Yuexiu: Turning Better Living into a Product and Service System

01 Facts & context

From Vision to System: How Yuexiu Decomposes Life Needs

Yuexiu Property, as the real estate arm of Yuexiu Group, lists 'quality life operator' as its direction on its official website corporate culture page. In April 2022, the Yuexiu Good Home YES Healthy Living System was released, decomposing this vision into four modules: City Link, Healthy Home, Smart Core, and Growth Joy, corresponding to urban connectivity, residential health, smart living, and service value-added. This decomposition gives an abstract concept a discussable skeleton, allowing customers to understand value from living scenarios and providing internal teams with a common vocabulary.

However, system release and actual project delivery are two different things. Public information only shows module names and themes, without specifying the specific standards, applicable conditions, or project cases for each module. Therefore, the YES system is currently more of a brand communication tool than a verified product manual. Whether it can truly guide design, engineering, and services still needs to be observed in how subsequent projects are implemented.

02 GSP analysis

Customer Tasks and System Design: What Real Contradictions to Resolve

GSP analysis suggests that the YES system can be discussed through customer understanding and internal coordination: homebuyers facing complex real estate marketing need to identify concrete product value, while developers adopting a modular framework can examine whether departments use consistent product language. The customer's task is not to understand the philosophy of 'quality life' but to quickly identify during property viewing: Does this community connect to urban convenience? Is the residence conducive to health? Are smart facilities practical? Do services cover daily needs? The YES system categorizes these questions into four modules, which exactly correspond to key considerations in customer decision-making.

But module naming is only the first step. What customers truly need is verifiable evidence, such as which specific technologies Healthy Home uses, what smart scenarios Smart Core includes, and what value-added services Growth Joy provides. If the system remains at the conceptual level, customers may feel confused and even think it is a marketing gimmick. Therefore, system design must be closely integrated with project brochures, model apartment displays, and sales scripts, so that customers feel the practical significance of the modules at touchpoints.

For Yuexiu, the value of the system lies in helping customers reduce information processing costs while providing a framework for internal product iteration. However, if the module division does not match actual customer experience—for example, if customers care more about property fees or school districts while the system emphasizes smart technology—there may be a mismatch. Therefore, system design should be based on customer research, not internal imagination.

03 GSP analysis

Value Creation Steps: How Modules Connect Inputs to Outcomes

From these public practices, it can be inferred that decomposing brand promises into a limited set of modules may help cross-departmental teams form a common language. Design, engineering, and service teams can discuss their respective deliverables around the same needs, and communication teams can organize materials according to customer-relevant scenarios. For example, when planning Healthy Home, the design team can clarify specific indicators such as ventilation, lighting, and materials based on module standards; the engineering team can accept and inspect according to these indicators during construction; and the service team can provide corresponding maintenance and value-added services after delivery based on module commitments. Adopters can test whether this common language reduces explanation and rework between departments, and observe whether consistent terminology and presentation help customers understand product value more quickly.

At the same time, the module structure helps identify parts of the promise that lack evidence. For example, if the Growth Joy module promises community value-added services, but the project lacks surrounding resources or the property team lacks relevant capabilities, then that module may not be fulfilled in specific projects. Through modular review, companies can identify these uncertainties in advance and decide whether to adjust commitments or supplement resources. However, the effectiveness of modules depends on whether they correspond to real capabilities, whether responsibilities are clear, and whether differences between projects can be clearly explained. If modules are only nominal classifications without corresponding responsible teams, standard documents, and delivery evidence, they may become an internal conceptual game that cannot truly guide practice.

One cannot judge that all projects have the same functions or receive the same customer evaluations simply because the system has a complete name. For example, a project in a city core may excel in the City Link module, while a suburban project may have advantages in the Healthy Home module. Companies need to clarify the applicable conditions and specific content of each module in each project, and continuously adjust module definitions and weights through customer feedback and project reviews. Only then can the modular framework transform from a brand communication tool into an effective product management tool, truly improving customer experience and delivery quality.

04 GSP analysis

Roles and Information Flow: Interface Design for Cross-Departmental Collaboration

Companies wishing to establish a product system can first sort out customer needs, then summarize them into a small number of understandable modules, and designate responsible teams, typical scenarios, and demonstrable delivery evidence for each module. For example, if a real estate company finds through research that customers have high attention to community safety, children's education, elderly care, and smart convenience, it can design four modules: 'Safe Community,' 'Growth Education,' 'Healthy Aging,' and 'Smart Living,' and designate security, education, medical, and technology departments to lead each. Each module needs to define typical scenarios, such as the typical scenarios for 'Safe Community' including facial recognition access control, 24-hour patrols, and emergency call response; delivery evidence can be safety drill records, equipment operation data, or customer satisfaction surveys.

When introducing externally, clarify which are universal standards and which are provided based on project conditions, and retain a mechanism for future updates. For example, universal standards could be basic safety facilities that all projects must have, while project-specific offerings could be private butler services for high-end projects. Companies should regularly review module content, adjust based on customer feedback and market changes, and ensure the system does not become outdated. Applicable organizations typically have cross-product or cross-project collaboration capabilities and are willing to maintain unified standards. If internal departmental barriers are high or project differences are extreme, modularization may be difficult to implement because unified standards may limit project flexibility or coordination between departments may be challenging.

When the business is still exploratory, one can first select a mature project to pilot the system, check whether customers can understand it and whether teams can execute it, and then gradually promote it, avoiding naming the system before actual capabilities are formed. For example, choose a delivered project, apply module standards to its service improvement, and observe customer feedback and internal collaboration efficiency. If customers are confused by the module concepts or teams cannot execute according to standards, adjust module definitions or strengthen training. Only after validation can the system become an effective tool for product management rather than an empty slogan.

05 GSP analysis

The Economic Viability of a Living System Depends on Combined Investment in Construction and Ongoing Services

For benchmarking developers, a living system requires calculating both the construction phase and post-delivery investment. Spaces, equipment, and materials may be reflected as one-time construction arrangements, while software maintenance, community services, and on-site support require ongoing resources. If only initial configuration is calculated, the system may appear easy to replicate, but subsequent services cannot be sustained by a one-time promotional budget. When evaluating, first clarify who pays for each commitment, who operates it, and under what conditions it continues, then discuss which specific experiences clients are willing to pay for, avoiding mixing all living values into a concept that is difficult to account for.

There are also mutual constraints among investments. Adding features may increase display appeal but also increase maintenance, training, and supplier coordination work; unified configuration may reduce procurement differences but may not suit all projects' spaces and client profiles. Adopters can compare approaches such as retaining common principles, allowing projects to choose modules, and unifying all details. There is no context-free optimal answer: savings from standardization need to be evaluated together with mismatched features, additional explanation, and subsequent adjustment costs. The role of modular design should be to facilitate trade-offs, not to burden each project with more features.

When verifying economic viability, select parts with clear needs and accountable responsibilities, record resources required for construction, operation, and issue resolution, and review them against actual client usage. Clients liking a display feature does not mean they will use it long-term or bear costs; low usage frequency does not necessarily mean no value, as some services are only needed at specific times. Teams should align feature purposes with evaluation criteria before deciding whether to retain, adjust, or reduce investment. Only by understanding the cost structure and usage conditions of each type of commitment can they determine which parts are suitable for extension to other projects.

06 GSP analysis

Project popularity does not necessarily prove module names work

GSP's analysis suggests that assessing the impact of a living system requires first separating the product itself from the communication approach. A project may attract attention mainly due to location, price, unit type, or delivery conditions; modular expressions may help buyers understand these conditions, but they cannot automatically become the cause of sales changes. If clients can repeat module names but still cannot articulate specific functions, communication may only add memory cues. Conversely, if clients do not remember names but can accurately compare service boundaries, the actual explanation may already be effective.

Another explanation comes from client selection. Those willing to attend showcase events or fill out feedback may already be more concerned about living quality, thus giving more positive evaluations. Teams cannot directly extend such feedback to all buyers endorsing the system. It is also necessary to distinguish between liking a concept and being willing to pay actual costs: consumers may welcome smart features but not accept additional maintenance burdens. Analysis should ask clients what they would keep, what they would give up, and which promises would change their choices, rather than merely recording agreement with the brand vision.

A more explanatory validation can compare, within the same project and the same set of real product conditions, whether different presentation methods help clients identify key differences. Questions to record should include whether clients recognized what the project actually offers, whether they mistakenly assumed all projects have the same configuration, and what costs and service items they still need to ask about. If misunderstandings decrease but purchase choices remain unchanged, the system may improve communication efficiency but does not yet demonstrate price premium creation; this distinction helps teams reasonably evaluate investment and determine whether to adjust the product or the expression in the next round.

07 Suggested actions

Adopter Application: Hypothetical Scenarios and Validation Sequence

GSP analysis believes that the value creation chain of the YES system can be broken down as: inputs are customer demand insights and design standards; actions are professional teams collaborating to deliver according to modules; and outcomes are customers perceiving module commitments in their living experience. Taking Healthy Home as an example, inputs may include air quality standards and material environmental requirements; actions include architectural design adopting ventilation schemes and construction controlling pollution; and outcomes are customers feeling fresh indoor air after moving in. This chain requires each module to have a clear owner and measurable deliverables. For example, the owner of the Healthy Home module might be the design director, who ensures design standards are executed during construction and provides test reports as evidence at delivery.

However, public information does not show whether the YES system defines such operational details. If modules are only brand concepts, design teams may still work in traditional ways, and service teams may not participate in early planning. For the system to generate value, it must be translated into design briefs, engineering acceptance standards, and service processes. For example, the City Link module needs to be linked with project site selection and transportation planning; if the site is remote but the promotion claims urban convenience, investment in transportation connections is needed, such as adding shuttle buses or coordinating with public transportation authorities; Smart Core needs to cooperate with smart solution providers to define scenarios; if providers only offer standard products, customization may be required to match customer needs, such as adjusting smart home default settings based on customer habits.

For adopters, the key is to identify the critical moments in the customer journey for each module. For example, the customer verification point for Healthy Home may be the air quality detection demonstration in the model apartment; if the detection data does not meet standards, ventilation design needs adjustment, such as adding fresh air systems or optimizing window opening methods. The verification point for Smart Core may be the on-site experience of smart home; if customers find operation complex, the interface needs simplification, such as providing one-click scene modes or voice control. Only when these points are clarified can modules transform from slogans into executable commitments. Additionally, conflicts may arise between modules, such as Smart Core's intelligent systems increasing energy consumption, conflicting with Healthy Home's energy-saving goals, requiring trade-offs in design, such as using low-power devices or setting energy management strategies. Therefore, value creation requires continuous tracking of customer feedback and regular review of module inputs, actions, and outcomes to ensure the chain is closed-loop.

08 Suggested actions

Module owners should track promises and also be able to approve adjustments

For adopting companies, module owners must first maintain the correspondence between promises and actual delivery. Design teams explain functions and spatial conditions, engineering teams confirm feasibility, service teams explain post-delivery operational requirements, and sales teams explain what clients will receive. Owners need to translate these into specific projects, not just manage unified marketing vocabulary. For services requiring ongoing operation, they should also confirm cost responsibility, service duration, and available resources; otherwise, after building delivery, brand promises may lack a clear execution entity.

Authority should match this responsibility. If site conditions, equipment plans, or service resources change, project teams should first explain the impact on user experience before updating external communications. There should be clear boundaries on which adjustments project owners can decide and which involve core brand promises requiring further review. A unified system can retain common principles while allowing projects to make explainable differences; writing all projects as identical may widen the gap between client expectations and actual conditions. The owner's value lies in coordinating and explaining differences, not just preventing change.

Capability building can start with handling one complete client issue. Teams first determine whether the problem stems from expression misunderstanding, functional failure, unfulfilled service, or needs not originally included, then decide who fixes it. Training should enable sales to explain boundaries, engineering to understand user tasks behind promises, and service teams to promptly report operational constraints. If similar issues recur, check module definitions or delivery arrangements rather than adding more explanatory materials. This connects system updates with real usage experience and provides a basis for whether to replicate in other projects.

09 Suggested actions

Measurement and Iteration: How to Determine if the System is Effective

Establishing and operating the YES system requires investment, including brand design, internal training, project pilots, and standard setting. GSP analysis believes that the return on these investments is not immediate but is reflected through enhanced customer awareness, reduced rework, and increased brand premium. However, real estate project profits are greatly affected by market conditions, and system investment may be viewed as an additional cost. The opportunity cost lies in the fact that if resources are used for system development, they may reduce investment in specific project quality. For example, if the budget is used for module promotion, it may squeeze the decoration costs of model apartments, leading to a decline in customer experience.

For Yuexiu, the value of the system may lie in long-term brand asset accumulation rather than short-term sales growth. However, public information does not show whether the system has brought sales growth or improved customer satisfaction. Therefore, adopters should carefully evaluate the scale of investment and start with small-scale pilots. For example, select one or two projects to apply the system and compare customer feedback and internal efficiency between pilot and non-pilot projects. If pilot projects show increased customer awareness but cost overruns, adjust the investment ratio; if internal efficiency does not improve, check whether the module process is cumbersome.

Under resource constraints, system development should prioritize modules that are most sensitive to customer needs rather than spreading efforts evenly. For example, if the target customer group is improvement-oriented families, Healthy Home and Growth Joy may be more important; if it is young first-time buyers, Smart Core may be more attractive. By focusing, you can reduce initial investment while quickly validating the system's value. Measurement indicators can include customer mention rates of modules, sales conversion rates, and post-delivery complaint rates. During iteration, adjust module content or weights based on data; for example, if customer feedback on Healthy Home is lukewarm, investigate the reasons in depth—whether standards are not specific or promotion is unclear. Additionally, establish a cost-benefit analysis model to link system investment with project profits and regularly evaluate whether to continue investing.