Week 4: Exploring Potential Validity

 

After defining the core problem in previous weeks, it’s crucial to validate both the problem and the solution. To ensure that CampusGuide AI is addressing a real need, we conducted interviews with students—Keanu, Daniel, and Mauree—to gauge the effectiveness of our proposed platform and its potential impact.

Keanu – Confirmation of the Need for a Unified Platform

Keanu, a third-year Computer Science student, shared his frustration with the existing fragmented systems. He noted that while most universities have online portals and other resources, they are often disjointed and hard to navigate, making it difficult to find reliable information. When asked about the potential of a unified platform, Keanu agreed that a centralized, easy-to-use resource would be highly beneficial, especially for new students who are still adjusting to university life. He emphasized that a system with real-time updates would help avoid confusion, especially during critical times like enrollment.

Daniel – Evaluating the Feasibility of Implementation

Daniel, another third-year student, focused on the technical side of things. He pointed out that while the idea of CampusGuide AI sounds promising, it would need to be integrated into the university's existing digital infrastructure. Daniel suggested that collaboration with university IT departments would be essential to ensure compatibility with current systems. He also mentioned that leveraging AI to provide accurate, real-time information could be a game-changer, but the system must be constantly updated to maintain its relevance. He believes the project is feasible as long as there’s proper collaboration and resource allocation.

Mauree – Struggles with Clarity and Consistency

Mauree, another university student, pointed out the challenge of unclear and inconsistent information. He recounted instances where he received conflicting details about scholarship applications—one staff member gave him different instructions from another, and online information did not align with what he was told in person.

This inconsistency led to wasted time and, in some cases, missed opportunities. He emphasized that while universities provide FAQ sections online, these are often overloaded with jargon and difficult to navigate. Instead of getting quick answers, students like him have to sift through complicated documents, leading to more confusion rather than clarity.

Key Insights from Week 4 Interviews

• Validation of the Core Problem: All the interviewees confirmed the frustration students experience when dealing with fragmented, unclear, or outdated information. Whether it’s enrollment processes, course requirements, or administrative details, there’s a clear need for a unified, dependable platform.
• Feasibility and Implementation: Technical feasibility was discussed extensively, with Daniel suggesting that collaboration with university IT departments would be crucial. Keanu agreed, noting that integration with existing systems would be necessary.
• Real Problem Demand: The Capitol University students reinforced the real-world demand for such a platform, with both emphasizing that a central hub for university information would save students significant time and stress.

Conclusion

Based on these interviews, it's clear that there is both a demand for and validation of CampusGuide AI. The core problem—fragmented, inconsistent access to university-related information—is a genuine concern for many students. Moreover, the solution we’ve proposed is not only feasible but would also be a valuable addition to university systems, making it easier for students to access reliable and up-to-date information whenever they need it.