Daily Archives: September 25, 2015

Today we had a nice group work assignment during the lecture. The discussions regarding the situations which could occure when you are starting up a business were fun to do. Maybe for the next time a somewhat complexer company as an example can be usefull, because problems with a orange juice car can relative easily be solved. But nevertheless, the outcome of the discussions were good and learnfull.

After that we had to built the highest tower out of one piece of paper. That assignment was really fun, because our proces described a possible start-up perfectly. At the start we already saw that we were not going to make it with a length of two papers, because everyone was trying that. We decided to go for all or nothing, so we tried to make a tower with a length of three papers. We didn’t succeed and our tower collapsed. You also see this very often with start-ups. People try to be the very best, but just a few succeed in that and the other start-ups fail.

Could not find a way to post it on Linkedin or on Catrin blogpost … sorry!

Look at how cute is Fredrik in front of our paper towel!

So today we played around in class, building towers of paper and getting to know one another. Fun fun fun!

Let me present to you my group for today’s lecture:

FREDRIK HALLBERG – An engineering doing his master in Computer Science. On his spare time he spend a lot of time doing what he’s best at, computer things. Occasionally he turn on his TV for some Netflix and chill though, really nice. And to stay in shape he has promised himself to work out for at least two times a week. In order to do so he’s started to play American Football. Go Fredrik!

CELINE LY – Doing her master in Chemical Science. Straight from Paris and Procter and Gamble she has come to join us here in Stockholm for her final semester. So glad to have you here Celine!  When she’s not studying she loves to travel around the world. But that takes quite some time so mostly she just stay at home watching American series such as Revenge (girl power!) and also baking cakes. Hope she’ll bring a taste for Tuesday 😉

And the last member, me, I will leave to one of my super duper team members to present. So go visit their blogs as well!

Anyhow, as I said we also played with some paper, building towers. I think our group actually was the first with the great design (see picture) but as always, with good ideas there are people trying to copying it. Ended up with another group making a tower like 1 cm taller than ours (applause to you guys…).

Sorry for the super crappy pic but I think you all see how super tall our paper tower is. And for you who wonder what Celine looks like, that’s her right next to it.

Today we had an interesting exercise about teamwork and partners in business. By talking about what other things could happen after the startup of a company, more interestingly about worst case scenarios. This made me think further than the startup, what would happen if my company does not survive after an accident. Had very interesting conversations about this with Zbyszek and Erica.

We also built the most beautiful building by paper. In progress in the picture.

Hi,

I would like to follow up on the discussion paying more fore less functionality. Hallberg posted a discussion post on this and gave two statements I would like to comment on.

First quote: “The more you pay the more you get”

Second quote: “being prepared to pay more to actually get less”

I found both of this interesting and important to discuss when questioning what happens with NoPhone. I think there’s one thing we’re missing when concerning NoPhone as products with less functionality. I would like to separate functionality and customer value. Maybe we shouldn’t observe just the functionality of NoPhone when analyzing the product but rather speak in terms of customer value.

The customers pay for the value the product can create for them, and this is not always directly translated with functionality. Often when we talk about technology we regard more functionality as more value. This is not the situation with NoPhone. With NoPhone you pay for simplicity, not just for having fewer functions. In this case, fewer functions is directly related to simplicity but it doesn’t mean the targeted customers get less from the product.

The value of simplicity for customers like elderly overrules having fewer functions. Also, elderly may sometimes not appreciate the value of all those other functions, they just want to call their family easy. That is what NoPhone offers better than competitors.

So by this I mean that they are not per definition paying more and get less. Maybe this can clear out some questions on the subject. But then I wonder, can we see a trend in what customers value on the electronic market?