This is the Participant Template with answers. It uses a fictional example: helping families coordinate the care of an ageing parent.
The example follows the same sequence participants use in a workshop:
Journey activity → Workbook notes → Canvas update → Decision
All people, conversations and results are fictional. The answers demonstrate the level of detail expected; they are not evidence for a real business.
Think
Observe the situation, understand the customer and define the problem.
Canvas blocks 1–7Test
Choose a critical assumption and run a small validation experiment.
Canvas blocks 8–10Decide
Compare the result with the success criteria and choose what happens next.
Canvas block 11Build
If the evidence supports Build, plan the smallest useful version and keep learning.
Design · Build · Launch · LearnThink — understand what matters
THINKJourney: Notice · ObserveCanvas: Observation · Current behaviour
Notice and observe
Completed example
What caught my attentionAdult children appear to spend significant effort coordinating the care of an ageing parent across several people.
Where and when it happensCare happens across different homes or cities and involves siblings, relatives, neighbours and paid caregivers.
What I directly observedIn two families, medication updates, appointments, reports and responsibilities were spread across messages and calls.
What people do todayThey use WhatsApp groups, phone calls, notebooks, calendars, photos of prescriptions and repeated reminders.
Repeated delay, effort or workaroundOne person repeatedly checks whether tasks were completed and asks others for the same information.
My interpretation—which is not yet a factI think families need a shared coordination service. Two observations are not enough to treat this as a fact.
THINKJourney: DiscoverCanvas: Customer · Impact · Alternatives · Evidence
Understand the customer
Completed example after eight discovery conversations
Specific customer and contextWorking adults aged 35–55 who act as the primary coordinator for a parent and work with at least two other caregivers.
A recent example in their own wordsOne participant spent an evening checking whether a changed medicine had been purchased after three people assumed someone else had done it.
How often it happensFive of eight described coordination problems during the previous two weeks; three said the problem occurs several times a week.
What it costs in time, money, effort or riskRepeated follow-ups, anxiety, missed handovers and one to three hours of coordination during a difficult week.
How they handle it todayWhatsApp, calls, paper notes, phone calendars and photos of medical documents.
What they have already triedPinned messages, shared spreadsheets and assigning one sibling as the main coordinator.
Evidence or artefact I sawParticipants showed message threads, calendar reminders, prescription photos and a handwritten medicine list.
What contradicts my current viewThree families felt WhatsApp was good enough, and one parent managed most care independently.
THINKJourney: DefineCanvas: Problem
Define the problem
Completed example
Working adults who coordinate an ageing parent’s care across several people struggle to maintain a reliable shared view of responsibilities and recent changes when care happens across different homes and channels, resulting in repeated follow-ups, uncertainty and missed handovers.
What is inside this problemDaily coordination, shared responsibilities, recent changes and handovers among a small family care circle.
What is outside the current focusMedical diagnosis, emergency response, long-term health records and professional clinical advice.
Evidence that supports this statementFive recent incidents, visible workarounds, repeated checking and examples of missed or unclear responsibility.
Important gap I still need to understandWhether a structured handover changes behaviour and remains useful after the first few days.
Test — turn assumptions into evidence
TESTJourney: ValidateCanvas: Critical assumptions
Choose the critical assumption
Completed example
| We know | We assume | We need to learn |
|---|---|---|
| Five people described recent coordination failures. | Families will adopt a structured shared handover. | Whether more than one family member will contribute. |
| Families use several informal tools. | A handover will reduce manual follow-up. | Whether the process is useful for at least two weeks. |
| Three people said WhatsApp is good enough. | Some families will pay for continued help. | Whether payment follows demonstrated value. |
Our opportunity depends on the belief thatA primary family coordinator and other caregivers will repeatedly use a structured handover when it reduces checking and reminders.
If this belief is falseThe problem may be real but already handled well enough through familiar tools and one responsible family member.
Why this is the most important uncertainty nowWithout repeated contribution, any product will become another place the coordinator must update alone.
Evidence we need before investing moreActual use by multiple family members, fewer follow-ups, requests to continue and a real payment decision.
TESTJourney: ValidateCanvas: Validation experiment
Design the experiment
Completed example
Assumption being testedFamilies with a clear primary coordinator will adopt a shared daily handover and involve other caregivers.
Target participantSix primary coordinators who support an ageing parent and coordinate with at least two other people.
Experiment methodA 14-day concierge trial using a simple shared care board operated manually—without custom software.
Real behaviour or commitment I will observeFamily members add updates, the coordinator checks the board, reminder calls reduce and the family chooses whether to continue.
Evidence I will recordDaily use, contributors, open tasks, follow-up examples, drop-off reasons and paid continuation.
What this experiment will not testBrand, automation, integrations, large-scale operations and the complete business model.
Owner and completion dateFounder; recruit within seven days and complete the trial within the following 14 days.
TESTJourney: ValidateCanvas: Success criteria
Set success criteria
Completed before the trial begins
Number and type of participantsSix suitable families complete a 14-day trial.
The assumption is supported ifAt least four use it on ten days, at least two other relatives contribute, and coordinators give specific examples of fewer follow-ups.
The assumption is unsupported ifFewer than two continue after week one, updates depend only on the coordinator or familiar tools remain clearly easier.
The result is inconclusive ifOnboarding fails, the wrong person is recruited or an unusual health event makes the period unrepresentative.
Strongest commitment signalAt least two families pay ₹999 for another month of manually supported coordination.
TESTJourney: ValidateCanvas: Evidence
Record field evidence
Condensed hypothetical evidence log
| Participant | Behaviour observed | Evidence or commitment | Contradiction or surprise |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family A | Used the board 12 days; three contributors | Paid to continue | Still used WhatsApp for urgent changes |
| Family B | Used it 11 days; two contributors | Asked for another month | Coordinator still chased one relative |
| Family C | Used it 10 days; three contributors | Reported fewer reminder calls | Did not want to pay yet |
| Family D | Used it 10 days; two contributors | Shared it with a neighbour caregiver | Wanted a simpler daily summary |
| Family E | Used it six days | No continuation | Parent preferred managing care independently |
| Family F | Stopped after three days | No commitment | Onboarding felt like extra work |
Result: Four families met the use threshold, three involved multiple contributors, four described fewer follow-ups and two paid to continue.
Decide — choose the next responsible investment
DECIDEJourney: DecideCanvas: Evidence-based decision
Make the decision
Completed after comparing results with the criteria
Decision: BUILD the next experiment—not the complete product.
Evidence collectedFour families repeatedly used the handover, three involved other contributors, four reported reduced follow-up and two paid.
What changed in our thinkingThe useful starting point is a reliable daily handover for the primary coordinator—not a broad health-record app.
Uncertainty that remainsWhether families will maintain the behaviour without manual support and whether customer acquisition can be economical.
Next responsible investmentRun a four-week paid no-code pilot with ten families and preserve manual onboarding while measuring continued contribution.
Build — act on what the evidence justifies
BUILDJourney: Design · Build · Launch · LearnCanvas: Update Evidence · Assumptions · Decision
Plan the next learning cycle
Completed example
Useful customer outcomeThe primary coordinator can see the latest handover and open responsibilities without calling every caregiver.
Smallest version that can deliver or test itA mobile-friendly no-code daily handover with tasks, changes, owners and a simple summary.
What we will deliberately leave outMedical records, diagnosis, emergency alerts, automation, complex permissions and native apps.
First customers or participantsTen families similar to the four that met the first experiment’s threshold.
What we will measure after launchWeekly active families, contributing caregivers, completed handovers, reduced reminders, retention and payment.
What result would make us change directionFewer than five families remain active by week four or participation still depends entirely on manual chasing.
Learning review dateEnd of week four, with a short evidence review every Friday.
Completed Canvas
| Canvas block | Final answer |
|---|---|
| Observation | Care information and responsibility are fragmented across people and channels. |
| Customer | The primary family coordinator supporting an ageing parent. |
| Current behaviour | WhatsApp, calls, notes, photos and repeated reminders. |
| Problem | No reliable shared daily handover across the care circle. |
| Impact | Time, uncertainty, missed responsibilities and emotional stress. |
| Existing alternatives | WhatsApp groups, calendars, spreadsheets, agencies and one person coordinating everything. |
| Evidence | Recent incidents, repeated trial use, contribution by others, reduced follow-up and payment. |
| Critical assumptions | Families will adopt and maintain a structured shared handover. |
| Validation experiment | Manually operated 14-day shared care board. |
| Success criteria | Repeated use, multiple contributors, reduced follow-up and paid continuation. |
| Evidence-based decision | Build a limited four-week paid no-code pilot; do not build the complete product. |