Quantifying Aesthetic Form Preference in a Utility Function

One of the greatest challenges in product development is creating a form that is aesthetically attractive to an intended market audience. Market research tools, such as consumer surveys, are well established for functional product features, but aesthetic preferences are as varied as the people that respond to them. Additionally, and possibly even more challenging, user feedback requires objective measurement and quantification of aesthetics and aesthetic preference. The common methods for quantifying aesthetics present respondents with metric scales over dimensions with abstract semantic labels like "strong" and "sexy. " Even if researchers choose the correct semantics to test, and even if respondents accurately record their responses on these semantic scales, the results on the semantic scales must be translated back into a product shape, where the designer must take the consumers' numerical scores for a set of semantics and translate that into a form which consumers will find desirable. This translation presents a potential gap in understanding between the supply and demand sides of the marketplace. This gap between designer and user can be closed through objective methods to understand and quantify aesthetic preferences because the designer would have concrete directions to use as a foundation for development of the product form. Additionally, the quantification of aesthetic preference could be used by the designer as evidence to support certain product forms when engineering and manufacturing decisions are made that might adversely affect the aesthetics of the product form. This paper demonstrates how the qualitative attribute, form, cannot only be represented quantitatively, but also how customer preferences can be estimated as utility functions over the aesthetic space, so that new higher utility product forms can be proposed and explored. To do so, the form is summarized with underlying latent form characteristics, and these underlying characteristics are specified to be attributes in a utility function. Consumer surveys, created using design of experiments, are then used to capture an individual's preference for the indicated attributes and thus the form. Once preference is summarized in the utility function, the utility function can be used as the basis for form generation and modification or design verification.

[1]  P. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook , 1978 .

[2]  David W. Beach,et al.  Integrated Product Design for Marketability and Manufacturing , 1997 .

[3]  Hui Li,et al.  An Approach for Product Line Design Selection under Uncertainty and Competition , 2002 .

[4]  R. Dale Wilson,et al.  How designers and buyers evaluate products , 1989 .

[5]  Hsin-Hsi Lai,et al.  Expression modes used by consumers in conveying desire for product form: A case study of a car , 2006 .

[6]  H. Li,et al.  Product Design Selection Under Uncertainty and With Competitive Advantage , 2000 .

[7]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis , 1979 .

[8]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives—Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1977 .

[9]  J. R. DeShazo,et al.  Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency , 2002 .

[10]  A. Page,et al.  Redesigning product lines with conjoint analysis: How sunbeam does it , 1987 .

[11]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Creating Breakthrough Products: Innovation from Product Planning to Program Approval , 2001 .

[12]  Hsin-Hsi Lai,et al.  A robust design approach for enhancing the feeling quality of a product: a car profile case study , 2005 .

[13]  Frank J. Carmone,et al.  ACA System for Adaptive Conjoint Analysis , 1987 .

[14]  E. K. Antonsson,et al.  Modeling imprecision in product design , 1994, Proceedings of 1994 IEEE 3rd International Fuzzy Systems Conference.

[15]  R. A. Bradley,et al.  RANK ANALYSIS OF INCOMPLETE BLOCK DESIGNS , 1952 .

[16]  Peter H. Bloch Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response , 1995 .

[17]  R. Luce,et al.  The Choice Axiom after Twenty Years , 1977 .

[18]  Mark J. Garratt,et al.  Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications , 1994 .

[19]  Mitsuo Nagamachi,et al.  Kansei Engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development , 1995 .

[20]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  A 2-Phase Aspiration-Level and Utility Theory Approach to Large Scale Design , 2000 .

[21]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Identifying product shape relationships using principal component analysis , 2008 .

[22]  Wei Chen,et al.  Quality utility : a Compromise Programming approach to robust design , 1999 .

[23]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[24]  Shapour Azarm,et al.  Product Design Selection With Preference and Attribute Variability for an Implicit Value Function , 2006 .

[25]  Joel Huber,et al.  A General Method for Constructing Efficient Choice Designs , 1996 .

[26]  Erik K. Antonsson,et al.  Aggregation functions for engineering design trade-offs , 1995, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[27]  Deborah L Thurston Multiattribute utility analysis in design management , 1990 .

[28]  Marvin Berkowitz,et al.  Product shape as a design innovation strategy , 1987 .

[29]  R. A. Bradley,et al.  RANK ANALYSIS OF INCOMPLETE BLOCK DESIGNS THE METHOD OF PAIRED COMPARISONS , 1952 .

[30]  J. M. Kittross The measurement of meaning , 1959 .

[31]  R. Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. , 1960 .

[32]  X. R. L N K C Z V E A Y H G U T X R L N K C Z V E A Y H [General method]. , 2000, Diabetes & metabolism.

[33]  Morris B. Holbrook,et al.  Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal Versus Pictorial Presentations , 1981 .

[34]  J. Swait,et al.  The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching , 2001 .

[35]  Joris S. M. Vergeest,et al.  Freeform shape variables of product designs and their correlation to subjective criteria , 2004 .

[36]  E. Antonsson,et al.  The Method of Imprecision Compared to Utility Theory for Design Selection Problems , 1993 .

[37]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  Fuzzy Ratings and Utility Analysis in Preliminary Design Evaluation of Multiple Attributes , 1992 .

[38]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  Balancing Marketing and Manufacturing Objectives in Product Line Design , 2006 .

[39]  E. Rowland Theory of Games and Economic Behavior , 1946, Nature.

[40]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  A formal method for subjective design evaluation with multiple attributes , 1991 .

[41]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis , 2001 .

[42]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[43]  Vithala R. Rao,et al.  Conjoint Measurement- for Quantifying Judgmental Data , 1971 .

[44]  M. Holbrook Aims, Concepts, and Methods for the Representation of Individual Differences in Esthetic Responses to Design Features , 1986 .

[45]  Mel Yamamoto,et al.  The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of industrial products , 1994 .