Week 48

The project is nearing its end, so our group dedicated a lot of work hours to the project in the past week. The past week contained among other things the final practice of our elevator pitch, some usability testing of our prototype, Facebook advertising, poster making, business calculations and the writing of the final report of our project.

In the beginning of the week we performed the final practice of our elevator pitch among other project groups for the Grand Finale. Here is our elevator pitch from the practice:


We also met with our future customers (long-distance travellers) at the Helsinki Central Station to gather some feedback to our prototype that we introduced on last week’s blog. The usability testing of our prototype can be seen as a success, since no one had compared long-distance travel options inside Finland before and the vast majority were interested in our service and thought it is easy to use. Here is a small sketch (in finnish language), to get you an idea on how our customer would use our service:


During the usability testing there were some comments about the outlook of our prototype, so we made some final tweaks to it during the week. We improved for example the readability of the text on the option menu.

In the end of the week we  concentrated on the poster and report of our project. The report contains information on how our project started and progressed, what properties our prototype has and how we validated our work. The report is for the course staff, who will be evaluating our work.

While making the validation section for the report, we made some final business calculations of our service innovation and the potential of facebook advertinsing. Our estimated net present value for the service is well into the positive side for example, so there is great potential in our service.

This is a small table of the results of our Facebook advertising (in finnish):


P.S. Next week will be Grand Finale week! Do not forget to come and visit our stand on Friday 8th December at ‘Dipoli’s’ Kaleva-hall (Otakaari 24).

Week 47

Hello, and hopefully you had a great week!

Again, this week’s blog is divided into two parts. First, the coding team introduces their progress, and then the validation team theirs.

Coding team

The technical part was finished last Friday well and nicely. It was a little humbler than originally planned as we ended up having not enough time, but it looks and works quite well. Basically it is a service to allow users to compare different opinions for traveling “far” in Finland, far more or less meaning outside the Kehä 3. After start and end cities have been decided, day to travel chosen and sorting option specified, it will show what trains and buses and maybe even planes can take you there that day. It will also show the travel time and price and a button to buy the ticket. As a bonus feature we show a map from Google Maps on how the routes go in Finland.

From the visual perspective the result was quite good, especially considering that we were advised to focus more on validation than technical and graphical advancements. It has a light atmosphere, information is well presented and the color scheme is consistent. Also having suitable background images instead of a solid color makes the page much more lively.

Näyttökuva 2017-11-27 kello 23.50.27

Of course this application is only a prototype so the starting location is always set to Helsinki and we have only four end locations. Also there is a limited amount of schedules saved to our database and thus there is also a limited amount of options shown for each destination city. If the development would continue, some kind of API to get information from external web site and a search box instead of drop-down box for city options would be needed. We would also add possibility to see CO2-emissions, services that are available in trains or buses. Visually the search bar components would be similar in appearance to the “Osta” -button. Lastly speaking of buttons, you obviously can’t buy a ticket currently in our service.

Validation team

This week we had a meeting about validating our business case, as we had got feedback about the importance of validation. As a result, we decided that we should start quickly collecting validation data from different viewpoints. Thus, we will collect data from professionals (transport providers), end users and Facebook marketing with which we will validate our business case. Professionals are interviewed to find how they could be tempted to join our platform because we would eventually need them to provide one source of revenue, as we explained in our business model canvas blog post a couple of weeks ago. We have already received two good responses from different transport providers considering their view of joining our platform. Furthermore, we started our Facebook marketing last weekend (see picture below) and it will run for a week – keep an eye on your Facebook ads! This experiment will provide us valuable data for estimating the costs and benefits of marketing, for instance, whether it is an efficient way to gain a critical mass of customers, and thereby, to compete with our competitors.


What we will do next? We are going to interview random potential end users tomorrow (Tuesday) at Helsinki city centre to find out the most wanted features that our product should include. We will provide them with a prototype of our product so that they can try it out and give us actual hands-on feedback! Additionally, we will wait for the Facebook marketing campaign to finish and give us some results to our question about the importance and possibilities of marketing. Combined with data collected from professionals, we will use all these data to validate our business case during the coming week.


Week 46

“You can now visit our website!”

Hello readers!

This week our blog is divided into two parts. The first part describes the progress of the validation team and the second that of the coding team. Due to a communication error between the groups, the first part is written in English, and the second in Finnish. Each to their own, I guess!

Validation team

This week, the we have examined how our business could beat its existing competitors. We believe that our business can compete with a similar product with some additional features, and, mainly with aggressive marketing so that we could establish a large customer base before our competitors. We have identified gathering a critical mass of customers as the most important competitive advantage for our platform to succeed financially. To achieve this and to start the marketing of our product, we have made some advances to establish our brand. We invented a brand name: Kaukoliikenneopas.fi and registered a domain with the same name – you can now visit our website! We also created a logo as well as a Facebook page for our company. All these factors are vital parts of our plan to start marketing our product.

To find more about Facebook marketing, we interviewed a Smartly.io (a Finnish SaaS company specialized in Facebook marketing) employee about choosing the best marketing strategy to maximize the coverage of our advertisement. As we a have limited budget provided by the course, we want to use it as efficiently as possible. The interview provided us with valuable information about the different aspects of Facebook marketing, for instance, boosting the advertisement’s relevance score to gain wider audience, and whether to advertise our webpage or boost a Facebook post. However, we are yet to decide which one we will promote, as well as whether we are going to target maximizing the amount of impressions, clicks or actions on our webpage after the click. Thus, the following steps for the validation team are a) defining the exact characteristics and targets of our Facebook marketing campaign, and b) improving our website and Facebook page (together with the coding team) to increase the relevance score of our advertisement.

Coding team

Olemme tällä viikolla viettäneet paljon aikaa prototyypin teknisen toteutuksen parissa. Ohjelmointikieleksi / -kehykseksi valitsimme Ruby on Rails -kehitysalustan, koska vähäisellä kokemuksellamme web-kehittämisestä se tuntui hyvältä ratkaisulta. Se on ollut monipuolinen ja pienten aloittamisongelmien jälkeen, sillä onkin hyvin saanut toteutettua yksinkertaisen sivun pohjan melko nopeasti. Toistaiseksi se on saattanut olla vähän turhankin monipuolinen ja vähemmälläkin olisi pärjätty, mutta ei siitä myöskään haittaa ole ollut. Isoin tämän hetkinen pohdinnan aihe on tallennettavan datan määrä ja muoto.

Käytämme googlen kartan JavaScript APIa. API mahdollistaa meille hyvän ja kattavan kartan käytön ja pystymme piirtämään siihen erilaisia reittejä eri kulkuneuvoilla sekä eri väreillä. APIa käyttämällä voimme tuunata kartan ihan minkälaiseksi itse haluamme ja se vaikuttaa toimivan erittäin mallikkaasti. Toistaiseksi ongelmana on saada kartalla oleva reitti muuttumaan käyttäjän valintojen mukaan.

Kuluvalla viikolla alkoi myös internetsivun visuaalinen kehittäminen. Internetsivuun tulee ainakin yläpalkki, joka sisältää projektimme nimen, logon, lyhyen kuvauksen ja linkit blogiin ja Facebook-sivuun, valikon, jossa käyttäjä voi valita matkareitin lähtöpaikan, määränpään, lähtöpäivän ja matkustusvaihtoehtojen lajitteluperusteen ja osion tuloksille, jossa listataan matkustusvaihtoehtoja lajitteluperusteen mukaan ja piirretään valittu reitti kartalle.

Internetsivun suunnitelman tämänhetkinen tila näkyy alla olevasta kuvasta. Kuvaan on kirjoitettu myös asiat, jotka ollaan seuraavaksi lisäämässä sivulle. Kun tämä on saatu tehtyä, niin sivun ulkonäköä eli muotoiluja, värejä ja fontteja lähdetään muokkaamaan. 

Näyttökuva 2017-11-20 kello 23.38.13

Internetsivuamme ja sen kehittymistä voit käydä katsomassa osoitteessa kaukoliikenneopas.fi (aukeaa uudelle välilehdelle).

Week 45

Week 45 was the first week without any extra assignments regarding our course. This meant that our group mainly concentrated on planning the coding of our prototype and polishing our validation plan. We also received info on the final product review credentials which are reporting the basis of the project, the prototype and validation of the product. The credentials were published at the end of week 45 and our group was quite pleased how the work we’ve been doing this week aligns with them.


In our Friday meeting we drafted an action plan for our 2 teams that work on the validation and coding processes. Coding team planned the minimum demands our prototype needs to meet and decided on the tools, methods and roles for the coding process. They will be starting the “relentless” coding this following week.


Validation team is trying to get contacts on experts and plausible partners. We have some names from VR, Onnibus and perille.fi and we’ll be trying to arrange some co-operation with them in the upcoming week. After we get our prototype to an alpha stage of development we’ll be starting product testing with possible users right away. Our current action plan is listed below.


Action plan:


Group 1, Validation (Jaakko, Jani, Nikke, Yi)


User validation

  • Recruiting potential test users
  • Improving product interest


Partner validation

  • Would companies (VR, Onnibus, Finnair etc.) be interested to partner up?
  • If not, how should the model be improved to create interest?


Expert validation

  • How are similar products designed and what major problems have occurred?


Group 2, Prototype implementation (Aaro, Mikko, Valtteri)

Minimum feature requirements:

  • User chooses starting location and destination
  • 3 visible attributes for comparing different options

Optional features

  • Interactive map
  • Cost structure calculations

Week 44

“They (the figures) show that this would probably become a profitable business.”


This week we first did some things that were due last week. We met with our advisor Raphael and course assistant Robert from whom we got vital feedback of our iteration process as well as valuable ideas for future development. We also gave the third presentation about the current state of our project on Friday. The iteration results will be edited into our last week’s blog post.

Our project has progressed well during the week. We divided our group into two working groups of which one takes care of theory and data validation, whereas the other is responsible for raw programming of the model itself. We scheduled the overall work into two phases (checkpoints after 2 and 5 weeks) so that our model will be ready by the beginning of the December.

The theory group has started to analyze the data collected with the questionnaire as well as found some theory to back up our analysis. Currently, we have 145 responses to our questionnaire which we can use, for example, to analyze the competition of VR and the main drivers of what makes people to choose a certain transportation method. The outcome of these analyses will be iterated information about the most important features (such as cost and/or demand factors): what will be implemented to our UI and what will be left out. The programming group has began establishing the technical set-up and writing the code of the UI. The next step we will take is finishing our theory/data analysis so that we can decide which features should be implemented and how these could be programmed to our UI.

The main challenges we faced this week concerned the weekly assignment that made us to think the project as a business opportunity. Earlier, we had thought that our end product will be a nice little widget for people to use when choosing long-distance travelling options and, generally, to raise awareness of the competition of VR. However, we generated really great ideas about how we could monetize our end product. The business model of our product is illustrated in the following business model canvas (BMC).

Näyttökuva 2017-11-06 kello 23.05.06

The main idea of the product is that we believe that collecting all long-distance travelling information (ticket prices, journey times, environmental data etc.) into one place attracts many users so that they can compare different journey options and transportation operators with ease. The transportation operators reach a larger customer base, because users of different operators all use this product, for instance, 10 Onnibus and 10 VR users become 20 users who see offers from both Onnibus and VR. We also believe that this product would attract private car users to use the public transport more as the information and comparison is available more easily.

The monetizing of our product is based on the platform business model. We create a platform that can be accessed via internet or mobile app. The platform brings three different user groups (customer segments) together: long-distance travellers, passenger transportation companies (e.g. taxis, buses, trains, airlines) and advertisers. Our platform provides each customer segment with a customer value proposition (see the BMC above), which makes the platform attractive for all parties. Furthermore, the main strategic capabilities regarding the platforms are network effects: a large amount of passenger transportation companies (partners) attract a high number of long-distance travellers (basic users) to use the platform, and vice versa. The advertisers are attracted by the large user base of the platform, as well.

How we make money out of this?

  1. By charging referral fees from partners so that we direct users to transportation companies’ web shops via links on our platform. Each transaction that is made via our link yields us a pre-negotiated percentage of the cost of the ticket.
  1. Selling advertisement space on our platform to advertisers.


Some financial calculations for our venture can be found below. The figures are rough estimates, but they show that this would probably become a profitable business (i.e. NPV is positive). The main reasons for this are that we have no initial investments as we only use our own time and skills to create the platform, and the only costs are marketing costs and IT infrastructure (e.g. server capacity) costs. We also pay no money to ourselves until the business yields more profits.

Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 10.22.56 PM Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 11.05.37 PM

Week 43 blog exercise

We didn’t have time to meet and show our model to our expert last week so we did it this week. Our expert was very pleased and gave us thumbs up for our work. He gave us very valuable ideas and good points regarding our project. Main things were for example: simple UI, model should show cost factors, include private cars and so on. We are not yet really in position to iterate these in our project, but we got very useful ideas and we will see if we are going to use them in our project.

On last friday we met with our assistant as it was requested and we didn’t really talk about our results and iteration but we talked about which way we should be heading with our project. Which things are important regarding our course and which things are important regarding topic we chose. It was very good meeting and we definitely needed that. After that meeting we understood that most important thing is to have something they can evaluate. We want to have result which gives answer to the topic’s problem in some way but still is validated and people feel that there is a need for this kind of product. Our topic is so different comparing to what this course wants us to do and that is why we needed to have this meeting. Next iteration is that we need to validate our product properly.

Week 43 (exam week)

This week was exam week so it was quite busy for all of us. Despite that, we managed to make many steps forward. Unfortunately we were not able to arrange meeting with our project’s topic giver this week. We will be seeing him on next week’s Thursday because of his schedule. For that reason we couldn’t really do weekly blog assignments for this week as planned but we took other necessary steps forward. Our agenda was to put our project on a launchpad and ready to launch.


We had one meeting this week with our gang and we discussed our topics and what needs to be done. We also discussed about our working practices and how many times we need to meet every week to be able to progress as planned. Our team leader, Jaakko made us a better working schedule and clarified our timetable and who are in which operating team. Jaakko has also kept the whole team informed what we are doing and made sure that necessary things were done on time and nobody was stuck with problems. Mikko, who has maybe the most experience on programming figured out which tools we are going to use making the model. He ended up with “Ruby on rails” as programming language and server, Git as our versioncontrol and mysql as our database.

Nikke’s job was to find competing or otherwise similar software, which could prove helpful in making of our own model. Nikke made few finding shown below.

Would contain almost same properties as our model.

Is Liikennevirasto’s own web page. It only gives fastest solution possible.

Rest of the group concentrated on what are the most important data that we want to show to user. What information we should give to user about this route and why. What is the competition we are focusing on and why. Here is some results.

Cost factors Demand factors
Added first:

Cost of infrastructure

Fuel costs

Employee costs

Scale of investments


Maintenance costs

Possibly also:

Administration costs

Capital depreciation/Leasing cost

Commercial costs

Added first:


Speed and availability


Carbon footprint


Vehicle quality

Service quality

Possibly also:

Product/service bundles


What information should be shown to user?

What routes we choose

Reitit missä VR kulkee. =>

Yhteiset reitit junaliikenteen ja lentoliikenteen (myös linja-autot ja yksityisautot) välillä:

Isoimmat kaupungit (Vihreät pallot alla olevassa kartassa p.l. Tikkurila, Kouvola, Pori ja Seinäjoki, joihin ei lentoja):

Helsinki <-> Turku

                 <-> Tampere

                 <-> Jyväskylä

                 <-> Kuopio

                 <-> Oulu

                <-> Rovaniemi

                <-> Joensuu

                <-> Kajaani

                <-> Vaasa

Suosituimmat reitit näistä malleista? Missä kovin kilpailu?
Kaupallinen liikenne (taloudellisesti kannattavaa, ei valtion tukemaa)

Ostoliikenne (Taloudellisesti kannattamatonta, valtio tukee)

Velvoiteliikenne (Taloudellisesti kannattamatonta, valtio ei tue)




Updated opportunity tournament.

We decided to bring down our considered competition to only haulage.

















We also made some digging on where and what kind of information we are able to get on for example train traffic or air traffic. These sites are main thing for our model to use and search data from.



Bus service






Air service









And last but definitely not least we all shared our user survey to find out what kind of information our model should provide and why.

We have made great improvement on starting to make the end result and we have clearer picture of what we are going to make and how we are going to make it. This week was important week and we found answers to key questions about our model and data finding. Next things we need to do to analyze our surveys data and Iterate it accordingly. Then our plan is to meet with our “project’s topic owner” and meet with our assistent. We will discuss with both about our model, our survey and results. We will also discuss our next steps with them. And after that, we can start working on our model with full throttle.

Blog of Week 42

On week 42 our team continued on the product development cycle.  Our main focus this week was on the planning of the validation process and on the 2nd presentation as well. We had our weekly meeting once again to finalize this week’s planned work distribution and targets.  


Our meeting proved to be fruitful since we decided to leave our report type end product behind, and started to heavily concentrate on the computer model we composed last week. This change of direction was needed to better comply on the course objectives and learning targets. In our meeting we managed to create clear connections to our original problem and currently planned end product. This was also chosen as the core message of our presentation this week. Seeing that the review of our presentation was mainly positive, we think we’re on the right track now. The major change of concentration also meant that our project plan needed a major overhaul so that took place this week as well.


Like earlier mentioned, our “big” theme of the week was validation of our product. We started this process by creating a survey that is targeted towards our end users (taxpayers). The survey includes questions about how often people do long range travels in Finland, the methods of these travels and how people decide on the methods. This should help us to find the optimal attributes for our model. You can find the survey from this link : 


We also crafted the long term plan for the whole validation process presented right below.

Technical aspect


Now that we have our validation process underway, the next steps our team is taking is planning the functionality of the product. This will be most likely done through analyzing similar products and also with the help of our up and coming data from our survey.

From brainstorming to product development – Week 41

This week our project switched from the brainstorming phase to the product development phase. We had one group meeting this week to ensure that everyone was on the same page (as not all of us were present in the last meeting, when we met with our advisor) and to plan the next tasks, that start the product development phase.


During the meeting we decided that for the product development phase we will not only analyse the market formed by VR and its competitors, we will also produce an interactive computer model. This model would demonstrate some routes in Finland where trains, lorries, planes, etc. operate and compare for example travel times, costs and quality of service. The model would support our general analysis and conclusions about the market.

We also planned the concrete tasks that we have to do next and divided them among ourselves:

  • Valtteri updates our product plan, so that it will include our youngest decisions.
  • Jani, Jaakko and Nikke will produce a plan on how we will be analysing the current market situation of VR and its competitors.
  • Aaro writes the next blog (this one).
  • Yi writes a summary of the problem we want to solve and the users of our solution (This week’s blog task).
  • Mikko does a rough model of the computer model, that shows how the computer model could work and what it will contain.


The main points of the plan (rautalankamalli) on how we will analyse the current market situation of VR are represented on the following picture:


Below is a short explanation and a picture (rautalankamalli) of how our computer model could work in finnish.


Johdannoksi (ei kuvaa):
Ajatuksenamme on tehdä projektin ohessa jonkinlainen malli, kuinka rautatie, autot ja lentokoneet vertautuvat toisiinsa kaukoliikenteessä. Emme vielä ole kovin varmoja sen tarkasta toteutuksesta, mutta tässä on muutama kuva, millainen se voisi olla.
Mallin käyttöliittymässä on Suomen kartta ja laatikot lähtö- ja määränpääkaupungeille. Kaupunkien määrästä ei ole vielä varmuutta, mutta esimerkiksi kartalla on muutama kaupunki.
Laatikoista valitaan haluttu lähtö- ja määränpääkaupungit. Tavoite on, että kaikki reitit eri kaupunkien välillä toimivat. Vähimmäistavoitteena on kuitenkin se, että Helsingistä on mahdollisuus saada reitti kaikkiin muihin kaupunkeihin. Jos tällöin valitaan joku toinen lähtökaupunki, muuttuu määränpää kaupungit saatavuuden mukaan (vähintään Helsinki).
Kun kaupungit on valittu ja nappia painettu, ilmestyy kartalle valintoja kuvaavat merkit oikeiden kaupunkien kohdalle ja näiden väliin toivottavasti saadaan piirettyä oikeaa matkaa seuraava reitti. Oikealla puolella näkyy yleistietoa matkasta, kuten pituus, hintavertailu, päästövertailu ja aikavertailu.


Rough model of our computermodel:








And lastly, here is a short summary to clarify the key points of our project:

  • What is the problem that our group is solving?

We need to find out whether VR is competing regardless of the fact that it is the only railway company in Finland.

  • How does the user experience the problem?

The user, which is the general public, sees that VR doesn’t have competition yet which is why the railway industry should be exposed to the competition by bringing other railway companies to the market.

  • Our value proposition.

We will provide a model combined with qualitative analysis to give an insight into the true nature of VR’s current competition state.


Edellisviikolla pohdimme, VR:n kilpailua ja erityisesti sen “näkymättömiä” kilpailijoita. Jaoimme tässä kilpailijat kolmeen eri osa-alueeseen. Osa-alueet ja niissä olevat kilpailijat on alempana taulukossa.








-Taxit (Uber ym.)














-Toinen junafirma



Ensimmäisellä kierroksella hylkäsimme ne ketkä selkeimmin eivät olleet suurimpia kilpailijoita. Tämä ensimmäinen kierros oli melko nopeasti mietitty. Kaukoliikenteessä helikopterista kukaan ei uskonut, että sillä on mitään suurta markkinaosuutta. Tavarankuljetuksessa taxit ja yksityisautoilu on myös vähäisiä kilpailijoita, koska niillä ei ole tarkoituskaan kuljettaa samoja määriä tavaroita. Lähiliikenteestä hylkäsimme ratikat ja pyöräily/kävelyn. Ratikat saivat lähteä, koska ne toimivat helsingin sisäisessä liikenteessä, kun taas lähijunat ovat tärkeämmässä asemassa koko pääkaupunkiseudun liikenteessä. Paljolti sama kysymys oli pyörien ja kävelemisen jättämisessä, niitä käytetään lyhyillä matkoilla, missä junat eivät muutenkaan toimi.






-Taxit (Uber ym.)












-Toinen junafirma


Seuraavalla kierroksella olimme vähän tarkempia ja muotoilimme kysymykset myös tarkemmin, minkä perusteella jätimme kilpailijoita pois. Kilpaileeko junat ja <kilpailija> samalla tontilla? Onko kilpailijalla riittävän suuri markkinaosuus. Käsittelimme siis melko samoja asioita, kuin ensimmäisellä kierroksella, mutta formaalimmin. Lähiliikenteestä jätimme pois metron ja taxit. Metro oli jäänyt sinne, koska länsimetron valmistuessa se olisi merkittävä kilpailija junille Espooseen päin. Ongelma on siinä, että se ei ole valmis ja vaikka se olisi valmistunut ei siitä olisi kertynyt tarpeeksi dataa analyysiämme varten. Taxien koimme olevan niin pienessä asemassa, että niistä ei ole syytä välittää. Kaukoliikenteessä jätimme pois taxit ja laivat. Taxeissa oli sama ajatus, kuin lähiliikenteessä: niiden markkinaosuus on pieni. Laiva voisi olla merkittävä kilpailija, mutta se ei toimi suomen sisäisessä liikenteessä ja rannikkokaupunkienkin välillä junayhteys on todennäköisesti parempi. Tavarankuljetuksessa olimme kuulleet toisesta junafirmasta, mutta toistaisesksi sen markkinaosuus on liian pieni pohdittavaksi. Lentokoneet jätimme pois, koska vaikka kaukoliikenteessä pohjoiseen lentolippu on halvempi kuin junalippu emme kokeneet saman koskevan tavaraliikennettä, joka on säännöllisempää. Tavaraliikenteessä junilla on myös määrä etu. Alla taulukossa “voittajamme”, joiden tutkimiseen pääosin paneudumme.














Blog for week 40

This week we had two meetings and our agenda was to make a project plan, complete the opportunity tournament and most importantly meet our instructor Raphael Giesecke.

In the first meeting we went through our ideas which came from our brainstorming last week. The ideas helped to form a better understanding of the competition configuration of VR. Assessing the ideas was the basis for the opportunity tournament.


The next step was to list the methods and the sources for the data collection. We thought that the company annual reports and the reports from government agencies could be our main data collection sources. In terms of analyzing the data, we could use different frameworks or alternatively we could establish a computer simulation of the competition. However, due to limited resources and time, we should carefully decide whether we program a simulation and how broad the simulation should be.

We also discussed the content that we will put to our project plan. First, our starting point was to bust the actual myth that VR doesn’t have any competitors. Second, we defined the client or user for our project and we ended up that our project should serve the general public. Third, we considered the scope and the goals of our project. The scope was still unclear because at the moment we haven’t met our instructor yet but our goal was quite clear that we wanted to increase the general awareness of the fact that VR still might have those “invisible” competitors. In addition, we wanted to make our project human-oriented using the scientific methods. Last but not least we discussed the scheduling of our project and the roles of the project. Three different roles were formed:

Project manager: Responsible for the project progress.

Communications manager: Responsible for the external messaging in our project.

Blog Master: This role changes every week and basically blog master is responsible to write the general points for the blog.

In the end of the first meeting we listed the tasks that we should complete during the 8 weeks period. There were three milestones in the tasks list: project scope, data collection and analysis & conclusion.

In the second meeting we met our instructor. Four different points came up in the meeting. First, we should be aware that the topic is topical at the moment. Second, we should know who is the actual client for our project. For example, are we acting as consultants or something else. Third, we should consider what is the outcome of our project. Is it a report or does it have any concrete results e.g. a computer simulation. The last point was to consider the data availability for the project.