scroll
Carousell (Concept)
Carousell Circles
This project reframes Carousell as a neighbourhood-based network for shared interests. We translated research signals into a simple system: groups, schedules, and trust cues that reduce the uncertainty of meeting strangers. The outcome is a Community experience where social connection goes up and friction goes down—supporting migrant workers and locals to participate, return, and contribute without needing deep platform familiarity.
Carousell works well for one-off transactions, but it doesn’t help users build repeat, trust-based connections beyond buying and selling. In Singapore, many migrant workers and locals struggle to join hobby activities due to cultural and language barriers, limited social networks, and uncertainty about meeting strangers. This project explores how a lightweight Community layer—groups, clear joining flows, and basic trust cues—can reduce friction and make participation feel safer and more accessible.
Problem Statement
Migrant workers and local users lack an easy, trusted way to form social connections around shared hobbies in Singapore.
Hypothesis
If Carousell adds a community layer (groups + simple trust cues), users will join activities more easily and return more often.
Research Goal
Identify the key barriers to joining hobby activities and define a clear, low-friction community flow that feels safe and inclusive.
Project Overview
Research Categories
Exploratory, Generative
Project Type
Service Design, IA, UI/UX Prototype
Timeline
3 months
Contribution
Research lead, Service Design, IA, UI/UX
Method
Desk Research, Interviews, Persona, Journey Mapping, Touchpoint map, User flow, Prototyping
Deliverables
Research Synthesis, Persona, Journey map, Touchpoints, User flow, UI screens, Prototype, Business Model Canvas
Constraint
Limited Access to Migrant Workers, Language Barriers, Time Constraints
Key Insight
Signals that shaped our direction
A quick snapshot of the strongest patterns we validated across research and synthesis.
12 People
Typical dorm room density we heard from interview.
1 Day / Month
Some workers reported taking only one off-day a month.
0 Local Friend
Several participants had no Singaporean friend—social circles stay within same-language groups.
Language + Safety
The biggest friction was language barriers and uncertainty about meeting strangers
Social connection is blocked by language + segregation.
Migrant workers often live and spend time in separated environments. Because most socialising happens within the same nationality/language groups, opportunities to form new connections with locals stay low—even when interest exists.
The real barrier is “joining”.
People hesitate at the moment of committing: “Who will be there?”, “Is it safe?”, “How do I join?”, “What happens next?”. Without a clear flow and lightweight trust cues, hobby participation drops—even for simple meetups.
Marketplaces enable transactions, not repeat trust.
Carousell works well for one-off buying and selling, but it doesn’t naturally create repeat, trust-based connections. A community layer (groups + schedules + trust cues) can shift the experience from “transaction” to “participation”.
Research Impact
User Impact · Strategic Impact · Business Impact
This concept translates research signals into a low-friction community flow.
The goal is to reduce uncertainty when joining activities and make participation feel clearer and safer.
User Impact
- Makes first-time participation easier by spelling out what happens next.
-
Reduces “meeting strangers” anxiety with simple trust cues (host info, rules, group context).
- Helps people find activities through interests and intent, not just listings.
Clarity ↑
Safety ↑
Friction ↓
Strategic Impact
- Reframes Carousell from a transaction-only space into a place that can support repeat participation.
- Introduces a lightweight “community layer” (groups → schedules → meetups) that sits on top of existing behaviours.
- Lowers language friction with structured, predictable flows that work for mixed-language groups.
Repeat participation ↑
Structure ↑
Inclusion ↑
Business Impact
- Suggests a path to retention by giving users reasons to return beyond buying/selling.
- Proposes mechanisms that could reduce coordination issues (clear roles, rules, and expectations).
- Creates room for future extensions (verified hosts, partnerships, safer meetups) without over-claiming results.
Retention potential ↑
Coordination risk ↓
Expandability ↑
Methodologies
What I did — and why I chose it
Key methods used in the project, why they were chosen, and what they produced.
01
Desk Research
We reviewed how people in Singapore currently find hobby groups and meetups—across marketplaces, chat groups, and event platforms. This helped us map existing behaviours, common friction points, and the minimum “trust cues” users look for before joining strangers.
Output
Behaviour map · competitor patterns · trust-cue checklist · initial research questions
02
Field Interviews
We interviewed migrant workers and locals to understand what blocks participation: language, limited networks, and safety concerns. We captured real stories of how people decide, hesitate, and coordinate.
Output
Barriers list · quotes · key scenarios
03
Persona Building
Output
personas · needs/constraints snapshot · design checkpoints
04
Journey Mapping
We mapped the end-to-end journey to locate drop-off moments—especially at the joining step where uncertainty spikes—and defined what information and cues are missing.
Output
Option trade-offs · decision rationale · open questions
05
Wireframe + Prototype
We created wireframes and prototypes to communicate the concept clearly and sanity-check whether the experience feels easy to join and safe enough to try, without requiring deep platform familiarity.
Output
wireframes · prototype · concept narrative for critique
Evidence
Desk Research
Journey Mapping
Wireframe + Prototype
*Replace placeholder hashes with your real screenshots. Keep them similar aspect ratio for a clean grid.
Pitch Deck
Reflection
What I learned and how we’ll apply it next
A short wrap-up on decisions, trade-offs, and what we’d improve in the next iteration.
Key reflections
What worked well
We aligned early on the smallest community experience that mattered—joining, scheduling, and showing up—so research insights translated into a clear concept without overbuilding.
Alignment
Speed
Clarity
Trade-offs we accepted
We kept the first concept deliberately lightweight. Instead of adding lots of features, we focused on clear steps and basic trust context, and left complex moderation and edge cases for later.
Focus
Simplicity
Scope
What we’d do differently
We’d run one more quick validation round with a broader mix of users, focusing on micro-tasks
More roles
Label test
Iteration
Open questions
What level of trust information is appropriate to show (host background, rules, reporting, verification) without creating privacy issues or unfair judgement?
Trust cues
Privacy
Governance
How we’d measure success
Since this is a concept, we’d look for directional evidence in the next round: people can explain how to join at a glance, feel less hesitant about meeting, and coordinate time/place with fewer back-and-forths.
Understanding
Confidence Coordination
Confidence Coordination
Next steps
Tighten the information structure → prototype the join and scheduling moments → test with mixed users (locals + migrant workers) → iterate the trust cues and copy.
IA
Prototype Test
Prototype Test