After a quick meal at the accommodation site, we began our first design-thinking session. Although it ended up being the least productive session of the week, it was still important as a first point of contact with the other team members. Communication was a major challenge at this stage because, initially, no one took the initiative to organize or plan meetings for the entire team. Consequently, we were scattered around the accommodation site for this first meet-up.

This experience taught me that taking the initiative in a hesitant group can greatly boost productivity, even if it means stepping out of my comfort zone. I drew on this insight throughout the next four days.

In the evening, the group traveled by bus to a nearby lake. A week before the on-site portion of the BIP in Finland, the mentors had informed us that each country would host an evening showcasing cultural elements from its home university’s country. For the first evening, the Finnish students organized a quiz about Finland and a creative task that involved making artwork from objects found in nature. The Finnish evening was rounded off with roasting stick dough over a campfire.

By this point in the stay, I could really feel the group connecting. I made an effort to engage with the other students to reinforce these connections, again pushing myself outside my comfort zone when necessary.

1. The top of lauhanvuori hill

Lauhanvuori hill is the highest spot of the Lauhanvuori National Park. The geologist informed us that after the ice age, the hill was surrounded by water, effectively making it an island. We would later use the facts tought by Bassi in our final solution. Personally, this influenced my strategy on percieving information. Even though the facts seemed interesting, I normally would not have written them down. Contrary to my past experiences, I took notes on all facts and answers given by Bassi. This tought me that, no matter how unrelated pieces of information may seem to what you want to achieve, it is better to note them down and not need them than not having them in the end.

2. The wetland

Our second stop commenced at a spot of wetland, located at the east border of Kauhaneva-Pohjankangas National Park. The contrast from the sandy and foresty atmospere to the moist and empty yet stunning mire was fascinating.

3. Hiking trail along a small river

Next up, we commenced on a small hike (around 3km) along a small river. The scenerie was stunning and once again highlighted the versitility of the nature within the GeoPark.

4. The stone valley

Our last stop was at a large "river" made up of many small to medium-sized rocks. Bassi remarked that it is hard to build trails around this kind of terrain without disturbing local wildlife and scenery. This gave some more insights about the requirements that the transportation solution had to fulfill.

In the evening, I decided to review and reformat my notes on all the information gathered today, since it might become useful at some point in the project.

Personally, I was worried about the dynamic inside the team that I was working in, since at that point in time we had not communicated enough for my liking. It later turned out to not be a problem, teaching me that sometimes, team forming needs some time.

In addition to that, I gained some new, more geological perspectives on the challenge. The management must find a compromise between perserving the environment of the park such as flora and fauna, and enabling tourists to experience the nature around the park.

During discussions about different ideas, team members prioritized different project requirements. While some found sustainability to be the most important, others argued that profitability and budget-friendliness were more significant factors. I always tried to empathize with the different perspectives of the team members to understand their positions. This led to constructive discussion and the consideration of a diverse set of ideas. The discussion that day influenced me personally by showing that it is often more important to empathize with and listen to others than to prove your own point. Even though I had understood this beforehand, I truly noticed the difference this kind of behaviour made and how it improved the quality of our discussions throughout the day.

After several discussions, we came to a conclusion: the main problem was not sustainability in transport, but rather the visibility and online presence of the park in general. If we could increase visibility and accessibility to the park, it would automatically increase the number of visitors, leading to higher income for local businesses, which would in turn yield higher revenue for municipalities.

Even though I was at first against questioning the challenge given to us, we went through with it. We later received credit for this, since it took courage to question the task in the first place. This showed me that sometimes it is worth taking risks and showing courage, even when it might not initially feel like the right thing to do.

The day was rounded off in the evening by hosting a German night (run by us, the German students). It was great fun to share elements of German culture with others. As a nice side effect, this gave me confidence speaking in front of a large audience. I noticed that sometimes the content of a presentation does not have to be perfectly correct, well made, or meticulously thought through; it can also simply be entertaining.

During development, I discovered that frequent testing was instrumental in identifying errors and UX issues. To facilitate this, we created personas with ChatGPT, which we then used in follow-up chats. Here, the call feature with vision capabilities proved extremely useful: after each click, we shared a fresh screenshot with ChatGPT to accurately convey our progress in the UX pipeline.

Once we were satisfied with the website, we debated whether to prioritize the site or the presentation. I argued that a solid, interactive prototype was crucial for a successful pitch, though the rest of the team disagreed. After some discussion, I proposed a compromise: I would continue focusing on deployment while the others finalized the presentation. In hindsight, that was a great decision.

From that day, I learned the importance of seeking valuable compromises that satisfy all team members, rather than simply yielding or sticking stubbornly to my own viewpoint.

After all necessary components of both the prototype and presentation were complete, we did a practice run. We agreed that three people would present: one on the design-thinking process, one on our solution, and one on the live demo of the prototype. Although I was keen to present the website—being most involved—another team member also wanted the role. To be accommodating, I stepped aside and let him go first. However, during the dry run it became clear he wasn’t the best fit: he spoke more slowly and less fluently than I did. To avoid embarrassing him, I gave him feedback one-on-one rather than criticizing him in front of everyone.

This was something I’d learned during my work phases and internships at BMW: express praise publicly, but offer constructive criticism privately. He agreed, and we decided I should handle the website demo in the final presentation.

We wrapped up the day with another dry run and a final check of all technical elements. After that, we felt fully prepared for the presentation.

To cope with my nervousness, I tried applying some of the techniques that Annelies Nauwelaerts (one of our mentors) taught us. These included deep breathing, being thoroughly familiar with the topic, and focusing on individual listeners rather than the entire crowd, among others. Although I already knew some of these tips, I found that concentrating specifically on them significantly reduced my pre-presentation anxiety.

The pitch itself went well: we convinced the majority of the audience with our idea. A crucial element was the interactivity with the audience. We provided a QR code linking to the deployed website, which prompted everyone to open it on their phones at least once. This unique feature set us apart from the other groups.

As a result, my team was chosen as the winner, which only strengthened our team dynamic afterward.

Many other students congratulated us, though some voiced reservations. The main critique was that much of the styling and functionality code had been generated by AI. I explained that what truly mattered was the quality of the end result. While I felt a bit disappointed—since developing the site still required a lot of work—I was proud to have completed it within such a tight time frame.

On a personal level, this day benefited me greatly. I learned that methodologies often matter less than their effective application, and that using available tools wisely can yield significant efficiency gains.

I also learned to handle (whether valid or not) criticism more effectively and to focus on my own achievements rather than on how others perceived the process of achieving them.

Working in an international team, we combined design-thinking, rapid development, prototyping, and iterative testing to tackle real-world challenges. Along the way, I learned how to:

• Collaborate seamlessly with colleagues from diverse cultural and professional backgrounds

• Communicate complex ideas clearly—both in brainstorming sessions and in front of stakeholders

• Balance ecological sensitivity with technological innovation in one of Finland’s most breathtaking environments, from sandy dunes and vast mires to winding hiking trails beside rushing streams

I’m grateful for this immersive, hands-on experience. It not only sharpened my technical and methodological skills but also reminded me of the power of teamwork—and of nature—to inspire truly sustainable solutions.