Scenario-Based Conjoint Analysis: Measuring Preferences for User Experiences in Early Stage Design

Conjoint analysis has proven to be a useful method for decomposing and estimating consumer preference for each attribute of a product or service through evaluations of sets of different versions of the product with varying attribute levels. The predictive value of conjoint analysis is confounded, however, by increasing market uncertainties and changes in user expectations. We explore the use of scenario-based conjoint analysis in order to complement qualitative design research methods in the early stages of concept development. The proposed methodology focuses on quantitatively assessing user experiences rather than product features to create experience-driven products, especially in cases in which the technology is advancing beyond consumer familiarity. Rather than replace conventional conjoint analysis for feature selection near the end of the product development cycle, our method broadens the scope of conjoint analysis so that this powerful measurement technique can be applied in the early stage of design to complement qualitative research and drive strategic directions for developing product experiences. We illustrate on a new product development case study of a flexible wearable for parent-child communication and tracking as an example of scenario-based conjoint analysis implementation. The results, limitations, and findings are discussed in more depth followed by future research directions.

[1]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Scenario-based design , 2002 .

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

[3]  Alistair G. Sutcliffe,et al.  Scenario-based requirements engineering , 2003, Proceedings. 11th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, 2003..

[4]  David Benyon,et al.  Scenarios and the HCI-SE design problem , 2002, Interact. Comput..

[5]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice , 1990 .

[6]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement , 2008 .

[7]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Becoming social: Expanding scenario-based approaches in HCI , 1996, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[8]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  The Effect of Product Representation in Visual Conjoint Analysis , 2014, DAC 2014.

[9]  P. Green,et al.  Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects , 2001 .

[10]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  Design Roadmapping: A Framework and Case Study on Planning Development of High-Tech Products in Silicon Valley , 2016 .

[11]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data , 1983 .

[12]  Kun-Pyo Lee Culture, Interface Design, and Design Methods for Mobile Devices , 2010, Mobile TV: Customizing Content and Experience.

[13]  B. Orme Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research , 2005 .

[14]  Daniel Baier,et al.  Conjoint Analysis and Stimulus Presentation — a Comparison of Alternative Methods , 2002 .

[15]  H. V. Trijp,et al.  Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques , 2005 .

[16]  Ilpo Koskinen,et al.  Co-experience: user experience as interaction , 2005 .

[17]  Leena Arhippainen,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of User Experience in two Adaptive Mobile Application Prototypes , 2003 .

[18]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  DESIGN ROADMAPPING: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES , 2015 .

[19]  Bryan K. Orme,et al.  Sawtooth Software RESEARCH PAPER SERIES any Questions Should You k in Choice-Based Conjoint Studies ? , 2001 .

[20]  R. M. Young,et al.  The use of scenarios in human-computer interaction research: turbocharging the tortoise of cumulative science , 1987, CHI '87.

[21]  Erin F. MacDonald,et al.  Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment With Associated Eye Gaze Patterns , 2012 .

[22]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  The construction of preferences for crux and sentinel product attributes , 2007 .

[23]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Preference Inconsistency in Multidisciplinary Design Decision Making , 2007, DAC 2007.

[24]  Cornelius Herstatt,et al.  The Fuzzy Front End of Innovation , 2001 .