As we explained earlier, the Mutual.Life groups are made up of trusted people, that is, trusted people indicated by trusted people. Therefore, to join a group it is necessary that the would-be member be invited by an active member. When registering, the guest must provide information that allows the group to evaluate and approve their entry. To do this, we adopted the practice of submitting the proposal for a new member to join the group so that everyone could vote, and most importantly, everyone should speak out, but we noticed that the votes were slow to occur, which is why we at Mutual.Life ended up having to remind members to vote for someone's entry approval, otherwise too much time passed until the vote was finally over. It was then that we turned to the group and launched the hypothesis:
It is important to stress that our goal is not to make the process simpler for us at Mutual.Life, which would inevitably happen with the slowing process, but rather make the user experience lighter, simpler, and therefore less tiring. And, as we had hoped, the group expressed itself fully in favor of the proposal.
Well, from then on, all they needed to do was speak up in case they had something to express against a new member's entrance. As we explained in the previous article, we are using WhatsApp to validate the group interaction, and we begin by sending them the register of the alleged member for evaluation of the group with the following warning: "We will approve the entry in 24h, if there is no objection."
It is inevitable that the urge to validate macro hypotheses that, sometimes unconsciously, we consider "more important" and that therefore require greater concern, ends up letting unnoticed details slip by and ending up making a big difference in the Mutual.Life process as a whole, after all "the devil lives in the details ". And when we come across something so simple, but so important, we stop and think, "Why didn't we think about this before?"
In the days that followed the change in the voting method for approval of new members, another situation emerged, not so critical but that it had to be resolved: when we sent the first proposals for new members to enter under this new voting format, many members responded by signaling with "approved", "ok", and so on. And this eventually led the group to believe that it somehow still needed to come forward, even if positively. We then informed the group that it was clear that members might be willing to speak out, but that it was not necessary to speak up if the opinion was positive, that approval would be tacit if there was no contrary opinion.
The co-creation experience with the users of our product has been significant and very enriching. In the course of the next articles, we hope to show a little bit more of this experience. The fact that we can think together with a group of interested and engaged users in real time is a privilege for Mutual.Life, which has had the chance to test and validate hypotheses very quickly, after all, time is money.
Now let's see what the next few days have in store for us.