical effect.
A resounding majority also considered it to be easy to edit their shopping lists, and to find products. The majority of people asked also thought the app’s usability was good.
The survey also asked questions about what features the participants needed or wanted. The most popular ones were the ability to import products straight from recipes into their shopping list, and the ability to share and have multiple shopping lists.
C. BETA TESTING INTERVIEWS
The Beta testing interviews worked almost as a follow-up of the Alpha test survey, where participants from different demographics were selected to discuss the application and if they’ve changed their behavior because of it. The interviews were analysed by identifying words and phrases that could be tied to the study and comparing the results of each interview with each other. A more structural analysis method would have been of use, had it been possible to perform more in-depth observational studies with user-cases. But since the study was constricted into smaller interviews over phone limited to three participants, due to the pandemic and restricted time frame, an analyse method of such was deemed unnecessary considering the small size of data that has been generated.
All of the people interviewed said they’ve changed their usual shopping routine by using the app, especially when it came to planning their shopping. The participants said they had been made more aware of current running
campaigns and discounts, which had pushed them to plan their weekly dinner schedule to contain those products. The interviews also showed that people had changed which stores they shop at, somewhat hinting at a shift in loyalty. For example, one of the interviewed usually shopped at City Gross, but have now started shopping more at ICA. The participant explained this to be partly because the app didn’t have support for City Gross, and they liked the convenience of the app too much to not use it, as well as that the products she found in the app at ICA seemed better than what she usually bought at City Gross. This coincides with what was shown by Kaspersson and Olsson, that loyalty isn’t as big of a factor now with the big store formats as it once were with smaller local shops [6]. Some of the interviewed also mentioned how useful the application has been during the COVID-19 pandemic, with all the restrictions that have brought. For example, the collaborative shopping lists were used to communicate from a person in the risk group to their family members, so they knew what to purchase for them.
The participant also thought the app helped them become more conscious about both cost and the environmental effects their shopping can have, which is a positive result considering what’s being researched.
V. CONCLUSION
Grocery shopping online is growing, but not anywhere near at the rate of other retail online shopping. In the survey conducted in this study, almost 9 out of 10 people said they didn’t shop online, the main reasons being that they weren’t used to it, and that they wanted to see and feel the products. This aligns with the study conducted by A. Gren and N. Nydeström, which mentions similar behaviour, describing it as a consumer's hedonistic need to be able to see, feel and touch a product [4].
The results of this study shows that not much has changed regarding the frequency of shopping groceries online compared to studies that were conducted in 2017 [2 - 4]. 88.6% states that they rarely or never use online tools in relation to their shopping, 66.4% however states that they do interact with their phone while shopping. As stated by related work, the key to boosting the use of digital tools in relation to shopping lays within figuring out a solution that coincides with the existing shopping behaviour [5]. Such a solution should not replace the shopping experience as a whole, but rather complement it. The results of this study has shown an interest in implementing tools into their shopping routine, if these tools are focused on the right areas and functionality. 65.7% states that they would be interested in an application that can help them plan out their grocery shopping and 78.6% states that they would have use of the ability to compare prices between stores. 62.2% showed little to no interest in the ability to order groceries through a tool and the features of the solution should for that reason focus more on the preparation phase of shopping rather than the execution phase.
When it comes to grocery shopping, consumers want the comfortability of shopping online, with all information available at their fingertips instantly, but they also don’t want to lose the perks of shopping in a physical grocery store. Consumers want to see and feel the groceries they’re about to purchase, to get a sense of how fresh they are. From the initial survey, consumers seemed very interested in being able to see discounts, managing shopping lists and seeing actual products, instead of just generic product names like ‘Milk’ or ‘Juice’.
For the Alpha release, those features were implemented and got a very good response, with a majority of the people that were asked feeling that the application had helped them plan their shopping better, and even save money. Beyond this, consumers had opinions about features that would help them even more, where the ability to import products into a shopping list from a recipe ranked highest. Being able to work more than one user on a shopping list simultaneously was also a very highly regarded feature that the consumers felt a need for.
The Beta interviews further proved that this feature set seemed instrumental for the success of an application like this. In order to attract consumers, and to make consumers willing to change their traditional grocery shopping behavior, there needs to be features that attract them to do that. For example, highlighting discounts, and showing the consumers how much money they can save, is a good incentive.
The features this study deems to be essential for a digital tool like this to have are ● Being able to find actual products that are in nearby stores
● Shopping lists should be able to be shared and collaborated with ● Promotions and discounted products should be highlighted ● Ability to find recipes based on discounted products ● Import products from recipes into a shopping list
When it comes to increasing consumers’ cost consciousness, it’s important to decide when and where in the application it’s best to show it, and decide what to show. During this research, different measures were tested, and it was ultimately decided that showing the total savings at the end of the journey was the most effective. This was due to the fact that when a consumer has added several products to their shopping list, and wants to make a decision about whether or not they want the efficient or economical route, the sum is bigger than if they just see it per product. Other ways this has been implemented in the app is by showing how much each portion costs for a recipe, and how much money a consumer could save by taking advantage of a specific promotion.
There’s several different ways for this to be implemented, but a solution like this is best when it’s available on multiple platforms, especially for mobile. That’s why using a framework like React Native has been super efficient, since it allows for developing applications for both iOS and Android simultaneously using the same code base, saving a lot of time and effort. It’s also easy to port over to the web, meaning the application would be available on most devices.
As discussed in the study by C. Fredriksson et al., consumption journeys could potentially be decreased if customers planned their shopping better [7]. Based on the results from the surveys conducted in this thesis, this theory is proven to be correct. The difference between the first and second survey, shows that consumers have noticed a change in behaviour because of the app’s ability to help during the planning process. This confirms the hypothesis made by C. Fredriksson et al.
In the study conducted by A. Berndt et al., it was highlighted that smartphones are used frequently by consumers while shopping, but for the most part not as a part of the shopping [2]. The study emphasized the importance of identifying features that can be introduced into this process in order to see a growth in the use of digital applications. This study has shown that the ability to compare prices between stores, as well as collaborating on shopping lists, are two features that have improved the shopping experience amongst the participants. Another feature that has been identified through surveys and interviews is the ability to import a list of groceries directly from a recipe, but it hasn’t been fully implemented and could be investigated in future work.
As stated in multiple studies, digital tools in relation to shopping are in the future predicted to be more symbiotic with the shopping process rather than a full alternative option [2 - 4]. This thesis has proven that a digital tool has been appreciated in the shopping journey, and several participants would like the integration to go even further, including payment and in-store navigation. Such an integration satisfies the hedonistic needs to be able to look, feel and interact with the groceries, while still evolving the shopping experience into a modern and interactive digital environment.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] E. Andersson, J. Ekman, “E-handel av dagligvaror: Varför tillämpas det inte mer?” Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet, 2018:06. [Online].
Available: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1215324/FULLTEXT01.pdf. [Accessed Jan. 23, 2020].
[2] A. Berndt, U. Holmberg, H Jafari, B. Harmann, M. Ots, “Mobilapplikationer i dagligvaruhandel” Handelsrådet, 2017:06, Juni, 2017. [Online].
Available: http://diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1137737/FULLTEXT01.pdf. [Accessed Jan. 23, 2020].
[3] A. Svingstedt, K. Bäckström, C. Fuentes, “Digitalisering i handeln: Mobiltelefonen och den fysiska butiken”, . I U. Johansson (Red.), Framtidens fysiska butik: Digitalisering, upplevelser och hållbarhet (s. 47-56), Lund
University, 2018. [Online]
Available: https://portal.research.lu.se/portal/files/53113806/framtidens_fysiska_butik_webb.pdf
[Accessed Jan. 23, 2020]
[4] A. Gren and N. Nydeström, “Mat med ett klick : En kvalitativ studie om konsumentbeteende och inköp av livsmedel online”, Södertörn Högskola, 2018. [Online]
Available: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-35551 [Accessed Apr. 13, 2020]
[5] E. Fekete, “Hybrid Spaces of Economic Activity”, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, Four$square 2015. [Online] Available:
https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/18733/Fekete_ku_0099D_13877_DATA_1.pdf?sequence=1&i sAllowed=y
[Accessed Apr.10, 2020]
[6] [1] J. Kaspersson and I. Olsson, “En studie kring cross-shopping, lojalitet och värdeskapande: Examensarbete”, Linnéuniversitetet, 2016. [Online]
Available: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A945200&dswid=3666 [Accessed Apr.13, 2020]
[7] C. Fredriksson, L. Eskilsson, O. Thufvesson, K. Bäckström & C. Fuentes, D. Aslan, A. Svingstedt, “Handelsstad i förvandling.“, Lund University, 2017. [Online] Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Devrim_Aslan/publication/321803646_Handelsstad_i_forvandling/links/5a327 b820f7e9b2a28f557f3/Handelsstad-i-foervandling.pdf#page=87
[Accessed Mar.30, 2020]
[8] G. Lai, H. Liu, W. Xiao, “Fulfilled by Amazon: A Strategic Perspective of Competition at the E-commerce Platform” 2018:8. [Online]
Available:: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3270958
[Accessed Apr.13 2020]
Available: https://www.couponjubilee.com/extreme-couponing-for-beginners/
[Accessed Apr.13 2020]
[10] D. Ahmed, D. Sundaram, "Design Science Research Methodology: An Artefact-Centric Creation and Evaluation Approach",ACIS 2011 Proceedings. 79, 2011. [Online]
Available: https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2011/79
[Accessed Apr.13 2020]
[11] V. Vaishnavi, W. Kuechler. Design research in information systems, 2013 [Online] Available: http://desrist.org/design-research- in-information-systems/
[Accessed Apr.9 2020]
[12] P. Ghauri, K. Grønhaug. Research Methods in Business Studies. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 2010. [13] J. Trost. Kvalitativa intervjuer, Lund, Studentlitteratur, 2005
[14] C. Teder, A. Andersson. E-Barometern Q1,Svensk Digital Handel, 2020
[Online] Available:http://pages.postnord.com/rs/184-XFT-949/images/e-barometern-q1-2020.pdf
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1, Survey 1: Form available online at https://forms.gle/tb3KMp42DXhW4Zgg8 APPENDIX 2, Survey 2: Form available online at https://forms.gle/ZEfaab4k3yq5ps8K6 APPENDIX 3, Responses to survey 1: Responses available online at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Tkq_ceQHJizNYefLI7pXx_7dKQvoTM_RNAHp4VdsqDA/edit?usp=shar ing
APPENDIX 4, Responses to survey 2: Responses available online at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IjilZIN_NGDLT_R69r4wAAy8VmOFC1FTH65UGmAK4WI/edit?usp=sh aring
APPENDIX 5, Beta testing interview 1:
Questions about participant
● What’s your age? A: 25 years
● In what kind of area do you live, what’s your living situation, and how close do you live to your stores? A: I live in a larger city, Malmö, in an apartment together with my girlfriend and one other friend. I always shop at the closest store, Hemköp.
● Explain your usual shopping routine
○ How often do you shop for groceries? A: Almost every day
○ Do you plan ahead?
A: I don’t really plan my grocery shopping. I usually look up a recipe for the day and then go to the store that’s closest to me. While at the store i might find an offer that changes my mind and i’ll adjust my shopping list accordingly, it’s very spontaneous.
○ How’s your prior experience with digital aids?
A: I always use the digital aids that are available at a store, I usually find it to be helpful and effective. My favourite utility is the self-checkout stations, as I don’t have to wait in a line and can pack my groceries at my own pace. However, I don’t shop groceries online. The reason for that is simply that I for the most time don’t know what I want until I'm at the store.
A: Questions about experience and areas of improvement
● How did you feel about the application? ○ What was good and what was bad? ○ How could it improve?
A: I particularly enjoyed the recipe feature. As I usually take screenshots of recipes and shop accordingly this was a welcome feature in my shopping routine. It was also a nice feature that I could share the shopping list with my partner. I usually do all the shopping, so it’s great that she could add the items
that she wanted me to buy. It would be nice to be able to add/delete all products that are tied to a recipe, if I choose to change to another recipe.
● Would you consider implementing the application in your future shopping routine? ○ If so, in what ways?
A: I will definitely be using the application if it’s released. Mostly for the recipes and shared lists. I rarely bother to look for available offers, but the application did help me find some offers I wouldn't have otherwise.
○ If not, what is putting you off?
● How did you like the design, and in what ways could it improve?
○ Did the design feel fluent, intuitive and natural? Was it hard to understand?
A: It’s very responsive and easy to use. I had no problem figuring out the features, but it would be a good idea to provide a tutorial for those who aren't as used to applications.
○ Did the design make you want to use the app more?
A: I enjoyed the color scheme and design of the applications. It felt joyful and professional. It’s quite fast as well, I was impressed. It did however seem like it’s optimized for larger devices such as mine. My partner however has a smaller iPhone and some components did not fit the screen quite as well. It didn’t prevent her from being able to use the application, but it could definitely be improved.
Questions about participants change in behavior
● Have you shopped in stores you usually don’t go to?
A: Yes, the store I usually go to, Hemköp, wasn’t available in the application. Instead I walked to ICA and COOP that’s located a little bit further down my street.
● Did your shopping routine change in any way while using the application? ○ Did you plan more or less?
A: I wouldn’t say that it has changed the way I plan for groceries, but it did extend my planning to every other day instead of daily
○ Did you find the recipes to be helpful while planning?
A: Yes, this was for me the most useful feature. I found it to be quick ● Has the application affected your cost consciousness in any way?
A: Yes, in the sense that I found out that ICA is for the most time a lot cheaper than COOP and Hemköp. It’s very clear when you compare a full list of groceries from two different stores, the small price differences really do add up. I’ll probably do my future shopping at ICA, it’s worth the trip. ● Is there anything else you’d like to add about your experience with the application?
A: I really did enjoy using the application, as I said earlier I’m always open to new tools. Sharing lists saved me from taking multiple and unnecessary trips, as I usually forget to buy things that my partner wants.
It feels like it could be a viable tool for everyone if it’s tweaked a little bit more and fine tuned. It would be nice to be able to save my favourite recipes in a list. You should also add facebook as a sign in alternative, the registration part is always the most boring part and I want to get started as fast as possible.
APPENDIX 6, Beta testing interview 2:
Questions about participant
● What’s your age? A: 51 years young
● In what kind of area do you live, what’s your living situation, and how close do you live to your stores? A: Small city, with a population of around 40k. Live in a house with my husband and two teenagers. ● Explain your usual shopping routine
○ How often do you shop for groceries?
Around four times a week, nowadays maybe a bit more because have to buy for my parents as well because of COVID-19
■ How have you communicated what to buy with your parents?
A: First with SMS, and then by using the app, with collaborative shopping lists. ○ Do you plan ahead?
A: Yes, I plan each week what to eat, and cross-reference with available discounts in my local stores.
○ How’s your prior experience with digital aids?
A: The only prior experience with digital tools I’ve used with grocery shopping have been with the self-checkout scanners, and by using the notes on my iPhone to write what I’m going to buy.
Questions about experience and areas of improvement
● How did you feel about the application?
A: I really liked the application, because it meant I didn’t have to write a physical shopping list, and go through all the ads I’ve gotten in the post.
○ What was good and what was bad?
A: The best thing for me was the ability to collaborate with my parents in the app, but that’s mainly because of COVID-19 and it making my life much easier. Otherwise I’d probably say it’s the ability to build a list based on real products, and to see the prices and discounts directly. This saved me so much time, and it made it easier to find exactly what to buy in the store once there. ○ How could it improve?
A: I would like the offers to be even more visible, and maybe personalised results on what I usually buy, like there are on online stores I usually visit. I also want to see products from City Gross and Willys, and the small local shops.
● Would you consider implementing the application in your future shopping routine? ○ If so, in what ways?
A: Yes, I’ve already pretty much made it my go-to tool to plan my weekly shopping. I use my phone for everything, so it’s nice to have everything in one place.
○ If not, what is putting you off?
● How did you like the design, and in what ways could it improve?
○ Did the design feel fluent, intuitive and natural? Was it hard to understand?
A: Yes, I really liked it, pink is my favourite color. It’s also very handy to be able to control almost everything by gestures, so you don’t have to click around so much.
○ Did the design make you want to use the app more?
A: I’d probably use it anyway, I’m not too picky, but it definitely made it more interesting and fun to use.
