LekkerKids
View live product
Product implementationIndependent build · Calgary

When self-service created more work, I redesigned the service.

A 40-studio outreach pilot showed that secure access and editing tools were not enough to create ongoing adoption. Behavioural data and provider conversations led me to redesign LekkerKids around a lower-maintenance listing workflow.

Read the case study Explore class discovery

The assumption that changed

“If studios can claim and edit a listing, they will keep their programs current.”

What the pilot showed

Studios would review identity details and add photos, but maintaining another program catalogue introduced more effort than the platform had yet earned.

≈40

studios invited

≈20%

claimed a listing

0

tracked program edits

1

workflow redesigned

01 · Context

Two users, one fragmented information problem.

Calgary parents compare children's classes across provider websites, social pages and registration systems. The details that drive a decision—age, schedule, location, price and availability—rarely follow the same structure.

Studios already maintain those facts inside their own operating workflow. LekkerKids had to make the information easier for parents without creating a second full-time catalogue for providers.

Families need

  • Comparable program details
  • Confidence in source and freshness
  • A fast path to inquire or register

Studios need

  • Minimal duplicate administration
  • Control over inaccurate public details
  • A clear reason to invest attention

02 · First implementation

I built the complete self-service path first.

The first operating model gave providers secure ownership and full editing control. It solved access and capability, but it still depended on every studio learning and maintaining another system.

1

Invite

Send a secure, studio-specific invitation.

2

Claim

Verify the invited email and unlock the operator portal.

3

Learn

Understand a new set of fields, terms and publishing controls.

4

Enter

Recreate programs and schedules already maintained elsewhere.

5

Maintain

Return whenever a term, price or schedule changes.

Secure studio-specific invitations
Verified email claim and staff access
Program, schedule and pricing editor
Publishing validation and partner choice

03 · Evidence

The funnel separated interest from sustained use.

Around 20% of approximately 40 invited studios claimed their page. Claimed studios checked their details, added images and some were willing to partner with LekkerKids.

Tracking then revealed the more important signal: no program edits were recorded. Studios were willing to engage, but not to recreate and continuously maintain course information.

Key diagnosis

The primary barrier was not a missing editor feature. It was the ongoing effort required from already-busy operators.

Observed activation funnel

Invited≈40
Claimed≈20%
Reviewed profile / added mediaObserved
Edited a program0 tracked

The bars visualize funnel progression, not exact relative counts beyond the stated invitation and claim figures.

04 · Provider conversations

The interviews explained the behaviour.

Studio owners already had established websites, registration systems and internal routines. Every additional platform carried learning and maintenance costs.

For studios with an existing reputation, a new discovery platform was not yet important enough to justify duplicating their catalogue.

01

Activation is not adoption

A claim showed enough trust to engage with LekkerKids. It did not show willingness to absorb another recurring content-management task.

02

The real competitor was effort

Studios already had websites and established operating routines. For reputable providers, incremental exposure did not automatically justify duplicate maintenance.

03

Reduce work before adding training

The strongest response was not a longer onboarding tour. It was redesigning the service so the platform completes the initial data work.

05 · Workflow redesign

In implementation

Turn providers from data-entry operators into exception reviewers.

The redesigned workflow uses official provider sources to complete the initial structuring work. Studios are notified and retain a clear path to correct, remove or claim their information without being required to start from a blank form.

1

Collect

Read course information from the provider’s official public source.

2

Structure

Normalize age, schedule, price and registration details.

3

Validate

Flag missing or contradictory facts instead of inventing them.

4

Publish

Create a useful starting listing with source context.

5

Review exceptions

The studio corrects, removes or claims only when needed.

Trust and quality controls

Automation lowers effort. It does not remove accountability.

The target workflow is designed around explicit sources, field validation and correction paths. Missing facts remain missing rather than being guessed.

Keep the official provider URL with each imported record
Validate required age, schedule, price and registration fields
Flag uncertainty instead of asking AI to infer missing facts
Notify providers when course information is added
Provide correction, removal and secure claim paths
Measure confirmation, correction and downstream parent intent

06 · A parallel parent-side decision

Parents choose a program, not an organization chart.

Early class discovery emphasized providers. Observation and parent research showed that the decision begins with a suitable program: age fit, day, time, location, price and registration status.

I redesigned discovery to surface programs first while keeping the studio as trust context. Subsequent analytics showed a directional increase in traffic and click activity; exact attribution remains a measurement task rather than a claimed causal result.

Before

Studio-first browsing

Parents opened an organization before knowing whether it had a class that fit.

1. Studio name
2. Studio description
3. Browse its programs

After

Program-first discovery

Decision factors appear before the provider profile becomes supporting context.

Age fit
Schedule
Location
Price
Availability
Studio trust

07 · What I am measuring next

The pivot is a testable operating model.

Automation completion is not the outcome. The next evidence must show whether listings become easier to produce, accurate enough to trust and useful enough to generate parent intent.

Efficiency

Time required to structure and publish one studio catalogue

Coverage

Share of courses completed automatically versus sent to review

Accuracy

Missing-field and correction rate after import

Provider adoption

Confirmation, correction and claim activity after notification

Freshness

Time between a provider-source change and a listing update

Parent value

Program views, contact intent and registration handoffs

Transferable evidence

What this work demonstrates.

Implementation

Requirements, rollout, onboarding, workflow redesign and adoption measurement

Customer success

Provider conversations, friction diagnosis, value exchange and lower-effort activation

Technical support

Behavioural investigation, validation, error paths, documentation and operational follow-up

Built from real operating constraints

I work across customer needs, implementation detail and measurable product decisions.

LekkerKids is a live product and an ongoing field test—not a polished concept detached from users, data or operational trade-offs.

Start a conversation View live product