Agree x Apiary Academy
A product management challenge held by Apiary Academy in Collaboration with Agree by Telkom Indonesia.
Embedded Files
Role:
Role:
Product Management Challenge Participant
Held on:
Held on:
March 2023
About Product Challenge:
About Product Challenge:
Apiary Product Challenge is a mini-product competition held by Apiary Academy in Collaboration with Agree by Telkom Indonesia that focused on digitalizing agriculture in Indonesia since 2019.
This Product Challenge focuses on Agree's service named Agreepedia - an ecosystem that provides collaboration and information to help Agriculture from Indonesia to expand their agricultural sector.
Challenges:
Challenges:
Identified the Market Opportunity and Market Size based on potential users.
Analyzed and calculated the Market Size with TAM, SAM, and SOM.
Built user persona, user journey map, and value proposition canvas.
Provides 2 initiatives of features and identified metrics used to support Agreepedia in the form of MVP.
Conducted research on the potential users to Identify solutions using various frameworks.
About Agreepedia:
About Agreepedia:
Agree is part of Telkom Indonesia which has focused on the digitalization of agriculture in Indonesia since 2019. Agree provides an ecosystem that brings together agricultural actors and helps develop the agricultural sector.
At the end of 2022, Agree sees potential where stakeholders can collaborate with each other, share knowledge and experience in the field. However, it is not only actors in the field who can act as experts, but agricultural off-takers/entrepreneurs can also share their experiences when doing business. Things such as collaboration, discussions, and news updates about commodities ranging from agriculture, and fisheries to animal husbandry are very necessary for new agricultural entrepreneurs and agricultural academics (lecturers and students).
Market Size
Market Size
TAM (Total Addressable Market)
49.7 Million+
Total population of workers and students in the fields of agriculture, animal husbandry, and fisheries in Indonesia
SAM (Serviceable Available Market)
11.2 Million+
Number of productive workers and students in the fields of agriculture, animal husbandry, and fisheries in Indonesia
SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market)
71 Thousand+
Number of Cultivation Actors who are members of Agree
User Persona
User Persona
Abdillah (25 years old)
Breeders and Social Workers
Lampung, Indonesia
Motivation
Share
Partnership
Credible
Biography
Abdillah is a graduate of animal husbandry who is currently a social worker and also likes cultivation. He wants to be able to make the results of his cultivation into something that has value. Apart from that, he also wants to be able to discuss and share his experiences in cultivation.
Habit
Likes to explore and share experiences
Active in breeding
Likes to be involved in social activities
Frustrations
Difficulty finding optimal ways to manage and develop cultivation
Difficulty finding practitioners who are directly involved in agricultural activities and have credibility
Difficulty finding nearby agricultural activists with whom we can discuss and carry out agricultural activities together
Wants
Get access to the latest information through credible agricultural practitioners
Get partners to share, learn, and apply agricultural practices
Can discuss with credible farmers and practitioners
User Journey Map
User Journey Map
Value Proposition Canvas
Value Proposition Canvas
Key Features
Key Features
- Forum
Forum is one of the proposed features that aims to make it easier for Agreepedia users to obtain information by discussing in public spaces based on relevant and segmented topics. By using the Forum, users can select the desired forum based on the topic that suits what they want.
Feature Details:
Users can choose forums based on topics that suit what they want.
Users can join the selected Forum via the “Join+” button.
Users can see the number of members who have joined the Forum.
Users can leave comments and discuss with other users based on existing topics.
Users can search for topics based on appropriate keywords.
Success Metrics:
# of active users:
DAU (Daily Active User): # of users are active in a day.
MAU (Monthly Active User): # of users are active in 1 month.
User engagement:
# of questions asked,
# of answers given, and
# of comments left by users.
2. AgreeNext
2. AgreeNext
AgreeNext is the next level of the Forum's feature that aims to bring together users who have the same interests, desires, and goals. By using AgreeNext, users can connect with other agricultural activists, both those who are experienced and those who are just learning to carry out agricultural activities.
Feature Details:
Users can connect with other users by using the Connect button.
Users can directly share topics in the Forum so they can immediately discuss them together and get more comprehensive answers.
Users can determine and create schedules and pick the places easily using the features provided by AgreeNext to learn and explore together.
Users will get reminder notifications regarding the schedule that has been created with the partner.
Success Metrics:
# of active users:
DAU (Daily Active User): # of users are active in a day.
MAU (Monthly Active User): # of users are active in 1 month.
# of schedules created
# of messages sent
Average time users spend in the app: how long the average user uses the feature in a single session
# of content from Forum shared
Retention rate
Assessment Scoring
Assessment Scoring
Assessment Indicators
Assessment Indicators
Critical Thinking
"Ability to think clearly and rationally, understanding the logical connection between ideas."
A scoring description for a score of 4.25 would typically fall between the descriptions for a score of 4 and a score of 5. Here's a possible scoring description for a score of 4.25:
Student provides structured and convincing answers, detailing most points of the case study worked on.
Student displays information that is reasonably convincing and somewhat systematic.
Student applies the technique/model/framework effectively through written information.
Student provides solutions that are reasonably logical and appropriate based on the arguments/results of the analysis, with a slightly higher degree of effectiveness compared to a score of 4.
This description indicates that the student's performance is better than a score of 4 but not quite at the level of a perfect score of 5. She provides detailed and effective answers but may have some room for improvement in terms of systematic presentation and the effectiveness of their solutions.
Score Description:
Score 5:
Student provide detailed, structured, and convincing answers from all points of case study worked on Student display information that is reasonable, convincing, and systematic.
Student apply the technique/model/framework correctly/precisely through written information.
Student provide reasonable, appropriate and logistical solutions based on argument/analytical results.
Score 4:
Student provide structured and convincing answers, and detail enough of all points of case study worked on.
Student display information that is reasonable, convincing enough and quite systematic.
Student apply the technique / model / framework well through written information.
Student provide solutions that are reasonable, logical enough, and quite appropriate based on the arguments / results of the analysis.
Score 3:
Student provide answers that are quite structured and convincing enough, but lack the details of all the points of case study that are worked on.
Student display information that makes sense and is quite convincing, but less systematic.
Student apply techniques/models/frameworks sufficiently through written information.
Student provide solutions that make sense and are quite logical but are not suitable based on the arguments / analysis results.
Score 2:
Student provide answers that are less structured, less detailed, and less convincing than all the points of case study they work on.
Student display information that is quite reasonable, but less convincing and less systematic.
Student applies the technique/model/framework but does not adequately explain the written information.
Student include solutions but the solutions given are not suitable for the problem at hand.
Score 1:
Student provide incomplete, unstructured, and inconclusive answers to all points of case study worked on.
Student display confusing, unconvincing and unsystematic information.
Student do not use good and correct techniques/models/frameworks or explanation methods so that the information presented is not clear.
Student does not list the solution or the solution given is not appropriate for the problem at hand.
2. Analytical Thinking
"The ability to deconstruct information into smaller categories to draw conclusions"
The scoring description for a score of 4.25 in the assessment indicator might be as follows:
Student identifies the root cause of the case study that is given in a reasonably precise manner.
Student analyzes appropriate information and displays a good level of knowledge, with a depth that is slightly above the expectations for a score of 4.
Student provides several alternative solutions to answer existing problems, which are not only quite appropriate but also demonstrate a slightly higher level of creativity or effectiveness compared to a score of 4.
In essence, a score of 4.25 represents a performance that falls between the descriptions for scores 4 and 5, indicating a slightly higher level of proficiency than 4 but not quite at the level of 5.
Score Description:
Score 5:
Student identify the root cause of the case study that is given appropriately and make sense.
Student analyze appropriate information and display knowledge well and in depth.
Student provide several alternative solutions that are appropriate to answer existing problems.
Score 4:
Student identify the root cause of the case study that is given in a reasonable and quite precise manner.
Student analyze appropriate information and display knowledge well and sufficiently deep.
Student provide several alternative solutions to answer existing problems and are quite appropriate.
Score 3:
Student identify the root cause of the case study that is given, make sense but is not precise.
Student analyze appropriate information and present knowledge well but lack depth.
Student provide several alternative solutions to answer existing problems, but they are not appropriate.
Score 2:
Student identify the root cause of the given case study but it is confusing and inaccurate.
Student analyze appropriate information and present knowledge poorly and in depth.
Student provide solution to answer existing problems, but it is not appropriate.
Score 1:
Students cannot identify the root cause of the case study properly.
Students do not show analytical thinking process as evidenced by the information provided is not clear.
Students do not provide alternative solutions to answer existing problems.
3. Problem Solving
"Ability to identified the problem and done with research and find out possible solutions"
For a scoring description of 4.25 in alignment with the provided descriptions for scores 4 and 5, you can consider the following:
Student defines the problem statement clearly according to the context of the problem at hand, demonstrating a good level of precision.
Student identifies several possible approaches to solving the problem context appropriately, similar to the expectations for a score of 4.
Student is convincing in evaluating the proposed solution with strong support and/or evidence, though not to the same extent as a score of 5.
Student provides solutions that are precise and accurate, falling between the descriptions for scores 4 and 5 in terms of appropriateness and precision.
In essence, a score of 4.25 indicates a performance that is slightly above 4 but not quite at the level of 5, showing a higher level of proficiency in certain aspects of the assessment indicator.
Score Description:
Score 5:
Student define the problem statement clearly according to the context of the problem at hand.
Student identify several possible approaches to solving the problem context appropriately.
Student evaluates the proposed solution with convincing support and/or evidence as to why that solution was chosen over other solutions.
Student provide solutions that can answer problems appropriately and accurately.
Score 4:
Student define the problem statement clearly according to the context of the problem at hand.
Student identify several possible approaches to solving the problem context appropriately.
Student is quite convincing in evaluating the proposed solution or through evidence as to why that solution was chosen over other solutions.
Student provide solutions that are quite precise and accurate to answer problems.
Score 3:
Student is quite clear in defining the problem statement according to the context of the problem at hand.
Student is quite precise in identifying several possible approaches to solving the problem context.
Student evaluates the proposed solution or through evidence of why that solution was chosen over other solutions, but it is less convincing.
Student provide solutions but are less precise and accurate to answer problems.
Score 2:
Student define the problem statement according to the context of the problem at hand, but it is not clear.
Student identify several possible approaches to solving the problem context, but which are not appropriate.
Student evaluates the proposed solution or through evidence of why that solution was chosen over other solutions, but it is less convincing.
Student provide solutions but are less precise and accurate to answer problems.
Score 1:
Student cannot define the problem statement clearly according to the context of the problem at hand.
Student does not list the approach used to solve the problem context appropriately.
Student do not provide solution to answer problems.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse