Engineering comfort: A Structured Design Thinking Journey Behind InnerWear.Co

This page presents the structured Design Thinking methodology used to transform an opportunity into a validated retail concept. Through research, insight generation, ideation, prototyping, and iterative testing, each decision was intentionally developed to reduce uncertainty and build customer trust. After clearly defining, the next step was conducting structured research to validate assumptions and uncover deeper customer insights.

Week 3

Phase 2: Research & Insight Generation

Our research focused on unmet needs in the U.S. innerwear market, especially in warm and humid climates.
Methods used: industry research, Amazon and Target reviews, and anonymous surveys.

Key findings:

  • Frequent problems with sizing accuracy and garments losing shape.

  • Products slipping, rolling, or feeling uncomfortable in the heat.

  • Durability issues reduced repeat purchases and loyalty.

  • Customers distrusted performance claims without clear proof.

  • Many preferred clean, simple, and transparent brand communication.

Brand Insight:

  • In the U.S., brand image often feels stronger than perceived product quality.

  • In the U.S., Lupo's manufacturing heritage is not yet widely recognized.

  • This creates an opportunity to build trust through proof and transparency.

Strategic Shift:

  • Move from price competition to performance, clarity, and brand credibility.

Week 4

Phase 3: Ideation & Concept Development

Starting Point
Based on insights from Phase 2, the goal was simple: turn customer pain points into a focused, testable concept.

Creativity Methods Used

  • Analogies (learning from other industries like sportswear and airlines)

  • Trigger questions to challenge assumptions

  • Anchors to stay connected to real customer frustrations

  • Value/Ease Grid to prioritize ideas

  • 5Bs Supply Chain Map to connect the concept with business reality

These tools helped balance creativity with feasibility.

Strategic Shift
Instead of competing on price, the strategy moved toward:

  • Reliability

  • Fit consistency

  • Real performance

Key Decisions

  • Focus on performance and shape retention

  • Position the brand as premium-accessible

  • Keep design minimal and communication clear

  • Show proof, not promises

  • Build retail and digital experiences based on clarity and trust

    Concept Direction

  • Start with core essentials (underwear and shapewear)
  • Build credibility first
  • Expand later

Outcome of This Phase

  • Research was transformed into a clear and confident positioning before moving into market testing.

Week 5

Phase 4: Prototyping & Assumption Testing

Starting Point
After defining the concept in Phase 3, the next step was to test the highest-risk assumptions identified in Phase 2.

Method Used

  • Risk-ranking matrix (High Impact × High Uncertainty)

  • Focus first on what could most damage the project

  • Test before investing

High-Risk Questions

  • Will U.S. customers pay a premium for performance?

  • Does the fabric truly perform in extreme humidity?

  • Will American consumers trust Brazilian production?

Prototypes Developed

Prototype 1 – In-Store Transparency Test (Mall Kiosk)

  • Real product samples

  • Comparison visuals

  • QR codes linking to reviews and videos

  • Measured trust, engagement, and conversion

Prototype 2 – E-commerce Flow Test

  • Simple online journey

  • Clear sizing guide

  • “Heat-tested” performance message

  • Transparent claims

  • Measured confidence and hesitation

Purpose of This Phase
These prototypes were not final solutions.
They were learning tools designed to reduce uncertainty before making larger investments.

Week  6

Phase 5: Feedback & Learning

Method Used

Feedback was collected using:

  • A visual prototype with structured survey questions
  • Open probing questions to explore doubts and reactions
  • Six stakeholders are evaluating clarity, trust, and purchase intention

The goal was to test whether clear fit guidance and performance proof increased trust.

Main Findings

  • Clarity and organization increased trust.

  • Several participants answered “maybe” to the purchase intention question.

  • Trust is improving, but not fully secured.

  • Customers want strong proof — but simple and focused.

  • Some felt the layout was too crowded.

  • Fit reassurance remains critical.

Key Learning

  • Transparency works.

  • Simplicity matters even more.

  • Strong positioning is not enough — execution and communication must be clear and minimal.

Next Step – Learning Launch

Two refined versions will be tested:

  • Version A: Simplified layout

  • Version B: Simplified layout + stronger proof visuals

Metrics to measure:

  • Trust level (Yes / Maybe / No)

  • Purchase intention

  • Time spent reviewing fit information

  • Open comments

If trust improves, move to pilot launch.
If uncertainty remains, refine again before scaling.

"InnerWear.Co was built through structured research, validated assumptions, and iterative testing — not guesswork. Every decision was intentionally designed to reduce uncertainty and build customer trust."

— The InnerWear.Co team