When first joining Sainsbury’s, I found that the team were using templates for their page builds.
After talking with a number of the producer team I found that they want more control within their pages. As the team did not have HTML skills it caused a lot of pages to break as they tried to change their pages.
Here I instigated the move for our designs to be component based. Allowing our producer team to changed the content of the page and quickly and easily create their own templates without the need to brief a new template and duplicate content.
First building the atoms that allowed the producer to choose the text format they wanted to use within their content.
Then producing multiple templates the producer can use within their pages and drop content into.
When working within the camping range, we received a lot of complaints that the user would wake up in the middle of the night with the tent leaking. With total refunds for a tent being around 7%. After receiving a number of the returned samples and assembling them in the garden and leaving them up over the weekend, none leaked.
The actual problem came to light when we received one returned sample, that showed the knots that this particular customer was using to tie their guy lines.
This showed that there was a lack of knowledge in our customers when it came to camping. Showing that we generally dealt with new/novice campers. The products were fine but although the Instruction manuals were benchmarked with competitors, we were missing vital information to let novice campers understand how to set up tents to avoid morning condensation.
So a relatively simple change to add more information within the IM that helped reduce returns and give our customers a better experience. That showed how important it is to understand the customer that buys into your specific product, and not just the range as a whole.
How manufacturing faults can lead a user to think their product has failed. Whilst at TESCO I was given a product that from first impressions was great and met everything the user would want, from being able to produce thousands of bubbles over a short period of time. But the reviews were poor, and the returns figures were increasing more and more. The complaints coming back was the after a period of time the wand would fail, stopping the machine from working. This product had been on sale for a number of years, with similar reviews and quite a high returns percentage.
After getting a few returned samples in to the office, along with buying some brand new, we put a few batteries in and found that out of the 10 I had on my desk, 9 worked fine, which immediately made us think that users were returning these after a summers party, as they have served their purpose. Exploring more and leaving the machines to run, sure enough the wand in each of the bubble machine started to fail, leaving only the fan in the back rotating until the batteries ran out. My decision was then to replace the batteries to see what would happen. Sure enough, the Bubble machine began to work fine.
This immediately showed that the actual product was made out of two circuit boards and simply the batteries had run out in the wand. Quite a simple oversight when manufacturing the machine had led to around a 10% returns rate for a product where simply one half of the batteries in the product had run out. It was surprising how simply this could be fixed by joining the circuit boards into one, then allowing the customer to see the cue of when the batteries were running down as the wands and fan begin to slow and eventually stop together.