92
Pruebas cualitativas de consumidores para la innovacion Jean-Xavier Guinard University of California, Davis [email protected]
Pruebas cualitativas de consumidores para la innovacion
Jean-Xavier Guinard
University of California, Davis
Outline
• Consumer research model
• Consumer testing methodology – an overview, including…• 9-point hedonic scale• Penalty analysis (DOL vs. JAR attributes)• Preference mapping• Focus groups• Projective techniques• Ethnography
• Consumer-driven optimization and innovation methodologies• Hedonext• Quali-Quanti Method• Repertory Grid Method• Check-All-That-Apply (CATA)• Means End Chain Analysis• Empathic Design• Design Thinking
Consumer Research Model
Product Variables•Sensory properties•Functionalities•Marketing mix•…
Consumer Variables•Demographics•Psychographics•Genetics & physiology•…
Context Variables•Physical context•Convenience/effort•Societal pressures•…
Consumption Behavior•Preferences (likes & dislikes)•Choice•Purchase/Repeat purchase•Consumption•Pleasure/SatietyCulture
A multivariate problem requires:•Multivariate designs and statistics•Qualitative and quantitative approaches
Guinard; 2010
New Product Development
• Innovation• “Me-too”
• “Me-better”
• Breakthrough Innovation
The Tools of Consumer Testing
• Quantitative tools
• Qualitative methods
Quantitative Testing
• Screener
• Scorecard or questionnaire
• Exit survey
The Tools of Consumer Testing
• Sensory variables• 9-point hedonic scale (for overall degree of liking, and
liking of specific attributes)
• Liking scale (0=not at all to 10=very much)
• Just right scale (too low - just right - too high)
• Purchase intent (5 points) (purchase intent)
The Tools of Consumer TestingHedonic & Purchase Intent Scales
Just About Right (JAR) Scales
Penalty Analysis of Caramel Chew
0
1
2
3
20 30 40 50 60 70
% of panelists
Mean
Dro
p o
n 9
-po
int
Lik
ing
COLOR: Too Dark
OVERALL FLAVOR: Too Weak
OVERALL FLAVOR: Too Strong
CARAMEL FLAVOR: Too WeakCARAMEL FLAVOR: Too Strong
SWEETNESS: Not Sweet Enough
FIRMNESS: Too Firm
Other Tools for Consumer Testing
• Preference Tests• Paired-preference test (binomial statistics; two-tailed
probabilities)
• No-preference option?• If the no-preference option is used, analyze with chi-squared
• Preference ranking
Other Scales Used in Consumer Tests
• Frequency (frequency of use)
• Agree - disagree (5 points) or true / false (attitudes)
• Level of importance (5 points) (expectations)
• Pricing scales (price)
• Associations brand - attributes
First Order, Carry Over and Contrast Effects• First-order effect: the 1st sample gets a higher hedonic
rating• Use ‘dummy’ or ‘warm-up’ sample
• Use fully randomized design
• Be aware of carry-over and contrast effects• Randomize
ORDER OF PRESENTATION IN THE SESSION
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
Condition 1
5.93 5.30 5.47 5.77 5.65 5.49 5.53 5.40
Condition 2
5.79 5.60 5.45 5.58 5.45 5.51 5.62 5.63
Exit Survey
• Focuses on consumer variables
• Critical to any consumer segmentation piece, i.e., it is used in preference mapping to characterize the preference segments
• Typical elements:• Demographics (age, gender, income, occupation, etc.)
• Usage (“How often do you consume…?” “Which brand(s) do you buy?” Etc.)
• Attitudes and beliefs
• Psychographics (“Do you prefer aisle or window”? Etc.)
Preference Mapping
• The purpose of preference mapping techniques is to:
1. Understand market segmentation
2. Identify drivers of liking for the uncovered preference segments
3. Characterize the preference segments in terms of demographics, psychographics and usage
Preference Mapping
• For a set of products representative of the segment under investigation, collect hedonic ratings by consumers (and information about the consumers) and descriptive ratings by a trained panel and/or instrumental measurements.
• Conduct preference clustering, and internal and external preference mapping analyses of the data.
The Data Matrix
ConsumersP
rod
uct
s Hedonic Ratings
9-point Hedonic Scale or Other Liking Scale
Preference Clustering
• Cluster analysis of the matrix of consumer hedonic ratings across products.
• Identifies segments in the consumer population (based on similarity of their likes and dislikes).
Dendrogram for Overall Liking (Actual)
Average Distance Between Clusters
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
ID
174
653
65
37
70
4751
42
68
18
43
28
219
34
40
58
47
77
67
576
14
48
920
27
44
57
30
36
82
13
45
55
71
73
35
23
25
39
26
33
41
11
31
59
62
69
372
12
29
80
824
50
15
66
49
16
56
17
81
38
46
63
78
64
10
22
52
32
79
60
21
75
54
61
Example:How many clusters?
Internal Preference Mapping
• Principal component analysis of the matrix of consumer hedonic ratings across the products (based on the covariance matrix).
• The outcomes are biplots of the consumers and of the products.
Olive Oil Drivers of liking: hedonic ratings by consumers vs. sensory attributes from descriptive analysis
Dimension 1 (29.65%)
Dim
ensi
on
2 (
23
.19
%)
Preference Mapping - EVOOs
3 preference clusters
Olive Oil Preference Segments
Dim
ensi
on
2 (
23
.19
%)
Dimension 1 (29.65%)
Cluster 1 N=33Butter, ripe fruit, grassy, spicy. Balance group tend to like a broad number of products
Cluster 2 N=48Negative drivers of liking: bitter, pungent, astringency and spicy.Attributes liked: butter, winey, fusty, rancid.Preferred oils: I2, I3, U11
Cluster 3 N=29Negative drivers of liking: mint, herbs, tropical fruit.Attributes liked: nutty, tea, ripe fruitPreferred Oils: C2, U9, U1, U4, I4, I3
Melons – Preference Mapping
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
PC
2(1
2.3
6%
)
PC1 (17.31%)
G1 (N=26)
G2 (N=101)
G3 (N=44)acclaim
aphrodite
caldeo
caldeoDF
carigold
globstar
goldex
impac
magellan
primo
proteo
proteoDF
rml0499
saguaro
sol-real
-10
-5
0
5
10
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
F2
(12.3
6 %
)
F1 (17.31 %)
Observations (axes F1 and F2: 29.67 %)
Melons – Preference Mapping
Acclaim
Aphrodite
Caldeo
CaldeoDF
CariGold
GlobstarGoldEx
Impac
Magellan
PrimoProteo
ProteoDF
rml0499
Saguaro
Solreal
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10
F2
F1
(a) Overall liking Preference map (N=171)
Series1
Series5
Series9
Series13
Series17
Series21
Series25
Series29
Series33
Series37
Series41
Series45
Series49
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58
F2
F1
(a) Overall liking: Contour plot
90%-100%
80%-90%
70%-80%
60%-70%
50%-60%
40%-50%
30%-40%
20%-30%
10%-20%
0%-10%
Qualitative Methods
• Focus groups
• Projective techniques (word associations, psycho-drawing, role playing)
• Individual interviews (Means End Chain Analysis)
• Ethnography
Focus Groups
• 7-10 consumers per group
• 3 to 4 groups
• Professional moderator
• Group of observers
• 2 hours max.
• Script (7-10 key questions)
Focus Groups
• Requires a professional moderator who can:• Manage group dynamics
• Keep his/her personal opinions in check
• Data analysis is difficult
• 3 to 4 groups are required
• Recruitment is complex
• Significant cost
• Time-consuming
Focus Groups
• Stimulate and accesses interactions among participants
• The moderator can probe for more information on critical aspects
• Valid and credible (the information comes from the consumer)
• Gives access to many consumers in a limited amount of time
Projective Techniques
• Word associations• “If I say __________ , what is the first
word that comes to your mind?”
• Psycho-drawing• “Please draw how you feel after using
this product/service.”
• Role playing• “Pretend you are shopping with your
partner and approaching the organic produce section... Start talking.”
Projective Techniques
Ethnography - Direct Observation
• Observation of the consumer in his/her natural environment and in context
• Product-consumer interaction research
• Professional ethnographers or self-reporting
• Video, phone camera, Skype, Zoom (optional)
• Netnography (digital ethnography)
Product-Consumer Interaction research
• Unilever have placed video cameras in kitchens to observe the tea making process
… and video cameras in showers to observe the shower process to develop shampoo and shower gels
Inquiry versus Observation:What’s Different?
Inquiry
1. People can’t ask for what they don’t know is technically possible.
2. People are generally highly unreliable reporters of their own behavior.
Observation
1. Well-chosen observers have deep knowledge of corporate capabilities, including the extent of the company’s technical expertise.
2. Observers only rely on real actions rather than reported behavior.
Source: Leonard & Rayport, Harvard Bus. Rev., Nov/Dec 1997
Inquiry versus Observation:What’s Different?
Inquiry
3. People tend to give answers they think are expected or desired.
Observation
3. People are not asked to respond to verbal stimuli; they give non-verbal cues of their feelings and responses through body language, in addition to spontaneous, unsolicited comments.
Inquiry versus Observation:What’s Different?
Inquiry
4. People are less likely to recall their feelings about intangible characteristics of products and services when they aren’t in the process of using them.
Observation
4. Using the actual product or a prototype, or engaging in the actual activity for which an innovation is being designed, stimulates comments about intangibles as smells or emotions associated with the product’s use.
Inquiry versus Observation:What’s Different?
Inquiry
5. People’s imaginations -and hence their desires -are bounded by their experience; they accept inadequacies and deficiencies in their environment as normal.
6. Questions are often biased and reflect inquirers’ unrecognized assumptions.
Observation5. Trained, technically
sophisticated observers can see solutions to unarticulated needs.
6. Observation is open ended and varied; trained observers tend to cancel out one another’s observational biases.
Inquiry versus Observation:What’s Different?
Inquiry
7. Questioning interrupts the usual flow of people’s natural activity.
8. Questioning stifles opportunities for users to suggest innovations.
Observation
7. Observation, while almost never totally unobtrusive, interrupts normal activities less than questioning does.
8. Observers in the field often identify user innovations that can be duplicated and improved for the rest of the market.
What We Learn from Observation
• Triggers of use
• Interactions with the user’s environment
• User customization
• Intangible attributes of the product
• Unarticulated user needs
Source: Leonard & Rayport, Harvard Bus. Rev., Nov/Dec 1997
The Repertory Grid Method
• The purpose is to uncover the language consumers use to describe products, as a means of understanding how they perceive, and feel about them.
• Three steps:• Language generation through triadic elicitation
• Scaling of own concepts by each consumer
• Data analyzed by Procrustes Analysis
Triadic Elicitation
Check-All-That-Apply (CATA)
• Consumers, are asked to check all the attributes that apply in the description of the sensory attributes of each product from a pre-established list of attributes
• Frequencies of selection of each attribute are computed and analyzed with multivariate statistics
• Does not provide a measure of intensities but adequately characterizes the sensory features of a set of products
• Analysis: • Correspondence analysis (CA)
CATA Question Example
• CATA attributes• Randomize order (consider pros and cons)
• 10-17 CATA attributes is optimal
• Unimodal vs bimodal vs multimodal
CATA and Correspondence Analysis
Comparison of Descriptive Analysis (PCA) and CATA (Correspondence Analysis) Sensory Maps for Coffees
Hedonext®
• New method invented by Jean-Marc Sieffermann (AgroParisTech)
• Designed for the evaluation of the acceptance/liking of consumer products
• Sequential evaluation of a set of products with consumer electing to stop when he/she has found a product to their liking and taking product home as reward
• Product must have adequate reward value
• Research collaboration with J.-M. Sieffermann and Eleonore Loescher(LVMH) on olive oils
How do we check whether a new consumer testing method is valid, reliable and viable?• We compare it to the standard in the field – in this case, the 9-point
hedonic scale (‘Hedonic’)…
• …with a ‘premium’ food product: 8 extra virgin olive oils• From California, Italy and Spain
• Price range $8-$36; average price $15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Dislike
ExtremelyDislike
Very MuchDislike
ModeratelyDislikeSlightly
Neither LikeNor Dislike
LikeSlightly
LikeModerately
LikeVery Much
LikeExtremely
Extra Virgin Olive Oils
• Bertolli (Imported Italian blend)
• California Olive Ranch (California)
• Castillo de Canena (Spain)
• Colavita (Imported Italian blend)
• McEvoy (California)
• Cobram Estate (California)
• Kirkland (Costco brand) (Imported Italian blend)
• Villa Campestri (Italy)
Hedonext® vs. Hedonic• Northern California consumers, users and likers of olive oil
• Hedonext®• 139 consumers• Mutually Orthogonal Latin Squares (MOLS) design (block of 112 consumers) [Wakeling &
MacFie, 1995]• Chosen oil given as reward• Measure of liking/preference: number of selections for each oil
• Hedonic• 141 consumers, same demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, education, income) and olive oil
usage as Hedonic population• 9-point hedonic scale, overall liking• MOLS design (block of 112 consumers) – same as for Hedonext• Cobram Estate EVOO (California) given as reward• Measures of liking/preference: Mean degree of liking (ANOVA & Fisher’s LSD), preference
mapping (PCA) and preference clustering (CA)
Sensory Theater, Robert Mondavi Institute, UC Davis
Welcome to the Olive Oil Tasting!
Please, read carefully the instructions of this test.
• You will evaluate and give us your opinion on a maximum of 8 extra virgin olive oils.
• You will have 1 olive oil sample at a time.
• Make sure the 3-digit code on your sample matches the code in your score sheet.
• Look, smell, taste and feel the sample. Then, indicate your opinion about the olive oil.
• After tasting an oil, if you want to stop raise the RED sign. If you want to try another oil, raise the GREEN sign.
• After the olive oil evaluation(s), please, complete the Exit Survey.
• When you are done, get the Extra Virgin Olive Oil Gift you have chosen with our experimenters.
[ ] I like this olive oil and do not wish to try any other. I understand that this is the oil I will have as a reward.[ ] I want to continue and try another olive oil.
Similar rankings between Hedonext® and Hedonic
• 3 top chosen oils (#8, 4 & 1), with oil #8 as the clear winner
• 3 oils tied in the middle (#3, 5 & 6)
• 2 oils at the bottom (#7 & 2)
Hedonext®Number of selections
HedonicMean liking on 9-point hedonic scale
Oil # DOL (9-point) LSD (p<0.05)
8 6.69 a
6 6.37 ab
1 6.14 b
4 6.01 b
3 5.61 c
2 5.23 cd
5 5.04 d
7 4.90 d
Selection Position
• Most frequent selection (28%) @ position #8 (last oil tasted) – unusual for Hedonext®
• Could be due to the nature (CLT) and brevity (under 20 minutes) of the test [vs. HUT]
• Very few selections (<12%) @ positions #1-3 – typical for Hedonext®• Also typical for Hedonext®, peak half-way (@ positions 4, 5 & 6) - 44% of
selections
Olive Oil Selection (First 7 and First 6)
• Same outcome to what we saw when all 8 positions were considered
What did you think about this tasting protocol?
55
Wordcloud based on the frequency. The bigger the word the more quoted it was.
Most quoted :• Like/liked• One (the one)• Taste/tasting• Think
Other remarkable words:• Best/prefer• Game• Choice/chosen/choose• decision• risk
Verbatims Hedonext® - Comments (1/2)
• It was interesting because I had to take a gamble between if I wanted to tryanother, or stick to the one I liked. (C6)
• It felt like a psychology test. I really wanted to keep tasting but I didn't want to bypass really delicious oils. I ended up going for one that really stuck out. (C17)
• It was interesting to have to make a decision on whether or not to continue, without tasting all the samples. I had to think critically about how much I liked the oil. (C44)
• I feel strong feelings of regret. It is a hard balance between wanting to choose oneand sticking with it rather than seeing the rest. (C72)
• I felt like stopping at a favorite made me more critical. (C83)• I liked it! It made me really think about each choice and evaluate how I liked the
flavors independent of the samples. Made me think about my preferences versus sample to sample. Interesting protocol! ( C116)
• Interesting experience--the element of risk adds to it, makes the decision more high stakes which forces you to think about it more. (C121)
56
Verbatims Hedonext® – ‘Game’ Aspect
• It is interesting. Reminds me of a TV game show. (C46)• The protocol is like a game show--risk/reward equation. Odd given the premise which I
(mis)understood to be giving opinions about olive oils. (C52)• Unorthodox? Very unsure if this is the best I would like or if I passed up on a bottle I
would like. It was like a game to me. (C66)• It was a bit of a gamble though, since I was unsure how I would feel about future
samples and knew I would get to take one home. ( C79)• It was fine. Had the extra catch that you can't go back to like a previous one after you
have moved on which made it a bit of a guessing game if I would like a later onebetter than the current one. I would have liked a side-by-side comparison to better evaluate them. (C95)
57
Can We Do Preference Segmentation with Hedonext®?
• Yes!• It requires a product sensory map from:
• Descriptive analysis with experts,
• CATA with consumers, or
• List-All-That-Apply (LATA) with experts – what we used in this study
Sensory Map
• Expert judges from the Los Angeles Olive Oil Competition rated the quality of the oils on a 100-point scale and provided sensory descriptors of the oils (List-All-That-Apply)
• Outcomes
• Mean quality ratings
• MFA of LATA ratings
Preference Segmentation with Hedonext®• Start with 1 preference segment for each chosen product in the set
(i.e., 8 preference segments in this study)
• Combine segments of consumers who chose similar products from the sensory map
• We compiled 4 preference segments - consumers who chose:• Oils #1 or 8 (n=52)
• Oils #3, 4 or 6 (n=52)
• Oil #5 (n=15)
• Oils #2 or 7 (n=20)
• Similar segmentation solution to preference clustering (CA) and preference mapping (PCA) solutions from the Hedonic method
Preference Segmentation with Hedonic
Hedonext® Summary• Hedonext® works!
• Similar outcomes to the 9-point hedonic scale• Hedonext® product selections were consistent with mean hedonic ratings on the 9-point hedonic
scale• Preference segmentation outcomes were consistent with preference mapping outcomes from
hedonic ratings on the 9-point hedonic scale
• Most consumers enjoyed the method (interesting, game-like, element of risk)
• Caveats• Reward value needed for product under study• Full randomization and complete balance not quite possible
• To-do list• Develop and implement a statistical analysis for Hedonext® data• Determine CLT (short) vs. HUT (long) applicability• Develop a power analysis for Hedonext® – how many consumers (n) are required for a set
of p products?
Guinard, 2010
The Quali-Quanti Method
Product: 6 formulations of a frozen-fresh entrée/side dish (salmon, tuna, chicken, carrots, broccoli, mushroom)
Focus groups (week 1)
Home-use test (weeks 2 & 3)
Call-back groups (week 4)
Guinard, 2010
Focus Groups - Week 1
Four focus groups of 10 consumers each
Women, 21-60 years of age, from the Dallas area
Duration: 2 hours
Consumer habits and beliefs
Concept evaluation (concept board)
Evaluation of the product (including tasting)
Product naming
Package evaluation
Pricing
Home-Use Test: Weeks 2 & 3
Part I. Concept evaluation
5-point agree/disagree scale
“This product should be served as an entrée”
“I would serve this product to my family”
“I would order this product in a restaurant”
“This product is for working women”
“This product is high in antioxidants”
...
Home-Use Test: Weeks 2 & 3
Part II. Attitudes and food habits
5-point agree/disagree scale“French cuisine is healthy”
“There are some good frozen dinners in the frozen food section of my supermarket”
“It is important to prepare a meal at home everyday”
Frequency scale“How often do you…?”
5-point importance scale (not at all/very important)
“An entrée should be made from all natural ingredients”
Home-Use Test: Weeks 2 & 3
Part III. Product evaluation
Where, how was the product prepared and eaten?
Sensory quality 9-point hedonic scale
3-point just-right scale
Product/concept fit 5-point agree/disagree scale (same items as for
concept)
Call-back Groups - Week 4
Four groups of about 8 consumers each
Duration: 1.5 hours
Exploration of concept-product fit
User customization of the product
Evaluation of reformulated products
Guinard, 2010
Reactions to the Concept
Healthy product, nutritionally-balanced, with antioxidants
Convenient and easy to prepare
A product for working women, older adults and yuppies, rather than for teenagers or children
Would recommend the product to their friends
As an entrée or side dish, but not really as a snack or treat
A product for the family, but not quite for guests
A product for eating at work, in a cafeteria, or on an airplane, but not really in a restaurant
Guinard, 2010
Attitudes and Food Habits
French cuisine viewed as moderately healthy but good-tasting
Current frozen dinner market lacks good products.
An entrée should not have previously been frozen; but an entrée should be something that can be prepared in minutes.
Lunch is brought to the office, whereas frozen food is eaten for lunch or dinner between once a month and once a week.
Need for involvement in the preparation of a meal
Meals eaten away from home, and meals eaten with the entire family 2/3 times a week.
Results
OVERALL DEGREE OF LIKING - HOME USE TEST
123456789
10
Tuna
Salm
on
Chic
ken
Bro
ccoli
Car
rots
Mush
room
s
PRODUCTS
DE
GR
EE
OF L
IKIN
G (
9-P
oin
t)
Reactions to the Products
Broccoli received the highest hedonic ratings (7.7 on the 9-point hedonic scale) and tuna received the lowest (4.4).
The serving size was just right for the tuna, salmon, chicken and broccoli, but a bit too large for the carrots and mushrooms.
The innovative nature of the product was clearly felt for the salmon, broccoli and particularly the carrots and the mushrooms.
The chicken and fish products were viewed as entrees whereas the vegie products were viewed as side dishes.
Results
DEGREE OF LIKING OF APPEARANCE
123456789
10
Tuna
Salmon
Chicke
n
Brocco
li
Carrots
Mushro
oms
PRODUCTS
HE
DO
NIC
SC
AL
E (
9-P
oin
t)
Focus Group Home Use
Results
DEGREE OF LIKING OF TASTE
123456789
10
Tuna
Salmon
Chicke
n
Brocco
li
Carrots
Mushro
oms
PRODUCTS
HE
DO
NIC
SC
AL
E (
9-P
oin
t)Focus Group Home Use
Guinard, 2010
Results
The home-use test confirmed the responses obtained during the focus groups:
Products which received high hedonic ratings in the focus groups were rated even higher in the home-use test (e.g., broccoli, mushrooms), and vice versa (e.g., tuna, chicken).
Guinard, 2010
Significance
This “Quali-Quanti” method:
Speeds up product development
Reduces biases inherent to quantitative testing protocols
Generates information regarding the concept, the product, and the goodness-of-fit between them
Accesses the beliefs and attitudes of the consumers
Uncovers potential product functionalities (e.g., health benefits, convenience of preparation, sensory pleasure)
Means End Chain Analysis
• Laddering interview technique:• “Why do you…?”
• “Why is it important that you that …?”
• Repeat
• Attributes – Consequences - Values
Means End Chain AnalysisConsumers of both imported and local oils
Empathic Design
• Observation
• Multidisciplinary team
• Harvard Business School
Empathic Design: The Process
1. Observation
2. Capturing the data
3. Reflection and analysis
4. Brainstorming for solutions
5. Developing prototypes of possible solutions
Source: Leonard & Rayport, Harvard Bus. Rev., Nov/Dec 1997
Empathic Design
• Observation• Consumer in his/her natural environment
• “Lead users”
• Team of observers: human-factors expert, product engineer, marketing expert
• Skills: open-mindedness, observational skills, curiosity
Empathic design
• Capturing data• Observation and open-ended questions (e.g., “why are
you doing that?”)
• Observers’ guide (e.g., “what problems is the user encountering?”)
• Video-cameras, notebooks, laptop computer
Empathic Design
• Reflection and analysis• Team of observers meet (with colleagues)
• Identify possible problems and needs of the consumers
Empathic Design
• Brainstorming for solutions• Transform observations into graphic, visual
representations of possible solutions
• Creative, yet disciplined process
• Defer judgement, build on ideas of others, stay focused, encourage wild ideas
• From simple conference room to virtual reality facilities
Empathic Design
• Developing prototypes of possible solutions• Physical representation of the new product concept (to
clarify concept for the developers)
• Put the concept before others
• Stimulate reaction and foster discussion with potential customers of the innovation
Empathic Design
Why does the methods work?• Teamwork, with representatives of all components of
the company
• Recognition of the heterogeneous nature of the consumer population
• Adequate statistical power
• Emphasis on observation
• Gets at unarticulated consumer needs
=> Breakthrough innovation
Design Thinking
• From Stanford’s d.school and IDEO (David Kelley)
• Consumer-based problem-solving method that also relies on observation of the consumer, and draws from empathy and experimentation
• The Design Thinking Process first defines the problem and then implements the solutions, always with the needs of the user demographic at the core of concept development.
• This process focuses on need finding, understanding, creating, thinking, and doing.
• At the core of this process is a bias towards action and creation which allows for continuous learning and improvement upon initial ideas.
Design Thinking
• The Design Thinking Process comprises 5 steps:• EMPATHIZE: Work to fully understand the experience of the user for whom you are
designing. Do this through observation, interaction, and immersing yourself in their experiences.
• DEFINE: Process and synthesize the findings from your empathy work in order to form a user point of view that you will address with your design.
• IDEATE: Explore a wide variety of possible solutions through generating a large quantity of diverse possible solutions, allowing you to step beyond the obvious and explore a range of ideas.
• PROTOTYPE: Transform your ideas into a physical form so that you can experience and interact with them and, in the process, learn and develop more empathy.
• TEST: Try out high-resolution products and use observations and feedback to refine prototypes, learn more about the user, and refine your original point of view.
Design Thinking
Design Thinking
Virtual Reality
• Mimic the user’s environment and experience
• Technology dependent but potential savings
Consumer Research Model
Product Variables•Sensory properties•Functionalities•Marketing mix•…
Consumer Variables•Demographics•Psychographics•Genetics & physiology•…
Context Variables•Physical context•Convenience/effort•Societal pressures•…
Consumption Behavior•Preferences (likes & dislikes)•Choice•Purchase/Repeat purchase•Consumption•Pleasure/SatietyCulture
A multivariate problem requires:•Multivariate designs and statistics•Qualitative and quantitative approaches
Guinard; 2010
