customer involvement in new product ...723617/fulltext01.pdfbachelor thesis customer involvement in...

Bachelor Thesis

CUSTOMER INVOLVEMENT IN NEW PRODUCT

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Author: Anh Dat Nguyen

Supervisor: Soniya Billore

Examiner: Åsa Devine

Date: Spring 2014

Subject: Marketing

Level: Bachelor

Course Code: 2FE016

i

Abstract Purpose – Evaluate the four popular communication methods to involve customers in the NPD

process from customers’ perspective (In this thesis, the four chosen communication methods are:

Quality Function Deployment, Prototype, Idea Generation Activities and Lead-user Involvement).

Design/Methodology/Approach – This is a quantitative research which used questionnaire to collect

data. The questionnaire form is distributed online to respondents.

Findings – The findings show the comparison between the four communication methods. The

differences are measured and analyzed using measurement system from Zaichkowsky (1985)

including: Interests, Needs and Values.

Research Limitations – This thesis face limitation regarding the chosen sample. In addition to that,

language is also one of the major obstacles.

Managerial Implications – The findings provide companies with evaluation regarding option for

communication method to increase customer involvement degree.

Originality/Value – This research is unique in a way that the author filtered the four most popular

communication methods based on reviewed articles then conducted an evaluation on these methods.

The evaluation is performed based on customers’ perspective which has not been done before. This

thesis provides a new perspective on how firms should look at customers’ involvement.

Keywords New Product Development, Prototype, Quality Function Deployment, Idea Generation, Lead-user

ii

Acknowledgements This thesis was written as my bachelor thesis during my last semester at Linnaeus University in the

spring of 2014.

Working with this thesis has benefited me in various ways, which not only expanded my educational

knowledge but will go a long way to help me in the later career. I would like to take this opportunity

to acknowledge the efforts of some people who in one way or the other, made this a success. Without

their help, it would have been difficult for us to accomplish this task.

First of all I wish a heartfelt thank you to my tutor Dr. Soniya Billore and examiner Dr. Åsa Devine

for providing valuable and substantial feedback during the working process. I would also like to

thank my fellow classmates who took time and effort to read my paper and provided me constructive

feedback. Thank you to all the people who had participated in answering my questionnaire. I want to

send sincere wishes and gratitude to my mother, they have always been there for me in the toughest

moment of my education, they have always shown the best support in the world that I could have

ever had. I want to thank sincerely to all my friends who have been staying by my side and fill me up

with endless inspiration and limitless motivation.

I wish that my work on the thesis can somehow contribute to the academy world and benefit to those

special one who seek passion in the subject that I have been following – Marketing & NPD.

Linnaeus University School of Business and Economics

2014-06-02

Nguyen Dat Anh

iii

Table&of&Contents&

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Area of Interest ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem Discussion .................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Research Question ...................................................................................................................... 3

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................... 3

2.1 Quality Function Deployment ................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Prototype ..................................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Idea Generation Activities ......................................................................................................... 7

2.4 Lead-user Involvement .............................................................................................................. 9

2.5 Customer Involvement Measurement .................................................................................... 10

3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Research Approach .................................................................................................................. 12

3.1.1 Deductive and inductive theory .......................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Qualitative vs Quantitative Research .................................................................................. 13

3.2 Data Source ............................................................................................................................... 14

3.3 Research Strategy .................................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Data Collection Methods - Questionnaire .............................................................................. 16

3.4.1 Definition and Purposes ...................................................................................................... 16

3.4.2 Types of the questionnaire .................................................................................................. 16

3.5 Operationalization ................................................................................................................... 17

3.5.1 Part 1 - Affirmation of Involvement Method ...................................................................... 19 3.5.2 Part 2 - Measure Customer Involvement ............................................................................ 23

3.6 Sample Selection ....................................................................................................................... 29

3.7 Pre-testing ................................................................................................................................. 30

3.8 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 30

3.8.1 Preparation of Data ............................................................................................................. 30

iv

3.8.2 Progression .......................................................................................................................... 31

3.8.3 Data Analysis Test .............................................................................................................. 31

3.9 Quality Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 32

3.9.1 Reliability ............................................................................................................................ 32 3.9.2 Content Validity .................................................................................................................. 32

3.9.3 External Validity ................................................................................................................. 33 3.9.4 Construct Validity ............................................................................................................... 33

4 SURVEY RESULT & ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 34

4.1 Quality Function Deployment ................................................................................................. 34

4.2 Prototype ................................................................................................................................... 38

4.3 Idea Generation Activities ....................................................................................................... 43

4.4 Lead-user Involvement ............................................................................................................ 47

4.5 Method Comparisons ............................................................................................................... 51

4.5.1 Interest category .................................................................................................................. 51

4.5.2 Needs Category ................................................................................................................... 52 4.5.3 Value category .................................................................................................................... 53

4.5.4 Findings ............................................................................................................................... 54

4.6 Reliability .................................................................................................................................. 55

5 DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION ............................................................ 56

5.1 Customer Involvement with Quality Function Deployment method .................................. 56

5.2 Customer Involvement with Prototype method .................................................................... 57

5.3 Customer Involvement with Idea Generation Activities method ........................................ 59

5.4 Customer Involvement with Lead-user Involvement method ............................................. 59

6 CONCLUSION AND REFLECTIONS ................................................................. 60 7 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ........................................................................ 61 8 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS ................................................................................. 61 References .................................................................................................................... 63 Appendices ...................................................................................................................... I

Appendix I Questionnaire Form .................................................................................................... II

Appendix II Topic List of 36 Reviewed Articles ............................................................................ I

1

1 INTRODUCTION —————————————————————————————————————————

This chapter provides reader with a brief description of the research topic, area of interest as well

as the main purpose for this study. After the Problem Discussion, the author composes a research

question to guide the study, then present the delimitation for the empirical investigation.

1.1 Area of Interest

The markets are changing with a faster pace due to a rapid transitional flows of money, materials

and a shorter product life cycles. As a result, technology gradually became the key driver for this

intensive competition (Shepherd and Ahmed, 2000). When more companies are created, more new

ideas are made along with new innovations in products and technologies. Gradually, the market

became a battlefield of firms who compete with each others in term of new products and

technologies. Hence, companies became more competitive than how they were in the past as they

highly focused on gaining market shares and advantages over competitors. Companies brought up a

concern regarding the potential of the new product development. They were questioning about the

key factors which determine the success of a new product. Many studies have been made dedicating

to this matter, hence, scholars suggested that customer satisfaction could be considered as the

dominant component for a successful new product. Significantly, to satisfy its customers, a

company must fulfill the needs and expectations from the target group. Lagrosen (2001) suggested

that in order to perform successful new product development, it is important for the company to

acquire a deep understanding of customers’ expectations, needs and wants.

1.2 Problem Discussion

According to a study of Lagrosen in 2005, for an industrial firm to be successful within the market,

it is essential to focus on improving the capability to develop new products. By developing new

innovation and introducing new products; firms have more possibilities to discover new markets.

While engaging within these markets, firms have more access to new customers or exploit existing

customers resulting in more profits and better growth rate (Lagrosen, 2005). Matzlet and

Hinterhuber (1998) countered that finding by providing evidence to show that despite firms' effort

in improving NPD (New Product Development) capabilities, there still exists a large number of

failed projects since they were not able to meet the expectation from the customers. Companies

2

gradually understand the importance of customers; hence, firms considered customers satisfaction is

the most crucial factor for achieving NPD success (Lagrosen, 2005). Firms achieve customers

satisfaction by developing products that closely related to the wants of the customers (Matzler and

Hinterhuber, 1998). In order to create these successful products, firms need to acquire an in-depth

understanding of the customers (Karkainen, Piippo, and Tuominen, 2001). Lagrosen (2005)

suggested oneway to accomplish this goal is to maintain active interaction with customers.

Companies and customers will continuously communicate with each other using different methods

so that firms can understand their customers. Scholars have come up with multiple major

communication methods to involve customers more. The findings of current literatures mostly

cover studying customer involvement methods from company’s perspective (Kaulio, 1998; Witell,

et al., 2011; Mahr, 2011). The author of this paper read through 36 articles regarding Customer

Involvement in NPD and found that previous scholars were more likely to investigate few of the

most popular communication methods, e.g. Chan and Wu (2002); Dolan and Matthews (1993);

Kaulio (1998); Kim, et al., (1998); Kristiano, Ajmal and Sandhu (2012) studied mainly Quality

Function Deployment; Frishammar and Horte (2005); Humphrey and Grayson (2008); Lagrosen

(2005); Lundkvist and Yakhlef (2004) focused on the studying Idea Generation Activities; Dolan

and Matthews (1993); Kaulio (1998); Nijssen and Lieshout (1995); Sandberg (2007) Sawney,

Verona and Prandeli (2005) conducted researches on Prototype Testing; and Franke (2006); Herstatt

and von Hippel (1992); Lilien, et al., (2002); Munksgaard and Freytag (2011) investigated Lead-

User Involvement (For the topic list of all 36 articles, check Appendix). Clearly, different scholars

suggested different methods to involve customers in NPD process. Choosing the appropriate

communication method is important, Salomo, et al. (2003) provided evidence showing that an

increment in customers engagement within innovation projects influence positively on NPD

success. Hence, it seems that there is no general agreement regarding the preference of different

communication methods from customer perspective. This theoretical gap calls for a study of

customers’ perception about the communication method which are the most attractive for

customers.

1.3 Purpose

Evaluate the four popular communication methods to involve customers in the NPD process from

customers’ perspective.

3

1.4 Research Question

Based on customers’ perspective, which communication method is more preferred to involve

customers within NPD?

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK —————————————————————————————————————————

The Introduction chapter has provided readers with some insights over the target of this research.

In order to answer the research question, the author needs to form a strong theory background

which can be the base for research methods. Under Theoretical Framework chapter, the author

presents a literature review of core theories and findings which are necessary for the study

purpose.

2.1 Quality Function Deployment

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) was developed in 1972 as part of teachings from Deming.

QFD was originally referred as the philosophy to ensure high quality of products in design stage;

later on, it is widely considered as method to ensure high quality in every stage of NPD process

(Akao, 1990; Lockamy and Khurana, 1995). QFD brings companies advantages by reducing the

design changes, less startup problems, shorten product development cycle time and increase

customer satisfaction (Kim, et al., 1998). Martins and Aspinwall (2001) proposed a simple

definition of QFD as the method to understand customers’ expected quality in order to turn those

expectations into reality, This definition is further supported by Komaran (2002). Gonzalez,

Quesada and Bahill (2003) investigated more and defined QFD as the systematic process which is

applied by companies to identify and solve problems occurred in product development process in

order to satisfy customers’ expectations.

Customer expectations are referred to as the desires or wants of customer; they are what customers

believe firms should offer (Hsieh and Yuan, 2010). Gonzalez (2001) argued that when applying

QFD the firms need to gather customer expectations and distribute these information through out

the organization. There are two aspects of customers expectations that the firms should pay

attention to : Desired and Adequate expectations (Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml, 1991). Desired

4

expectations refer to the imagination, hope of customers about the services, this includes what

customers wanted from the firms’ offer. On the other hand, Adequate expectations refer to the

satisfaction level where customers can accept the performance and quality of the offer (Zeithaml,

Berry and Parasuraman, 1993; Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml, 1991). It is ideal for firms to aim

at Desired expectations; products that reached Desired expectations show that firms have a strong

understanding of the customers (Hsieh and Yuan, 2010). Customer requirements or expectations are

measured by the values and benefits which customers expect from product quality attributes

(Kristiano, Ajmal and Sandhu, 2012). These requirements are then used for constructing a

benchmark to compare organizational capabilities against the customer requirements. Company’s

offers can be improved based on information about customers’ expectation (Hsieh and Yuan, 2010;

Gonzalez, 2001). Literature shows that continuous improvements acquired by implementing QFD

can result in better customer satisfaction (Kristiano, Ajmal and Sandhu, 2012).

Customer requirements and expectations can be gathered through a various number of techniques,

including customer surveys, focus groups, customer interviews, interaction with salespeople,

customer complaints (Bossert, 1991). Customers are involved directly in surveys, focus groups and

customer interviews. For approach of listening to salespeople, employees from companies

communicate with customers then report all the requirements or demands that customers seem to

have to the company; this method is more indirect than the others (Bossert, 1991; Mehrjerdi, 2010).

Customer complaint is another approach - company establishes a system where customers can

forward their complaints about current products directly to the company (Han, et al., 2001). The

benefit of this approach is that, customers can contact the company anytime they want and about

any matter they concern. However, this approach can only cover those issues that customers have

experienced instead of any matters that firms attempt to improve (Mehrjerdi, 2010; Han, et al.,

2001). Since the introduction of internet, many improvements and advancements in the web

technologies have enhance the effectiveness of QFD approaches (Filieri, 2013; Mahr, 2011).

Customer surveys, interviews can be conducted on web or any social media platforms. Meanwhile,

firms can establish online customer feedbacks where customers can voice their complaints anytime

and anywhere (Kristensson and Magnusson, 2010). As mentioned above, it is ideal for firms to

understand the most of customers’ desired expectations and develop new products based on what

they interpreted (Hsieh and Yuan, 2010). With the support of web technologies, approaches such as

customer complaints becomes more powerful in collecting desired expectations from customers

(Filieri, 2013).

5

2.2 Prototype

Prototype testing is one of the formal tool that firms use to involve customers (Ulrich and Eppinger,

2000). This tool can be used by both large and small firms, it is not limited by the size of the

company (Lagrosen, 2005). Prototype is a version of product which is developed by key engineers

and designers (Mascarenhas, Kesavan and Bernacchi, 2004). Kaulio (1998) argued that the

prototype method is more selective than other methods as firms will choose certain group of

customers who they believe as capable of understanding the prototype and can handle the testing

process. These prototypes are then handed over to the chosen customers to perform the test, the

customers can send their feedbacks, opinions or findings regarding the prototype in order to

redefine the product and eliminate the flaws within designs and functions (Kaulio, 1998). Prototype

is effective because it can clearly show the customers the product concept, also, the customers can

see at which phase of technological and design development the company is working on

(Mascahenras, Kesavan and Bernacchi, 2004). The customers have the chance to view the product

visually or physically which means they can experience the new product in a true sense (Veryzer,

1998).

There are two important concepts which are related to the influences of prototype: Proactiveness

and Reactiveness (Sandberg, 2007). Proactiveness is understood as firms gathered customer-related

information and create changes in customers demands and behaviors then create prototype which

can satisfy those new demands (Johannessen, Olaisen and Olsen, 1999). When Proactiveness is

high, firms showed stronger influences on market demands (Sandberg, 2007; Johannessen, Olaisen

and Olsen, 1999). It means that, the prototype is initially created based on vision of firms,

customers adapt to the prototype as well as new changes in functions, features then contribute ideas

about how to improve this prototype in relation to the newly created demands (Veryzer, 1998). On

the other side, Reactiveness means that firms make attempt to understand and follow articulated

needs of customers (Slater and Narver, 1998). When Reactiveness is high, firms concentrate on

conducting market experiments to study potential customers future needs; with those information in

hand, the prototype is formulated and delivered to customers (Slater, 2001; Sandberg, 2007).

Customers’ feedbacks, opinions are collected more after the prototype is released for further

modifications and improvements, therefore, prototype method ensures a high level of customer

involvement (Hoffmann, 2007). With prototype, company brings customers closer to NPD process

and show the importance of customers’ requirements on new product and its features (Sandberg,

2007).

6

According to Khoo (2002), in order for prototype approach to be effective, firms need to manage

several important aspects, including: (1) provide access to prototype, (2) establish a strong

community, (3) providing tools and necessary technology for customers, (4) establish feedback

platform. Further explanations of these aspects are presented as follow:

! Prototype Access: This is the key aspect of successful customers involvement with prototype

approach (Khoo, 2002). Firms need to pay attention about how customers can access to

prototype and how easy it is for them to do so. This is because if the prototype is difficult to

access or there are complex and difficult procedures in order to gain access then customers

might not dedicate time to participate in the activity (Campbell, et al., 2008; Tseng and Jiao,

1998).

! Strong Community: There should be a community or network where customers can visit and

access news, information, instructions, technologies relating to product development, prototype

testing (ibid). The network needs to support interaction between members and encourage

discussions relating to the prototype (Tseng and Jiao, 1998). In addition to that, the

communication network must also provide customers with detailed guide to understand and

investigate the prototype (Tseng and Jiao, 1998; Huang and Mak, 1999). If there are any

changes with the prototypes, regardless functions or designs, customers can receive up-to-date

news right away from the community (Campbell, et al., 2008).

! Provide Tools & Technologies: Along with the instructions, firms can build up customer

toolkits to strengthen customers’ capabilities to investigate and develop the product further

(Huang and Mak, 1999). Customers can access and investigate more thoroughly with proper

technology and understanding. As a result, they can provide specific feedbacks to the firms

regarding the functions, designs, improvement ideas or any existing errors (ibid).

! Feedback Platform: Beside the community for prototype testers, it is also crucial to establish

feedback platform. This platform serves as the bridge between customers and companies where

any suggestions, error reports, ideas for changes can be delivered directly between customers

and R&D team (Khoo, 2002; Campbell, et al., 2008).

7

2.3 Idea Generation Activities

Customers are usually viewed as passive buyers who only purchase for products designed, created

and produced by others (Xie, Bagozzi and Troye, 2007). However, many researches have proven

that through out the product development process, firms need to pay more attention to customers’

ideas and opinions (Holt, Geschka and Peterlongo, 1984; Deszca, Munro and Noori, 1999;

Sandberg, 2007). Coming from a service-dominant logic, idea generation activities take a different

approach where the customers’ problems, requirements can identify a suitable products that can

handle the problem (Sawhney, 2006). Idea generation activities refer to the activities where

customers join the companies to generate ideas for product development (Witell, et al., 2011).

These activities usually start with searching for a new product idea then ends with final decision for

further product development (Sandberg, 2007).

Idea generation activities have been mentioned by multiple authors throughout the history as

collaborative activities of customers and companies to create values for products (von Hippel, 1986;

Pitta, et al., 1996; Kristensson Gustafsson and Archer, 2004; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000). The

development of web technologies have led to many forms of communications flows, collaboration

and cooperation with customers; this created a major impact on methods to involve customers in the

idea generation processes (Filieri, 2013). With web and social medias, firms can gather customers’

ideas and opinions faster; this major development allowed firms to be able to involve customers

better in NPD process through idea generation activities (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994; Mahr, 2011;

von Hippel, 2005). In modern time, businesses use social media as well as web applications to

create virtual environment in order to encourage customers to propose new ideas. With a proper and

convenient virtual environment, customers can easily share their ideas with the business (Hamel and

Prahalad, 1994; Mahr, 2011; von Hippel, 2005; Filieri, 2013). There are several options for firms to

involve customers in relation to idea generation activities:

! Conferences & Meeting: This method has been a good choice for firms for many years ,

however, due to the limitation in location, facilities, customers or invitees might not come

(Chesbrough, 2003). With the help of web technologies and social media, firms can hold

conferences and meeting through internet where an unlimited amount of attendants can

participate (Filieri, 2013; Seybold, 2006).

8

! Virtual Environment: Though this is an emerging choice for idea generation, however, it is still

applied by many companies, especially when it comes to gather new ideas for product design

(Filieri, 2013; Ogawa and Piller, 2006). The idea is that firms can create a platform on internet

or online application where customers can design any products as they can imagine. This has

proven to be a successful with high input of ideas for product designs, however, it still lacks of

input for product functions and characteristics (Filiere, 2013)

! Idea Competition: This is an old approach that firms can use. Within the competitions,

participants can submit their new ideas for product developments and the most plausible and

interesting ideas can receive rewards from organizers (Lojacono and Zaccai, 2004; Ulwick,

2002). When customers participate in idea competition, the ideas are chosen and prepared more

carefully; as a result, firms can collect large amount of high quality of new ideas from

customers (Ulwick, 2002; Mahr, 2011).

! Approach External Communities: Outside the company’s environment, there exists multiple

online customers communities where members freely discuss any matters, any new ideas or

present any exploration of new products. It is vital for firms to approach and draw information

from this community in (Seybold, 2006; Lakhani and Wolf, 2005; Jeppesen and Molin, 2003).

One good example is Viber where they have created accounts to participate in multiple external

communities in order to maximize the interaction between them and the customers.

Though collecting these information are one objective of these activities, the main purpose is to

transform customers to active participants in the product development process (Lusch, Vargo and

O’Brien, 2007). It also means that, customers contribute their ideas in order to not only benefit

themselves but also the general customers in the society (Humphreys and Grayson, 2008). Idea

generation activities bring great benefits to companies; it helps companies to understand customers

more, develop products which are more suitable to the target group as well as building a closer

relationship with the customers (Witell, et al., 2011). These benefit of the co-operation with

customers were also supported by other scholars (von Hippel, 1988; Leonard-Barton, 1995).

9

2.4 Lead-user Involvement

Theories about lead-user has been studied and highlighted as the appropriate approach to access

excessive knowledge and information of customers. The purpose of this method is to create a

certain degree of lead-user involvement so that the companies can achieve better insights into the

future of products and services, and these insights are closely related to the target markets’ needs

and preferences (Munksgaard and Freytag, 2011; von Hippel, 1986). The lead-user activities reduce

the risk of new product failure as well as increasing the speed to enter market (Lilien, et al., 2002;

Morrison, et al., 2000; Thompke and von Hippel, 2002). This method is widely used amongst

multiple industries and business areas, for example, recent studies showed that lead-user

involvement can be found in software development and product development (Lüthje and Herstatt,

2004). Lead-user is different from regular users due to two main characteristics: (1) they develop

needs which will become the general need in market months or years later; and (2) they can come

up with a significant solution to satisfy those needs (Franke, von Hippel and Schreier, 2006; von

Hippel, 1986). Lead-user involvement helps company to identify potential market and technology

opportunities improve design in early stage of NPD as well as generate new, creative ideas for

better innovation performance (Lin, Chen and Chiu, 2009; Tsai, 2009; von Hippel, 1988). Because

of this, lead-user is valuable for the product development process of companies (Oosterloo, Kratzer

and Achterkamp, 2009). The quality of lead-user involvement is not determined by the amount of

interactions, instead, it is influenced by the quality of interactions between companies and lead-

users; which mean, the quality of the information, method for communications are important

(MacCormack, 2001; Herstatt and von Hippel, 1992). Some researchers also argued that the new

products which are developed based on lead-user involvements become more successful than the

products developed based on the common consumers’ perspectives (Urban and von Hippel, 1988;

von Hippel, Thompke and Sonnack, 1999). Research from Lilien, et al. (2002) showed that lead-

users are capable of creating products which generate eight time higher sales than those created

based on company’s ideas. Lead-users possess high quality and complex knowledge about products,

therefore, the information that firms share with them are also in a higher level compare to the

standard consumers (von Hippel, 1988; Filieri, 2013). Lead-users can look at the product from a

different and unique angle that firms might miss or would not see. Due to these reasons, to

effectively communicate and interact with lead-users, firms might need a separate environment

within which not only firms can contact with lead-users but also the interaction between lead-users

is also focused (Seybold, 2006; Jeppesen and Molin, 2003; Lakhani and Wolf, 2005). Which means

for effective lead-users involvement, firms need to establish proper community for lead-users so

10

that they can access good sources and quality information regarding the products and technologies

(Lakhani and Wolf, 2005; Jeppesen and Molin, 2003). It is very important that firms pay attention

to providing lead-users with sufficient knowledge and information so that they can contribute with

more relevant developments of new products (Lilien, et al., 2002).

In order to apply lead-user involvement effective, there are certain tasks that firms need to handle.

Since lead-users are those consumers who have developed needs long before the general markets, as

a result, they tend to come up with their own solutions (Von Hippel, 1988). Since lead-users are not

identified in the same way as common target group, firms need special requirements and criteria to

identify and search for lead-users. One the lead-users group have been targeted, firms can start to

strengthen the interactions with them (Intrachooto, 2004). There are many approaches firms can use

within this method: phone calls, personal meeting, brainstorming group (ibid). Phone calls can be

used when lead-users are identified at long distance and face problems to attend direct meeting. For

better understanding of lead-users’ needs and solutions, firms need to organize private meeting for

deep discussion. The reason is that, through the thorough discussion with lead-users in person, firms

are more likely to recognize an aspect of product which they haven’t thought of (ibid). Moreover,

personal meeting with lead-users allow companies to directly observe the solutions of lead-users,

which can benefit them largely in future new product development. (Von Hippel, Thomke and

Sonnack, 1999).

2.5 Customer Involvement Measurement

In order to investigate the degree of customer involvement within each communication method, it is

important to develop proper measurement. According to the study of Aldlaigan and Buttle (2001),

the degree of customer involvement is determined by their attitude towards the activities or

processes. The positive attitudes can function as the motivation for customers to dedicate more time

and effort to participate in the process (Zaltman and Wallendorf, 1983). Measuring customer

involvement can also be understood as measuring motivation (Aldlaigan and Buttle, 2001).

Zaichkowsky (1985) developed three items system to measure customer involvement, namely:

Interests, Needs and Values. These three items represent the motivations for customers to involve in

a certain activities or process (Zaichkowsky, 1985; Srivastava, Karnavat and Suklani, 2012).

11

! Interests refers to the personal interest that customers have with a product, process, brand. The

customers need to have personal interest in order to be highly involved in it (ibid).

! Needs refers to the perceived needs that can be satisfied through the involvement. In other

words, it means the customers must be able to see how can involving in NPD process can

satisfy their needs (Ibid).

! Values refers to the perceived benefits and values that customers can receive while involve in

the certain activity and process. The more values customers can receive from involvement

process the more likely want to be involved in NPD process (Zaichkowsky, 1985; Aldlaigan and

Buttle, 2001).

Zaichkowsky (1985), Laurent and Kapferer (1985), Kapferer and Laurent (1993) have developed a

measurement of five-point Likert scale format with 1 stands for strongly disagree and 5 stands for

strongly agree. This scale format was used to measure the three items of customer involvement’s

degree. In the above sections of theories about Quality Function Deployment, Idea Generation

Activities, Prototype and Lead-user Involvement , each communication method has been presented

with details regarding its characteristics. Each characteristic is measured with Interests, Needs and

Values using the 1 to 5 Likert scale. Based on empirical datas, communication methods are

presented with their subsequent Interest measure, Needs measure and Values measure. From this,

the author can see which communication method should be applied when firms want to target

specific group of customers. For example, if firms want to involve more customers who seek for

more values through participating in the activities, it is more suitable to use the method which offers

the most values in customers perspective.

3 METHODOLOGY —————————————————————————————————————————

This chapter provides readers information about the research sample and methods that are applied

in the study. The chapter includes the operationalization of the research and the discussion for

maintaining the reliability and validity of this research

12

3.1 Research Approach

3.1.1 Deductive and inductive theory

According to Hyde (2000), there are two reasoning approaches, namely inductive reasoning and

deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is specified as a process for building theory. This

approach seeks understanding through observing samples and analyzing data for generalizations

about the investigating phenomenon. Under inductive reasoning, it is believed that regardless the

difference between objects and aspects; it is possible to find a rule or principle that can be applied to

them. The main task of researchers is to find out that rule or principle and build up a theory about it.

On the other hand, deductive reasoning seeks to test an established theory or generalization (Hyde,

2000). Deductive theory reflects the most well-known perception of the theory-research

relationship. Researchers ,with certain knowledge of a particular area and theoretical considerations

regarding that area, propose a hypothesis (hypotheses) which must be tested with critical

observation and examination (Bryman and Bell, 2005). Within the hypothesis, there are concepts

which will be translated into researchable matters. It is a requirement for social scientists to be

skillfully in deducing the hypothesis (hypotheses) and translating it. In advance of performing this

task, the social scientists must be able to specify data collection methods in relations to the

researchable matters which made up the hypotheses. Researchers use deductive approach to

investigate specific instances which can apply the theory. When conducting a research, deduction

and induction are both required. Researchers can choose to subscribe to inductive or deductive

process for their study; but in the practice of their research, they need to employ both deductive and

inductive processes (Rothchild, 2006).

In this thesis, deductive approach is chosen to guide the research for several reasons. First of all,

this study aims at testing the real situations with the application of presented involvement methods

in Theoretical chapter. Many scholars have established different theories regarding the involvement

of customers within the NPD processes of a company, however, the common methods does not

seem to be useful in certain circumstances because firms still failed to connect its R&D strongly to

the customers (Matzlet and Hinterhuber, 1998). This research reviews and presents the most

common communication methods which are accepted and supported by scholars and investigates

from each communication methods from customers’ perspective. In the problem discussion, it has

shown that previous scholars mainly studied methods for customer involvements from company’s

perspectives. There is no strong empirical research to test the established theories from customers

perspectives. As a result, deductive research is a suitable option to guide this study.

13

3.1.2 Qualitative vs Quantitative Research

Qualitative research can be conducted using three different methods - in-depth interview;

observations and documents. Researchers usually conduct a qualitative enquiry under the form of a

case study. Within a case study, a certain number of instances are deeply investigated (Hyde, 2000).

Qualitative research study words and observations; researchers focuses on examining two main

concerns of a natural situation: (1) How reality can be express? and (2) How people can be

described? (Amaratunga, et al., 2002). As it is documented, quantitative researchers usually

registered their studies as ‘conducted using deductive research approach’; meanwhile, qualitative

researchers presented their studies as ‘conducted using inductive research approach’. However,

during the actual operation, both sides can employ deductive and inductive processes (Hyde, 2000).

Quantitative presents a strong reliance on the support of numbers that reflect the popularity of a

concept or opinion (Amaratunga, et al., 2002). Many discussions have been made to the point that

apparently, both qualitative and quantitative methods involve significant strengths and weaknesses.

TABLE 1 - Features of Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Quantitative Qualitative

! Investigation from the outside

! Support by a set of founded theories from

qualitative research

! Provide empirical datas which are difficult

to be generalized

! Investigation from the inside

! Focusing on identify the differences

between people

! Flexible and lack of structure, allows theory

and concepts to proceed one after another

! Provide deep, rich and meaningful results

through theoretical generalization

! Hypotheses are developed from practice,

literature review and ideas

Source: Amaratunga, et al. (2002)

14

Within Quantitative and Qualitative Research, different approaches can be applied to gather data.

Nevertheless, different approaches seem to produce better results when they are conducted within a

suitable research base. In with thesis, quantitative has been chosen due to several of its advantages.

First of all, this is a student thesis, there is no funding or financial support to conduct a research of

large sample with specific characteristics. Second of all, quantitative research can be conducted

faster and more convenient in data collection period since digital questionnaire form can be

formulated and delivered online.

3.2 Data Source

The research utilizes primary data source to build up the sufficient empirical materials. Primary data

are data which are collected for the current research purpose (Hox and Boeije, 2005). Specifically,

primary data is the original research data which has been collected exclusively without any

influences from analysis or processing. Because primary data is collected base on the research

purpose; the data is gathers using a suitable research strategy, this allows researchers to collect all

the most valuable information for their study. Primary is special because of it originality. The data

report can help readers, firstly, to understand more about the collection methods and secondly, to

read the data without any individual’s judgements or criticisms (Jackson, 1990)

3.3 Research Strategy

In order to collect data, social scientists have been taking advantages of several strategies for data

collection. These strategies include archival experiments and surveys (Yin, 2009). For collecting

primary data, experiments are important because the research design provide strong causal

inferences (Hox and Boeije, 2005). Researchers use experiments strategy when the purpose of the

study is to falsifying, verifying or validating a proposed hypothesis within which certain variables

are changed in order to observe potential difference in the result (Malhotra, 2008). In an

experiment, researchers have control over criteria for participants; it means, they can decide who

can be qualified to join the experiment (Berg, 2001). Before conducting the experiment, researchers

need to organize a selection process. During this process, participants are judged based on their

qualifications, once they have been approved by the researchers, they will be able to participate in

the experiment. Within experiment strategy, researchers follow a planned design to manipulate the

independent variable. They observe the influences of independent variables over the dependent one.

Experiment strategy consists of a research situation which is created by researcher; as a result,

researchers gain more control over the design and procedure. This helps researchers in identify a

15

causal relationship or perform a causal interpretation over independent and dependent variables

(Maxwell and Delaney, 1990).

Conducted survey using structured questionnaires is another important research strategy. The

questionnaires simple to process, it provide a set of questions and can gather information from a

large numbers of respondents. Researchers use surveys strategy to study representative sample of a

population. Nevertheless, researchers also have the option to study a small, representative and

purposive sample; and they can aim for a large amount of information which can be achieved

during low-cost research progress. For this sort of strategy, several research methods can be used

including in-depth interviews, participant observation and focus groups (Hox and Boeije, 2005).

Particularly in an interview survey, a large and representative sample of the targeted population is

interviewed. Interview questions are thoroughly prepared for the actual practice; answers from

participants are then collected and coded into different answer categories (Berg, 2001). Researchers

chose to conduct a survey when they want to collect and investigate data of attitudes, feelings,

experiences or opinions. This research strategy is rather useful when social scientists want to study

about subjective phenomena because information regarding these phenomena can only be collected

by asking respondents. Interview survey is also capable of collecting information about behaviors.

In fact, behaviors are more precisely studied through observation; however, conducting observation

research is more expensive and time-consuming as the amount of time needs to spend on

observation equal to the real time length of the behavior. As a solution for this, interview survey can

be conducted with questions about the past behaviors of respondents; the answers can be different

or modified from the original/past behaviors; however, the data is still considered as valuable for

analysis (Hox and Boeije, 2005). Researchers often apply interview survey for a household

population, but it is also possible to apply this strategy for a specific subpopulation. The population

or sample is purposely chosen from communities or organizations.

As can be seen, survey with structured questionnaire is a suitable research method for this study

because of several reasons. First of all, this is a research for bachelor thesis which is being

conducted on a small and representative target group. Second of all, survey is a easy to perform and

does not require a high cost of conduct. Third of all, since the survey can be structured by the

authors, the questionnaires can be designed with a strong relation to the theoretical framework in

order to acquire the most valuable data from the research target. Forth of all, with the help of emails

and social medias, it becomes easier to reach the target respondents without making a large

investment on research procedure. Due to these four reasons, survey has been chosen as the main

research strategy for this thesis.

16

3.4 Data Collection Methods - Questionnaire

This thesis chose primary data to be the main source for empirical chapter. Questionnaire has been

decided as the main research method. Questionnaire can be shared through online links, social

networks, emails, as a result, the data can be collected quickly without complicated and expensive

preparation. The technique is more applicable and cost-saving in practical application. The

following chapter explain concept and the structure of the the chosen data collection method.

3.4.1 Definition and Purposes

According to Hussey and Hussey (1997), a questionnaire is a method for collecting data in form of

self-report that each research participant is asked to complete a written set of questions. The

researchers use questionnaires to find out information about participant thoughts, feeling, belief as

well as participants’ characteristics such as personality or behavioral intentions (Johnson and

Christensen, 2012). For example participant answer pre-determined questions of key characteristics

of individuals, companies, events or other phenomena (Ibid). In this case, the researcher used

questionnaires to obtain information about how customers think and express their opinions

regarding the chosen area.

Indeed, questionnaire is an instrument to collect quantitative, qualitative and mixed data what be

used for the purpose of a research study (Johnson and Christensen, 2012; Anderson and Morgan,

2008). Therefore, the researcher should use the questionnaire to collect information about key

variables that can help answering the research questions (Anderson and Morgan, 2008). In other

word, asking the same question in the same way to different people is key to the researcher

objectively knows the relations and attitudes of the large part of product (or services) users (Brace,

2005).

3.4.2 Types of the questionnaire

The researcher firstly should consider the types of questionnaires what usually in accordance to the

needed information. Questionnaires are commonly divided into two categories are (a) self-

administered or (b) interviewer administered (Connaway and Powell, 2010). By taking the

advantage of the rise in internet usage and computer-mediated communication, the research uses

online questionnaire to collect answers from respondents. Online questionnaire is within the self-

administered questionnaire, which allow researchers to easily and quickly collect the information

and data via internet (Katsiriku and Skiadas, 2010). In terms of time, cost and feasibility of the

17

implementation, the researcher believes that conducting an online questionnaire is acknowledged as

the most appropriate way to reach the targeted population.

However, as any data collection technique, an online questionnaire has its advantages and

disadvantages. On the negative side, if a researcher chooses an online method to implement

questionnaire, he has to face with the risk of lacking potential respondents (Katsiriku and Skiadas,

2010). It means there are the huge number of potential product/service users, who can bring the

most realistic result, may not access to the internet at the time doing questionnaires. It is also a

problem that when the targeted population cannot cover all the potential respondents due to a limit

in distance, countries, product branches and so on. Therefore, the response rate is usually moderate

to low (Connaway and Powell, 2010). The available form in the internet like Google Docs form

does not allow the researcher to make too complex questions (Saunders, et al., 2003). The

questionnaire that created online can be less creative and flexible than the printed one. On the

positive side, the biggest advantage of an online questionnaire is helping a researcher to reduce the

cost and time as well as geographical and temporal boundaries (Katsiriku and Skiadas, 2010).

Researchers can subtract the cost and time which would have been spent on traveling between

locations, printing out papers and handing them to the respondents. The expense on working team

for distributing the questionnaire can also be discounted as this task can be handled by a single

person (Katsiriku and Skiadas, 2010).

An online questionnaire is easy to administer with speedy delivery without the cost of printing,

paper or transportations, what paper-based questionnaire does (Hussey and Hussey, 1997; Saunders,

et al., 2003; Katsiriku and Skiadas, 2010). Besides, it also has the potential to collect a large amount

of data through the enable large geographically dispersed samples (Saunders, et al., 2003). Thanks

to the development of the information technology, online questionnaire also made it easier to be

able to immediately use the aggregate results without having to transfer from a paper to a computer

(Katsiriku and Skiadas, 2010). Especially, the researcher can analyze the data through computer

software right after the result is given (Connaway and Powell, 2010).

3.5 Operationalization

The operationalization provide definition definition of concepts which will be transformed into

variables which can be measured. The operationalization of this thesis follow structure of Ruane

(2005) and Malhotra (2008) is presented as follow:

18

Step 1: The author searches for scientific theories to gather theoretical insights that are relevant to

the research topic. The author reviews the previous researches of other scholars in order to

understand more thoroughly about the area.

Step 2: Operational definition of key variables are presented based on the literature review

Step 3: With every operational definition, an appropriate measurement is included.

Step 4: After the theoretical insights have been clarified and the author decides the most suitable

measurements for all the variables, it is time to pre-test the chosen measurements in order to

assess whether these scales can examine the studied subject.

Step 5: The conceptual definition are embedded within the questionnaire. Questions are included

with chosen scales and measurements. Additionally, the form of questionnaire needs to be

presented with an understandable layout in enhance the clarity for the respondents.

The questionnaire includes questions about the four communication methods: Quality Function

Deployment, Prototype, Idea Generation Activities and Lead-user Involvement. The questionnaire

aims to gather sufficient data to compare the effectiveness of those communication methods. The

effectiveness can be decided by the degree of customer involvement. Customer involvement is

measured with three items: Interests, Values and Needs (Zaichkowskys, 1985; Aldlaigan and Buttle,

2001; Scrivastava, Karnavat and Suklani, 2012). For each item, an operational definition is

established.

The operationalization for each item will include questions regarding the four communication

methods. The answers of respondents are measured with the five-point Likert scale format with 1 =

Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree (Zaichkowsky, 1985; Laurent and Kapferer, 1985;

Kapferer and Laurent, 1993).

The questionnaire is divided in two parts: Part 1 includes questions to test about customers’

experiences with the communication method. The purpose was to check if the customers have ever

participated in any of the four main communication methods. Part 1 will help to separate customers

with experiences and those without. By separating the respondents into two groups, it is then

possible to spot the differences between their perspectives regarding the most preferred

communication method. Part 2 includes questions to evaluate the degree of customers’ involvement

within each method. Within part 2, all questions include the use of Interests, Values and Needs to

measure customers involvements.

19

3.5.1 Part 1 - Affirmation of Involvement Method

The purpose of Part 1 is to investigate which communication method customers have been

involved. In order to clearly distinguish the experiences of customers with each communication

method, it is important to present the unique differences between each method as well as the criteria

to differentiate them.

Method 1: Quality Function Deployment.

As discussed in the Theoretical Framework chapter, Quality Function Deployment method involves

largely the use of five techniques: customer surveys, focus group, customer interviews, interaction

with salespeople and customer complaints (Bossert, 1991). These five techniques are used as the

measurements to see if customers have been involved by QFD method or not. As long as customers

have at least participated in one out of five techniques, then it their involvement through QFD

method can be confirmed.

Method 2: Prototype

When it comes to prototype method, there are four important aspects: Process Convenient Access,

Strong Community, Provide Tools & Technologies, Feedback Platform. These four aspects are used

as the measurements to test customers’ experience with prototype method. If customers have had

experiences with at least one of out the four options, then it can be confirmed that they have been

participated with prototype method.

Method 3: Idea Generation Activities

There are four common options where firms can involve customers through Idea Generation

Activities: Conferences & Meeting; Virtual Environment; Idea Competition and Approach External

Communities. The respondents who have experiences with at least one of the four activities are

then separated from those who do not.

Method 4: Lead-users Involvement

According to Intrachooto (2004), the lead-users can be involved through three approaches: Phone

calls, Personal meeting and Brainstorming group. The first approach “Phone calls” seemed general,

however, the lead-users can be identified through the topic of the conversation where details and

advanced information are exchanged between the companies and the lead-users (ibid). The

respondents are tested if they have had experiences with any of the three approaches. Those who

have participated in at least one method is then separated from the rests.

20

PART 1 - AFFIRMATION OF INVOLVEMENT METHOD

QUESTIONS OPERATION

Communication Method : Quality Function Deployment Question 1: Have you ever Option 1: Participated in a customer survey from the app

producer about quality of the current products? Option 2: Participated in a focus group organized by the app

producer to discuss about quality of the current products? Option 3: Been requests for a one-to-one interview with the

app producer about quality of the current products? Option 4: Had an interesting conversation with salespeople

from the app producer about quality of the current products? Option 5: Voiced a customer complaints to the customer

services about quality of the current products? Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. Responses are collected with YES/NO answers.

• Motivation: Question 1 is chosen in order to filter the customers who have had experiences with the Quality Function Deployment method. The five options of the question is related to the five approaches to involve customers within Quality Function Deployment method.

Question 2: How do you perceive about the above approaches from the app producer? Similar to the above question, Question 2 also includes five options relevant to question 1. Option 1: Customer survey. Option 2: Focus group Option 3: One-to-one interview Option 4: Interaction with salespeople Option 5: Able to voice customer complaints Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. The responses are collected with 1 to 5 Likert-scale answers with 1 = The Least Preferred and 5 = The Most Preferred

• Motivation: This question aims at understanding the preferences of customers when it comes to involvement with Quality Function Deployment. The preferences of customers are separated between customers who had experiences and the one who did not.

Communication Method : Prototype Question 3: Have you ever Option 1: Tried a prototype from the app producer? Option 2: Become a member of the app producer’s prototype

testing community?

• Motivation: This question is study if the customers have been involved with prototype method or not.

21

Option 3: Used tools and technologies provided by the app producer to investigate and test the prototype?

Option 4: Sent feedback regarding the tested prototype to the app producer?

Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. The responses are collected with YES/NO answers.

Question 4: How do you perceive about the below aspects when it comes to testing the app producer’s prototype? Option 1: The prototype becomes easy to access Option 2: The community is built for prototype testers Option 3: The company provided users with proper tools and

technologies to perform tests Option 4: The company established proper feedback platforms

for users Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. The responses are collected with 1 to 5 Likert-scale answers with 1 = The Least Preferred and 5 = The Most Preferred

• Motivation: The question investigates customers’ perception regarding the four major aspects of prototypes. This question helps finding out which aspect is more preferred by the customers

Communication Method : Idea Generation Activities Question 5: Have you ever Option 1: Attend a conference/meeting with the app producer

to discuss for new product idea? Option 2: Participated in any virtual platform created by the

app producer in order to create new idea for product? Option 3: Participated in any competition organized by the app

producer to find new product ideas? Option 4: Been able to communicate with the app producer’s

representative in other communities beside the official online customer community?


• Motivation: This question identifies customers who had participated in any of the Idea Generation Activities from the company.

Question 6: How do you perceive about the following Idea Generation Activities? Option 1: Opportunity to attend conference/meeting with the

• Motivation: This question measures customers’ preferences for each approach so that firms

22

app producer to discuss for new idea. Option 2: App producer create virtual platform where users

can freely create new product idea. Option 3: App producer organize competition amongst users to

choose the best new product idea. Option 4: App producer have representatives in every popular

customers community beside the official one. Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. The responses are collected with 1 to 5 Likert-scale answers with 1 = The Least Preferred and 5 = The Most Preferred

know which one is more likely to be useful than the others.

Communication Method : Lead-user Involvement Question 7: Have you ever Option 1: Been contacted by the app producer for your

personal solutions regarding the development of company’s new product?

Option 2: Been invited to a personal meeting with representatives from the app producer to discuss about developing a new product?

Option 3: Been requested by the app producer to join a brainstorming group to develop new product?


• Motivation: The question aims at finding out whether the respondent is a lead-user and have been contacted by the company or not.

Question 8: How do you perceive about the following activities by the app producer when they seek for your help in new product development? Option 1: Contact for discussion about new product

development through phone. Option 2: Have personal meeting for discussion Option 3: Attend brainstorming group for discussion Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. The responses are collected with 1 to 5 Likert-scale answers with 1 = The Least Preferred and 5 = The Most Preferred

• Motivation: This question shows customers’ preferences to be involved as a lead-user. These empirical data can suggest the more proper approach to contact and involve lead-users.

23

3.5.2 Part 2 - Measure Customer Involvement

Within part 2, the questions are formulated in order to measure the degree of customer

involvements between the four main communication methods. The questions apply measurements

in term of Interests, Values and Needs. In this operationalization, Interests refers the extend to

which customers are interested in the chosen activity; Values refers to the extend to which

customers perceive that participating in the chosen activity can generate value to them and Needs

refers to the extend to which customers believe that participating in the activity can satisfy their

needs. Part 2 of the questionnaire takes use of the measurements to ask about customer involvement

degree of communication methods

PART 2 - MEASURE CUSTOMER INVOLVEMENT

QUESTION OPERATION

Measurement: Interest

Communication Method : Quality Function Deployment Question 9: Rate your interests in participating the following activities Option 1: Customer survey regarding quality of the

current product. Option 2: Focus group organized by the company to

discuss about quality of the current product. Option 3: One-to-one interview with the company’s

representative to discuss about quality of the current product.

Option 4: Direct conversation with salespeople about quality of the current product.

Option 5: Send feedback to company about product quality.

Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. The responses are collected 1 to 5 Likert-scale answers with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly

• Motivation: This question measures interests of customers for each approach in Quality Function Deployment method. The data from question can show that which approach is more interesting to participate for the customers, hence, it is possible to understand how to apply Quality Function Deployment effectively.

24

Agree

Communication Method : Prototype Question 10: Which of the following factors can increase your interest in helping the company to test prototype? Option 1: The prototype can be accessed easily. Option 2: There is a unique and special community for

prototype testers. Option 3: All necessary tools and technologies for

prototype testing are provided by the company. Option 4: Firms establish a fast and simple feedback

platform for prototypes Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. The responses are collected 1 to 5 Likert-scale answers with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree

• Motivation: This question measures interests of customers for each approach in Quality Function Deployment method. The data from question can show that which approach is more interesting to participate for the customers, hence, it is possible to understand how to apply Quality Function Deployment effectively.

Communication Method : Idea Generation Activities Question 11: Rate your interest in participating in the following activities Option 1: Attend conference/meeting with the company

exclusively to discuss about idea for new product. Option 2: Participate in any kind of virtual platform to

create new product idea. Option 3: Participate in competitions organized by the

best new product idea. Option 4: Being able to discuss new product ideas with

company’s representatives on any online community aside from the official one.

Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. The responses are collected 1 to 5 Likert-scale answers with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree

• Motivation: This question measures interests of customers for each Idea Generation Activity. There are many approaches that firms can choose, however, knowing the most preferred one in customer perspective ensure a better involvement of the customers.

Communication Method : Lead-user Involvement Question 12: Rate your interest in helping the

• Motivation: This question provides data to see the interests of customers in

25

company’s new product development through the following approach Option 1: Being contacted by the company through

phones to discuss product solutions. Option 2: Being invited to a personal meeting with

representatives from the company to discuss about developing a new product.

Option 3: Being requested by the company to join a brainstorming group to develop new product.


different approach to involve lead-users. Since lead-users have different needs and perception from normal users, they want the product to be develop more advance than the normal market. As a result, the preferences of lead-users can be quite different from common users. It is important to view this difference to choose the proper involvement approach.

Measurement: Needs

Communication Method : Quality Function Deployment Question 13: Which method do you prefer to use when communicate with the companies about your needs from their products? Option 1: Customer Survey Option 2: Focus Group Option 3: One-to-one interview with the company’s

representative Option 4: Direct conversation with salespeople Option 5: Customer Feedbacks (You can send feedback

when you feel like to) Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. The responses are collected 1 to 5 Likert-scale answers with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Disagree

• Motivation: This question investigate which approach under Quality Function Deployment is more related to the needs of the customers when they are involved.

Communication Method : Prototype Question 14: Rate your need for the following factors

• Motivation: In order to clearly

identify and grab the needs of the

26

when it comes to testing prototype Option 1: The prototype can be accessed easily. Option 2: There is a unique and special community for



platform for prototypes Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. The responses are collected 1 to 5 Likert-scale answers with 1 = Lowly Need and 5 = Strongly Need

customers, firms need to choose the

proper method. This question helps

gathering data to solve this issue.

Communication Method : Idea Generation Activities Question 15: When it comes to finding new product idea, which of the following activity is easier for you to make sure suggested idea can match your need? Option 1: Attend conference/meeting with the company



company to choose the best new product idea. Option 4: Being able to discuss new product ideas with



• Motivation: Similar to question 14,

this question also aims at figure the

approach to identify customers’ need

more properly.

Communication Method : Lead-user Involvement Question 16: If you have a specific need as well as specific product idea to solve your need, how would you prefer to discuss with the company? Option 1: Being contacted by the company through


• Motivation: Lead-users have

advance and different needs from the

standard market, therefore, it is

important for the firms to understand

how to make a suitable attempt to

approach lead-users. This question

27




provides data to answer that matter.

Measurement: Value

Communication Method : Quality Function Deployment Question 17: To what extend do you believe participate in the following activities can be valuable for you? Option 1: Customer Survey Option 2: Focus Group Option 3: One-to-one interview with the company’s

representative Option 4: Direct conversation with salespeople Option 5: Send feedback through Customer Feedback

platform Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. The responses are collected 1 to 5 Likert-scale answers with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree

• Motivation: Concerning value of

customers’ involvement, this

question show the differences

between approaches under Quality

Function Deployment method. It

provides data to illustrate approaches

that are the most valuables from

customers’ standpoint.

Communication Method : Prototype Question 18: When it comes to testing a prototype, which of the following activities is more likely to be valuable for you? Option 1: The prototype can be accessed easily. Option 2: There is a unique and special community for



• Motivation: When it comes to

testing prototypes, customers can have

different perspective regarding which

aspect is the most valuable for them.

This question gathers empirical data

regarding this concern.

28

platform for prototypes. Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. The responses are collected 1 to 5 Likert-scale answers with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree

Communication Method : Idea Generation Activities Question 19: In your opinion, which activity is more valuable to you to participate in? Option 1: Attend conference/meeting with the company



company to choose the best new product idea. Option 4: Being able to discuss new product ideas with



• Motivation: There are many ways to

involve customers within the idea

generation activities. This question

provides additional data to present the

activities which more valuable to

customers from their points of view.

Communication Method : Lead-user Involvement Question 20: If you have a specific product idea and clear solution for it, which way is more suitable for you to express it to the company? Option 1: Being contacted by the company through




Data Collection: Each option has its own options for answers. The responses are collected 1 to 5 Likert-scale

• Motivation: Firms can apply several

approaches to interact with the lead-

users however, it is important to

understand which approach is more

valuable than others in customers’

opinions. This question collects

empirical data regarding this matter.

29

answers with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree

3.6 Sample Selection

According to Featherson (2013), amongst business with products, the most innovative industry is

Digital Applications or Mobile Application. Mobile Application industry refers to the group of

producers and providers of online blogs, social medias, e-commerce platform, applications, games

for smart devices. Since these products have altered consumers’ behaviors and demands for digital

products, this industry keeps innovating with rapid speed. According to Freierman (2011), the

industry does not show any sign of slowing down, it has an average release of 15,000 applications a

week. Since this industry releases large amount of products weekly and is very innovation,

therefore, the author of this thesis decided to conduct questionnaire about this industry.

The chosen population for this thesis has the following requirements: (1) Consumers between the

age of 18 to 30 years old; (2) have experiences with using mobile applications; (3) currently study

in Linneaus University; (4) Can understand and communicate in English; (5) Male/Female. The

questionnaire is handed to the customers via emails, social networks. In order to reduce the amount

of irrelevant responses, before handing customers the questionnaire, filter questions are asked:

Filter No.1: Gender: Male - Female (This question is asked to separate the data if there’s any

difference in the opinion based on gender)

Filter No.2: How old are you?

Filter No.3: Are you studying in Linne University? (Respondents can tick Yes/No answers)

Filter No.4: How often do you use social networks or digital applications on your computer/smart

devices?

There are two options for answers:

Option 1: Less than 3 hours a day

Option 2: More than 3 hours a day

Research from Analysysmason (2014) showed that consumers spent approximately 3 hours a day

with social networks and mobile applications. This thesis applies the 3 hours mark from

Analysysmason (2014). For the purpose of customers involvement in NPD; firms need customers

30

who not only use the products but also have long experience with their products. As a result, the

customers for this questionnaire also need to have certain length of experience to ensure they are

amongst the group of target customers for NPD involvement. Based on the above question,

customers who choose option 2 are chosen to answer the questionnaire.

3.7 Pre-testing The questionnaire has been sent out first to the examiner to gather feedback and fix minor errors

within the questionnaire. Based on the feedback, the questionnaire is revised in order to make sure

the questions are strongly connected to the theory and can provide sufficient data for analysis. Also,

several questions have been modified in order to strengthen the focus of the questions and make it

easier for respondents to understand.

3.8 Data Analysis

3.8.1 Preparation of Data

In order to perform data analysis, it is important to prepare the data carefully. In accordance to

Malhotra (2010), Ghauri and Gronhaug (2005), the data preparation process helps in filtering the

important data, after this step, all the qualified and quality data are collected and put together. This

process includes five big steps which are: checking the questionnaire, editing, coding data, cleaning

data and choosing analysis strategy.

Ghauri and Gronhaug (2005) described checking questionnaire as the step where authors test the

acceptability of the questionnaire under the requirement of completeness. In fact, when

questionnaire is given to response, there is a certain percentage of respondents who did not answer

the document fully and left several places blank or did not answer the questionnaire at all. Besides

that, there is a chance that a portion of the questionnaire was answered by people who do not belong

to the sample (Malhotra, 2010). These are listed as incomplete or unqualified, and therefore, they

are excluded from the data for analysis (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2005). The subsequent step is

editing. In this step, authors will review the responses to spot the inconsistent and ambiguous

answers. The answers are considered ambiguous when the descriptions are not clear, or respondents

applied abbreviations which are difficult to interpret (Malhotra, 2010). The answers are considered

inconsistent when the respondent gave different answers over similar questions or matter of

concerns. These unqualified responses will be filtered and discarded from the data for analysis. In

31

the data coding step, every answer for each question is assigned with a specific code. However, if

the questionnaire includes structured questions, the answers are pre-coded. The coded data can be

inserted in statistical platform for further analysis. In order to analyse the coded data, SPSS is one

of the statistical program which researchers can use (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2005). The fourth step

is data cleaning, researchers sort out missing responses. The mean response of variable for the

studied sample is replaced in the missing answers (Malhotra, 2010). Authors interpret others

answers and can come up with an estimated value which can be used for those missing answers. For

the last step, researchers need to choose the proper data analysis strategy with suitable statistical

technique. According to Hari, et al. (2010), there are two types of statistical techniques : univariate

and multivariate. When an element has more than one measurements and each variable can be

analyzed separately, the univariate techniques are applicable. When authors want to investigate the

relationship between phenomenas, multivariate techniques are applied (Hair, et al., 2010). This

research aims at studying the correlation between different variables, as a result, multivariate

techniques are suitable for the data preparation.

3.8.2 Progression

After pre-testing, a final version of the questionnaire is established. This version has gone through

several improvements over the content of the questions and the degree of relevance to research

topic. This questionnaire is spread over Facebook, Twitter, several customers communities,

personal networks. Personal network is a good option for spreading the questionnaire since the

author can request friends to deliver the questionnaire to other friends within their network. By

doing this, the author can collect data faster. Since this questionnaire is structured by the authors,

the answer option each question is pre-coded in two main types: Yes/No answer and five-grade

scale answer. Extracted data from the questionnaire are entered into SPSS - a software for statistical

analysis in order to conduct further correlation test.

3.8.3 Data Analysis Test

Once all the data has been extracted and entered in SPSS, authors starts to conduct the data analysis.

This task involves calculating the frequency of answers in order to present the options that are

widely chosen by the customers. Besides that, the questionnaire includes questions with 1 to 5 scale

answers, therefore, the author also needs to calculate the mean to compare the average of

customers’ rating.

32

3.9 Quality Criteria For business research, having high quality of empirical data is one of the most important aspect.

The quality of the research is determined by two most important criteria for assessment: reliability

and validity (Bryman and Bell, 2005). Reliability refers to the stability of measured variables, it

shows whether researchers can gather identical findings when they repeat similar studies in the

future (Langdrige and Hagger-Johnson, 2009; Graziano and Raulin, 2010). On the other hand,

researchers check validity to ensure the gathered data are fully relevant to the purpose of the study

(Langdridge and Hagger-Johnson, 2009). There are different types of reliability and validity in

social sciences research (Graziano and Raulin, 2010; Carmines and Zeller, 1979). Further

explanations regarding steps to test and measure of reliability and validity are provided below.

3.9.1 Reliability

The reliability of a research is an important aspect. A research is considered reliable when the

conceptual measurements within the research are stable and consistent (Bryman and Bell, 2005).

High reliability means it is confident that the results for the studied sample would not vary when

researches repeat the study in future (Bryman and Bell, 2005; Gibbert, Ruigrok and Wicki, 2008).

In order to determine the reliability of a research, Bryman and Bell (2007) recommended two

different methods. The first one is to apply Cronbach’s alpha coefficient examination while the

second method is called test-retest. In particularly, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is a statistic

measurement of internal reliability, this value displays the relationship between a set of variables or

measurements. Cronbach method refers to the degree of how close two variables are related to each

other; the value of this alpha coefficient ranges from 0 to 1 (Muijs, 2004). In practice, a result

between 0,60 and 0,80 is often chosen as an acceptable level of reliability (Bryman and Bell, 2005).

On the other hand, the test-retest method refers to the situation where researchers conducted the test

on a chosen population and redo the test on another population to ensure the research result

(Bryman and Bell, 2007). In order to ensure the reliability of the study, researchers need to achieve

a high correlation between the studied variables.

3.9.2 Content Validity

Content validity is concerned about the construction of measurement’s components; in other word,

content validity specify how good the construction of content has been established (Ghauri and

Gronhaug, 2005). To ensure the content validity in this research, the construction of survey was sent

to experts within the field of market research to test the responses. By doing this, author of this

33

thesis can observe the performance quality of the survey, this includes to what extend the data can

be relevant to studied concepts (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Testing the survey with experts can also

collect opinions and suggestions for improvement (Malhotra, 2010). The survey questions are

revised and modified to strengthen the connection to the theories so that collected empirical data is

assured to be of high quality and valuable to research purpose. In addition to sending the

questionnaires to experts, when asking questions, the survey applies scale measurements which

have been used by previous scholars to increases the validity of data.

3.9.3 External Validity

External validity measures the ability of the study to general population (Gibbert, Ruigrok and

Wicki, 2008). When measuring external validity, researchers need to answer the question whether

the study can represent a certain research context (Bryman and Bell, 2005; Yin, 2007). Researchers

try to predict variables through gathered data, these variables are called criterion (Graziano and

Raulin, 2010). One way to manage high external validity is to limit the research area and sample

(Gibbert, Ruigrok and Wicki, 2008). In this thesis, since no hypothesis is studied, then no

correlation test is performed. In order to ensure the external validity, the author of thesis decides to

focus on specifying in details the research areas, characteristics of chosen sample. By conducting

research on a small and specific sample, the generalibility is increased (ibid).

3.9.4 Construct Validity

Construct validity is one of the primary attention of validity assessment in social science researches

(Carmines and Zeller, 1979). The construct validity is applied to validate quality of

operationalization as well as conceptualization of studied theories. Construct validity can be tested

during data collection phase (Gibbert, Ruigrok and Wicki, 2008). Construct validation involves

three steps. Firstly, to show high construct validity, researchers need to specify a strong theoretical

relationship between the concepts themselves (Carmines and Zeller, 1979). Second of all, the

measures between concepts should be examined to maintain the validity. And finally, the empirical

data needs to be analyzed in relevant to the measurements as well as the theoretical frameworks

(Carmines and Zeller, 1979). Within this thesis, the author have done literature review have

discussed the chosen communication methods in-depth. Moreover, the author also explained

specifically the way to measure degree of customer involvement for each communication method

based on literature from previous researches. The theoretical connection between each concept is

34

well-constructed. The survey questions are constructed closely to the theoretical framework and

measurements. As a result, the author made sure that the gathered empirical data are highly relevant

to research topic, which means, the analysis output can be related to the chosen concepts and

measurements (Nolan and Heinzen, 2008).

4 SURVEY RESULT & ANALYSIS ————————————————————————————————————————

This chapter provides readers information about the empirical results of the research. Collected

data are summarized and presented in statistic tables. Relevant analyses are provided after the

statistic tables.

4.1 Quality Function Deployment Question 2 was used used to filter respondents who have had experiences with Quality Function

Deployment’s approaches. All 240 respondents have been in contacted with at least one out of five

possible approaches within Quality Function Deployment. The five approaches are: Customer

Survey, Focus Group, One-to-one Interview, Interaction with Salespeople, Customer Complaints.

The questions concerned these five approaches are questions 3, 10, 14 and 18. Question 3 asked

about respondent’s preference for the chosen approach, the answers for this question are put under

“Preferences” category. Question 10 asked about respondent’s interest in the chosen approach; the

answers for this question are inserted under “Interest” category. Question 14 asked about the

relevance of chosen method to respondent’s needs; the answers for this question are presented under

“Needs” category. Question 18 asked about the value of the chosen approach for respondent, hence,

the answers for this question are shown under “Value” category. Each question is measured with

scale from 1 to 5 as discussed in the Operationalization. The frequencies table is presented below.

35

TABLE 4 - QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT

TOTAL RESPONDENTS 240 = 100%

Customer Survey

Preferences Interest Needs Value

1 45 = 18.8% 45 = 18.8% 65 = 27.1% 61 = 25.4%

2 74 = 30.8% 88 = 36.7% 69 = 28.8% 77 = 32.1%

3 85 = 35.4% 67 = 27.9% 68 = 28.3% 62 = 25.8%

4 27 = 11.3% 33 = 13.8% 33 = 13.8% 35 = 14.6%

5 9 = 3.8% 7 = 2.9% 5 = 2.1% 5 = 2.1%

Mean 2.5 2.45 2.35 2.36

Focus Group


1 40 = 16.7% 41 = 17.1% 33 = 13.8% 32 = 13.3%

2 61 = 25.4% 42 = 17.5% 44 = 18.3% 46 = 19.2%

3 101 = 42.1% 101 = 42.1% 99 = 41.3% 94 = 39.2%

4 38 = 15.8% 32 = 13.3% 49 = 20.4% 51 = 25.4%

5 0 % 24 = 10% 15 = 6.3% 7 = 2.9%

Mean 2.57 2.82 2.87 2.85

One-to-one Interview


1 49 = 20.4% 28 = 11.7% 31 = 12.9% 32 = 13.3%

2 69 = 28.8% 63 = 26.3% 61 = 25.4% 63 = 26.3%

3 63 = 26.3% 72 = 30% 61 = 25.4% 89 = 37.1%

4 54 = 22.5% 74 = 30.8% 77 = 32.1% 53 = 22.1%

36

5 5 = 2.1% 3 = 1.3% 10 = 4.2% 3 = 1.3%

Mean 2.57 2.84 2.89 2.72

Interaction with Salespeople


1 27 = 11.3% 27 = 11.3% 29 = 12.1% 38 = 15.8%

2 92 = 38.3% 77 = 32.1% 70 = 29.2% 90 = 37.5%

3 43 = 17.9% 60 = 25% 58 = 24.2% 53 = 22.1%

4 61 = 25.4% 69 = 28.8% 75 = 31.3% 55 = 22.9%

5 17 = 7.1% 7 = 2.9% 8 = 3.3% 4 = 1.7%

Mean 2.79 2.80 2.85 2.57

Customer Complaints


1 17 = 7.1% 0 % 0 % 14 = 5.8%

2 26 = 10.8% 0 % 0 % 22 = 9.2%

3 46 = 19.2% 24 = 10% 25 = 10.4% 69 = 28.8%

4 121 = 50.4% 73 = 30.4% 124 = 51.7% 120 = 50%

5 30 = 12.5% 143 = 59.6% 91 = 37.9% 15 = 6.3%

Mean 3.5 4.5 4.28 3.42

The above table provides frequencies of responses for each answer option of questions 3, 10, 14 and

18. Data from the table helps in understanding, based on customers’ perspective, which approach

has higher Preferences, Interest, Needs and Values. The following analysis is only applied for

gathered data from question 3, 10, 14 an 18. Data analysis for other questions are provided in the

upcoming chapters.

The Mean category indicates the average value for all respondents. Based on Mean, Interaction

37

Customer Complaints scored highest average values for all categories with Mean = 3.5 for

Preferences, Mean = 4.5 for Interests, Mean = 4.28 for Needs and Mean = 3.42 for Value.

The average value can provide some overall understanding over the perspective of the customers,

however, it does not show clearly the true perception. As a result, further reading of frequencies

data is required. The scale which was applied in this research has 5 items, 3 is in the middle to

represent mutual opinion. Based on this scale, 2 sides of customers’ perception can be seen, 1 - 2

present negative perceptions and 4 -5 present positive perceptions.

! In Preferences category, Customer Complaints showed promising results with 121 respondents

(50.4%) rated 4 and 30 respondents (12.5%) rated 5, which sum up to 62.9% of positive answer

for Customer Complaints’ Preferences. This showed that Customer Complaint is actually the

most preferred approach amongst all Quality Function Deployment’s approaches.

! In Interest category, the positive responses for Customer Complaints are also the highest with

73 respondents (30.4%) rated 4 and 143 respondents ( 59.6%) rated 5. That made up to 90% of

positive responses, the other 10% respondents have mutual opinion regarding the question.

! In Needs category, Customer Complaints also showed high percentage of positive answers

where 88.6% respondents rated 4 and 5.

! In Value category, the percentage is much less than others where Customer Complaints only has

56.3% of positive answers. However, it is still the approach that was rated highest amongst all

five approaches under Quality Function Deployment method.

In summary, after conducting the first descriptive statistics tests on empirical data regarding Quality

Function Deployment’s approaches, it can be observed that Customer Complaints is the best one

when amongst all five approaches in term of Preferences, Interest, Needs and Values. In the

following chapters, similar tests are conducted using empirical data regarding Prototype method,

Idea Generation Activities method and Lead-user Involvement method. Then an overall comparison

can be performed based on test results.

38

4.2 Prototype

Question 4 was used to filter respondents who had experiences with Prototype method. Empirical

data for Prototype method are collected from questions 5, 11, 15 and 20. The answers are measured

with Likert scale 1 to 5. Under prototype method, there are four main approaches: Access prototype

(answers are coded as Prototype Access), Be a member of prototype testing community (answers

are coded as Prototype Community), Use prototype testing tools and technologies (answers are

coded as Prototype Technologies), Send feedback regarding the prototype (Prototype Feedback

Platform). If respondents have experiences with at least one out of four approaches, then it is

concluded that they have experience with Prototype method. Out of 240 respondents, 119 had

experiences with Prototype method, and 121 did not have. The data for these two groups of

respondents are presented in the frequencies tables below.

TABLE 5 - PROTOTYPE

TOTAL EXPERIENCED RESPONDENTS 119 = 100%

Prototype Access


1 0 % 2 = 1.7% 4 = 3.4% 0 %

2 0 % 1 = 0.8% 5 = 4.2% 5 = 4.2%

3 42 = 35.3% 31 = 26.1% 34 = 28.6% 34 = 28.6%

4 53 = 44.5% 60 = 50.4% 45 = 37.8% 57 = 47.9%

5 24 = 20.2% 25 = 21% 31 = 26.1% 23 = 19.3%

Mean 3.85 3.88 3.79 3.82

Prototype Community


1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

2 0 % 0 % 15 = 12.6% 3 = 2.5%

3 58 = 48.7% 39 = 32.8% 32 = 26.9% 44 = 37%

39

4 49 = 41.2% 69 = 58% 48 = 40.3% 56 = 47.1%

5 12 = 10.1% 11 = 9.2% 24 = 20.2% 16 = 13.4%

Mean 3.61 3.76 3.68 3.71

Prototype Technologies


1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

2 0 % 3 = 2.5% 3 = 2.5% 0 %

3 33 = 27.7% 34 = 28.6% 21 = 17.6% 19 = 16%

4 49 = 41.2% 45 = 37.8% 61 = 51.3% 76 = 63.9%

5 37 = 31.1% 37 = 31.1% 34 = 28.6% 24 = 20.2%

Mean 4.03 3.97 4.06 4.04

Prototype Feedback Platform


1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

2 4 = 3.4% 9 = 7.6% 4 = 3.4% 4 = 3.4%

3 31 = 26.1% 41 = 34.5% 18 = 15.1% 21 = 17.6%

4 55 = 46.2% 41 = 34.5% 74 = 62.2% 70 = 58.8%

5 29 = 24.4% 28 = 23.5% 23 = 19.3% 24 = 20.2%

Mean 3.92 3.74 3.97 3.96

When it comes to Prototype method, the respondents are divided in two big groups: Experienced

and Non-experienced. Experienced respondents are customers who have had experiences with at

least one out of the four major aspects of Prototype method, and the rest of respondents are sorted

into Non-experienced group. In order to observe the probabilities of differences between two

groups, the author analyze each group’s empirical data separately, starting with analysis for

Experienced respondents.

40

Experienced Respondents Group - Table 5:

As can be seen from table 5, Prototype Technologies (Mean = 4.03) and Prototype Feedback

Platform (Mean = 3.92) are the most preferred aspects based on average respondents’ perception.

The same trend can be observed under Needs and Value categories, where Prototype Technologies

(Mean = 4.06 for Needs and 4.04 for Value) and Prototype Feedback Platforms (Mean = 3.97 for

Needs and 3.96 for Value) are also considered as the most valuable aspects and the most relevant to

customers’ needs. When it comes to Interest category, there is a change, Prototype Access (Mean =

3.88) and Prototype Technologies (Mean = 3.97) are highly interested based on average

experienced respondents’ perspectives.

Regardless of the average value for respondents’ perceptions, when observing the percentage of

positive responses, the author found out more facts about studied aspects.

! Preferences category: Prototype Technologies (4.03) has higher average rating than Prototype

Feedback Platform (3.92), but when it comes to percentage of positive responses, Prototype

Feedback Platform is higher. With 55 respondents rated 4 (46.2%) and 29 respondents rated 5

(24.4%), Prototype Feedback Platform is highly preferred amongst 70.6% of respondents while

Prototype Technologies is preferred by 72.3% - which is slightly lower.

! Interest category: Prototype Access is the aspect with highest interest from respondents. 60

respondents (50.4%) rated 4 and 25 respondents (21%) rated 5, these summed up to a total of

71.4% of high positive answers. This is much higher than the total positive answers percentage

of the others.

! Needs category: For experienced respondents, the trend is similar the observation of average

perception. It means that Prototype Technologies and Prototype Feedback Platform

strengthened their positions with the highest amount of positive answers. 79.9% of experienced

respondents voted 4 and 5 for Prototype Technologies, and 81.5% voted 4 and 5 for Prototype

Feedback Platform. The difference is rather small, but the Prototype Feedback Platform aspect

is superior over Prototype Technologies.

! Value category: Prototype Technologies surpassed the other aspects with 84.1% of positive

answers from experienced respondents with 76 respondents (63.9%) rated 4 and 24 respondents

(20.2%) rated 5.

41

In overall, based on the data from four categories, Prototype Technologies is the aspect that the

majority of experienced respondents prefer to focus on as they perceive it is the most valuable

aspect and it can provide better and more relevant solutions for their needs. The below part provides

analysis for non-experienced respondents group to see if there are any major differences between

the perception of these two groups.

TABLE 6 - PROTOTYPE

TOTAL NON-EXPERIENCED RESPONDENTS 121 = 100%

Prototype Access


1 30 = 24.8% 23 = 19% 21 = 17.4% 17 = 14%

2 39 = 32.2% 39 = 32.2% 42 = 34.7% 46 = 38%

3 52 = 43% 59 = 48.8% 58 = 47.9% 58 = 47.9%

4 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Mean 2.18 2.30 2.31 2.34

Prototype Community


1 48 = 39.7% 31 = 25.6% 23 = 19% 30 = 24.8%

2 73 = 60.3% 59 = 48.8% 64 = 52.9% 66 = 54.5%

3 0 % 28 = 23.1% 34 = 28.1% 25 = 20.7%

4 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

5 0 % 3 = 2.5% 0 % 0 %

Mean 1.60 2.05 2.09 1.96

Prototype Technologies


42

1 48 = 39.7% 32 = 26.4% 10 = 8.3% 21 = 17.4%

2 55 = 45.5% 50 = 41.3% 72 = 59.5% 67 = 55.4%

3 18 = 14.9% 37 = 30.6% 34 = 28.1% 33 = 27.3%

4 0 % 2 = 1.7% 5 = 4.1% 0 %

5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Mean 1.75 2.07 2.28 2.10

Prototype Feedback Platform


1 39 = 32.2% 21 = 17.4% 16 = 13.2% 12 = 9.9%

2 71 = 58.7% 62 = 51.2% 70 = 57.9% 75 = 62%

3 11 = 9.1% 35 = 28.9% 35 = 28.9% 33 = 27.3%

4 0 % 3 = 2.5% 0 % 1 = 0.8%

5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Mean 1.77 2.17 2.16 2.19

Non-Experienced Respondents Group - Table 6:

Table 6 shows data for non-experienced respondents. There are some major differences that can be

seen here. The average perception is lesser than that of experienced respondents. In here, Prototype

Access has highest average rating in all categories: Preferences (Mean = 2.18), Interest (Mean =

2.30), Needs (Mean = 2.31) and Value (Mean = 2.34). Besides that, the majority of respondents

showed negative answers for all the four questions while a large group of respondents rated 3 which

mean they are mutual or do not have specific perception towards the asked matter.

Based on the differences between the responses, it can be seen that, respondents who had

experiences with Prototype method tend to have more positive perception than the non-experienced

respondents. In addition, the experienced respondents also show better preferences for all the

aspects of Prototype. This major differences indicate that Prototype can be applied widely and

effective, however, the target group needs to be defined clearly in order to achieve the highest

positive perception and participation from the customers group.

43

4.3 Idea Generation Activities

Question 6 was used to filter respondents who had experiences with Idea Generation Activities.

Respondents are considered having experiences when they have participated in at least one out of

four main activities of Idea Generation method: Attend conferences/meeting (Answers are coded as

Conference); Participate in virtual platform to create new product idea (Answers are coded as

Virtual Platform); Participate in Idea Competition (Answers are coded as Idea Competition);

Communicate with representatives from the companies in online communities (Answers are coded

as Communication With Representatives).

The data for Idea Generation Activities are gathered from questions 7, 12, 16 and 20. Out of 240

respondents, 216 people had experiences with at least one activity, while the other 24 have no

experience with any activity of Idea Generation method. The data for these two groups of

respondents are presented below. Similar to the frequencies tables of Quality Function Deployment

and Prototype methods, the data are presented in four main categories: Preferences, Interest, Needs

and Values.

TABLE 7 - IDEA GENERATION


Conference


1 33 = 15.3% 21 = 9.7% 21 = 9.7% 16 = 7.4%

2 98 = 45.4% 67 = 31% 112 = 51.9% 100 = 46.3%

3 32 = 14.8% 59 = 48.8% 54 = 25% 78 = 36.1%

4 34 = 15.7% 22 = 10.2% 15 = 6.9% 11 = 5.1%

5 19 = 8.8% 23 = 10.6% 14 = 6.5% 11 = 5.1%

Mean 2.57 2.81 2.49 2.54

Virtual Platform


1 28 = 13% 8 = 3.7% 9 = 4.2% 9 = 4.2%

44

2 29 = 13.4% 33 = 15.3% 23 = 10.6% 32 = 14.8%

3 63 = 29.2% 75 = 34.7% 76 = 35.2% 77 = 35.6%

4 68 = 31.5% 66 = 30.6% 84 = 38.9% 65 = 30.1%

5 28 = 13% 34 = 15.7% 24 = 11.1% 33 = 15.3%

Mean 3.18 3.39 3.42 3.38

Idea Competition


1 40 = 18.5% 6 = 2.8% 5 = 2.3% 6 = 2.8%

2 49 = 22.7% 29 = 13.4% 33 = 15.3% 30 = 13.9%

3 86 = 39.8% 85 = 39.4% 75 = 34.7% 70 = 32.4%

4 24 = 11.1% 62 = 28.7% 75 = 34.7% 89 = 41.2%

5 17 = 7.9% 34 = 15.7% 28 = 13% 21 = 9.7%

Mean 2.67 3.41 3.41 3.41

Communication with Representatives


1 32 = 14.8% 11 = 5.1% 19 = 8.8% 16 = 7.4%

2 39 = 18.1% 36 = 16.7% 53 = 24.5% 42 = 19.4%

3 57 = 26.4% 58 = 26.9% 53 = 24.5% 60 = 27.8%

4 69 = 31.9% 83 = 38.4% 75 = 34.7% 81 = 37.5%

5 19 = 8.8% 28 = 13% 16 = 7.4% 17 = 7.9%

Mean 3.02 3.38 3.07 3.19


In Preferences category, Virtual Platform has highest vote on average (Mean = 3.18). When it

comes to Interest category, Virtual Platform (Mean = 3.39), Idea Competition (Mean = 3.41) and

Communication with Representatives (Mean = 3.38) are the three most interesting activities for

respondents on average. In Needs and Value categories, Virtual Platform and Idea Competition

receive the highest vote. More detailed analysis for each category is presented below.

45

! Preference category: Virtual Platform not only has the highest average vote but also the highest

percentage of positive answers with 68 respondents (31.5%) voted 4 and 28 respondents (13%)

voted 5. That gives Virtual Platform a total of 44.5% positive votes for Preferences.

! Interest category: When going into more details, the trend is different from what has been

observed through Mean value. Communication with Representatives seems to be the most

positive activity when it receive 51.4% of positive answers (38.4% voted 4 while 13% voted 5).

Though this activity is not the most interesting on average but based on the data, more

respondents are highly interested in this activity than others.

! Needs category: In this category, Virtual Platform once again is the winner with 50% of

respondents with 4 and 5. This indicates that, through virtual platform, experienced respondents

can easily express their needs and relate the product’s development and design to these needs.

! Value category: With 50.9% positive answers from experienced respondents (89 respondents

voted 4 while 21 respondents voted 5), Idea Competition becomes the most valuable activities

amongst all four major activities under Idea Generation method.

TABLE 8 - IDEA GENERATION


Conference


1 10 = 41.7% 3 = 12.5% 11 = 45.8% 10 = 41.7%

2 7 = 29.2% 21 = 87.5% 13 = 54.2% 14 = 58.3%

3 6 = 25% 0 % 0 % 0 %

4 1 = 4.2% 0 % 0 % 0 %

5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

46

Mean 1.92 1.88 1.54 1.58

Virtual Platform


1 4 = 16.7% 6 = 25% 8 = 33.3% 4 = 16.7%

2 20 = 83.3% 16 = 66.7% 14 = 58.3% 15 = 62.5%

3 0 % 2 = 8.3% 2 = 8.3% 5 = 20.8%

4 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Mean 1.83 1.83 1.75 2.04

Idea Competition


1 24 = 100% 7 = 29.2% 9 = 37.5% 8 = 33.3%

2 0 % 14 = 58.3% 12 = 50% 12 = 50%

3 0 % 3 = 12.5% 3 = 12.5% 4 = 16.7%

4 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Mean 1.00 1.83 1.75 1.83

Communication with Representatives


1 15 = 62.5% 16 = 66.7% 12 = 50% 13 = 54.2%

2 9 = 37.5% 8 = 33.3% 12 = 50% 11 = 45.8%

3 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

4 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Mean 2.13 1.33 1.50 1.46

Non-Experienced Respondents Group - Table 8:

47

When observing data for non-experienced respondents, different trends are identified. The Mean

values for each activity are much lower than those from experienced respondent group. In

Preferences category, Communication with Representatives has the highest Mean value at only 2.13

which is much lesser than the Mean value from experienced respondents group. For Interest

category, Conference ranks highest with Mean = 1.88. For Needs category, Virtual Platform and

Idea Competition have the same Mean value of 1.75. And for Value category, Virtual Platform

stays highest with Mean = 2.04.

Going into more details, most of respondents showed negative rating for all the activities. For

illustration, in Preferences category, 100% non-experienced respondents (24 people) voted only 1

and 2 for Virtual Platform, and 100% respondents voted 1 for Idea Competition. Similar

observations can be found in other categories. All 24 respondents voted 1 and 2 for Conferences,

Communication with Representatives under Interest category. The same finding can be seen in

Needs category. Under value category, Conference and Communication with Representatives

receive 100% negative votes from respondents.

These information shows that, on average, non-experienced respondents do not have positive

perception regarding any activities of Idea Generation method. In fact, the majority of respondents

showed only negative votes towards Idea Generation activity. It is important to notice that, there are

only 24 non-experienced respondents while the experienced group has 216 respondents. As a result,

the empirical data from non-experienced respondents group might not be sufficient to generalize the

true perception of the non-experienced consumers. Regardless of this problem, based on collected

empirical for this thesis, it is clear that experienced customers have more positive perception than

non-experienced customers concerning Idea Generation Activities.

4.4 Lead-user Involvement

Question 8 was used to filter respondents who had experienced with Lead-user Involvement

activities. Data from the experienced respondents and non-experienced respondents are separated to

observe the possible differences. Empirical data regarding Lead-user involvement method are

generated from questions 9, 13, 17 and 21. The three main activities of Lead-user Involvement

include Phone Contact, Personal Meeting and Brainstorming Group. The same names are also used

to separate data.

Amongst 240 respondents, there are only 16 respondents who had experiences with at least one out

48

of three main activities. The other 224 respondents do not have any experiences with Lead-user

Involvement activities. Descriptive statistic - frequencies tests have been conducted on gathered

empirical and presented in the table below.

TABLE 9 - LEAD-USER INVOLVEMENT


Phone Contact


1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

2 0 % 0 % 0 % 1 = 6.3%

3 1 = 6.3% 7 = 43.8% 0 % 3 = 18.8%

4 7 = 43.8% 4 = 25% 6 = 37.5% 3 = 18.8%

5 8 = 50% 5 = 31.3% 10 = 62.5% 9 = 56.3%

Mean 4.44 3.88 4.63 4.25

Personal Meeting


1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

3 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

4 7 = 43.8% 10 = 62.5% 11 = 68.8% 9 = 56.3%

5 9 = 56.3% 6 = 37.5% 5 = 31.3% 7 = 43.8%

Mean 4.56 4.38 4.31 4.44

Brainstorming Group


1 3 = 18.8% 0 % 0 % 0 %

2 7 = 43.8% 7 = 43.8% 7 = 43.8% 5 = 31.3%

49

3 0 % 0 % 0 % 2 = 12.5%

4 1 = 6.3% 4 = 25& 6 = 37.5% 4 = 25%

5 5 = 31.3% 5 = 31.3% 3 = 18.8% 5 = 31.3%

Mean 2.88 3.44 3.31 3.56


The experienced respondents group showed positive perception regarding the activities. Personal

Meeting has the highest average Preferences (with Mean = 4.56), Interest (with Mean = 4.38) and

Value (with Mean = 4.44). In Needs category, Phone Contact scored the highest rating with Mean =

4.63.

When going into further details, it is interesting to see that 100% of experienced respondents voted

only 4 and 5 for Personal Meeting in all categories: Preferences, Interest, Needs and Value. It seems

that Personal Meeting is widely accepted by the respondents. It is important to notice that the

amount of experienced respondents are much lower than non-experienced respondents, 16 compares

to 224. As a result, even though the average rating and answers from respondents are highly

positive, it is difficult to conclude that these results can represent the whole population.

TABLE 10 - LEAD-USER INVOLVEMENT


Phone Contact


1 45 = 20.1% 45 = 20.1% 11 = 4.9% 36 = 16.1%

2 63 = 28.1% 85 = 37.9% 31 = 13.8% 68 = 30.4%

3 98 = 43.8% 93 = 41.5% 116 = 51.8% 73 = 32.6%

4 18 = 8% 1 = 0.4% 66 = 29.5% 43

5 0 % 0 % 0 % 4 = 1.8%

Mean 2.40 2.22 3.06 2.60

50

Personal Meeting


1 69 = 30.8% 57 = 25.4% 58 = 25.9% 49 = 21.9%

2 108 = 48.2% 107 = 47.8% 103 = 46% 104 = 46.4%

3 47 = 21% 49 = 21.9% 55 = 24.6% 53 = 23.7%

4 0 % 11 = 4.9% 8 = 3.6% 17 = 7.6%

5 0 % 0 % 0 % 1 = 0.4%

Mean 1.90 2.06 2.06 2.18

Brainstorming Group


1 57 = 25.4% 58 = 25.9% 55 = 24.6% 35 = 15.6%

2 113 = 50.4% 101 = 45.1% 96 = 42.9% 118 = 52.7%

3 28 = 12.5% 39 = 17.4% 54 = 24.1% 47 = 21%

4 21 = 9.4% 20 = 8.9% 17 = 7.6% 20 = 8.9%

5 5 = 2.2% 6 = 2.7% 2 = 0.9% 4 = 1.8%

Mean 2.13 2.17 2.17 2.29

Non-experienced Respondents Group - Table 10:

Data from non-experienced respondents group showed much of a different trend from experienced

group. The average perceptions are rather negative where the Mean values for all activities are quite

low in comparison to that from experienced respondent group. Different from what has been

observed in experienced group, for non-experienced respondents, Phone Contact has the highest

average rating: Mean = 2.40 for Preferences, 2.22 for Interest, 3.06 for Needs and 2.60 for Value.

! Preference category, Brainstorming Group is the most preferred activities where 11.6%

respondents voted positively: 21 people voted 4 (9.4% respondents) and 5 people voted 5 (2.2%

respondents).

! Interest category: Brainstorming Group also showed high rating with 11.6% voted positively: 20

51

people voted 4 (8.9% respondents) and 6 people voted 5 (2.7%) respondents.

! Value category: Phone Contact in this category has the highest rating where 20.9% respondents

voted positively: 43 people voted 4 (19.1%) and 4 people voted 5 (1.8%).

Though there are a large portion of respondents who vote negative for all activities, however, there

are still a certain percentage of non-experienced respondents who voted positive for some activities.

This observation implies that though most of customers do not have experiences regarding Lead-

user involvement activities, they still show some interest and particular positive perception about

these activities. This point can be considered as potential and advantageous method to involve

customers.

4.5 Method Comparisons

In order to compare the degree of customers involvement for each method, the measurement of

three items: Interest, Needs and Value are chosen in this thesis. The following tables compare the

activities and approaches that are rated highest on average as well as having the highest amount of

positive answers in all categories. The empirical data included both responses from experienced and

non-experienced customers. Based on analysis above, majority of non-experienced customers tend

to have negative perception towards the activity/approach, therefore, the gathered empirical data

from non-experienced customers do not benefit the finding of the most preferred communication to

involve customers in New Product Development. As a result, this Method Comparison chapter

focuses on comparing communication methods based on empirical data from experienced

respondents group.

4.5.1 Interest category

TABLE 11 - INTEREST COMPARISON (EXPERIENCED RESPONDENTS)

Activities / Approaches Mean Positive Responses

Quality

Function

Deployment

Customer Complaints 4.5 73 respondents rated 4 (30.4%)

143 respondents rated 5 (59.6%)

52

Prototype Prototype Access 3.88 60 respondents rated 4 (50.4%)

25 respondents rated 5 (21%)

Prototype Technologies 3.97 76 respondents rated 4 (63.9%)


Idea

Generation

Virtual Platform 3.39 66 respondents rated 4 (30.6%)


Idea Competition 3.41 62 respondents rated 4 (28.7%)


Communication with

Representatives

3.38 83 respondents rated 4 (38.4%)


Lead-user

Involvement

Personal Meeting 4.38 10 respondents rated 4 (62.5%)


In term of average perception, Customer Complaints and Personal Meeting are the two approaches

with highest average Interest from experienced respondents. However, when it comes to details

figure regarding the amount of positive responses, Customer Complaints is the best approach since

it has more than 143 respondents rated 5 and 73 respondents rated 4. In addition to that, considering

the amount of experienced respondents with Lead-user Involvement activities (16 people), the data

regarding Personal Meeting is not sufficient enough to argue that Personal Meeting is highly

interested by average customers. In conclusion, in term of Interest, Customer Complaints is the best

activity to apply.

4.5.2 Needs Category

TABLE 12 - NEEDS COMPARISON (EXPERIENCED RESPONDENTS)


Quality

Function

Deployment

Customer Complaints 4.28 124 respondents rated 4 (51.7%)


53

Prototype Prototype Feedback

Platform

3.97 74 respondents rated 4 (62.2%)


Prototype Technologies 4.06 61 respondents rated 4 (51.3%%)


Idea

Generation





Lead-user

Involvement

Phone Contact 4.63 6 respondents rated 4 (37.5%)


Under Needs category, Phone Contact is the best approach based on average perception (Mean =

4.63). However, similar to the case in Interest category, the data for Phone Contact is not sufficient

enough to back up such argument. As a result, the best approach in term of Needs measurement is

Customer Complaints. This statement can also be strengthen by observing the high amount of

positive responses where 124 people rated 4 (51.7% respondents) and 91% people rated 5 ( 37.9%

respondents)

4.5.3 Value category

TABLE 13 - VALUE COMPARISON (EXPERIENCED RESPONDENTS)


Quality

Function

Deployment

Customer Complaints 3.42 120 respondents rated 4 (50%)

15 respondents rated 5 (6.3%%)

Prototype Prototype Technologies 4.04 76 respondents rated 4 (63.9%%)


Prototype Feedback 3.96 70 respondents rated 4 (58.8%)

54

Platform 24 respondents rated 5 (20.2%)

Idea

Generation





Lead-user

Involvement

Personal Meeting 4.44 9 respondents rated 4 (56.3%)


If exclude data for Personal Meeting due to the low amount of respondent, then Prototype

Technologies and Prototype Feedback Platform have the highest average perception amongst

experienced respondents with Mean = 4.04 and 3.96 consecutively. 63.9% respondents voted 4 and

20.2% respondents vote 5 for Prototype Technologies being the most valuable aspect. Meanwhile,

58.8% respondents voted 4 and 20.2% respondents voted 5 for Prototype Feedback Platform. Since

both of these aspects are within Prototype method, therefore, it can be concluded that the Prototype

method can be the most valuable for customers to participate in if technologies and feedback

platform are strengthened.

4.5.4 Findings

Based on the above comparisons using three items measurements: Interest, Needs and Value, it can

be seen that there are two main options for firms when it comes to involving customers within New

Product Development.

! Through using a proper customer complaints system, Quality Function Deployment can be a

great method to involve customers. Based on the perception from experienced respondents, this

method can ensure a high relevance to customers’ needs as well as high interest from customers

side.

! When it comes to value, prototype is the best option. Firms can focus on providing necessary

technologies for prototype testings as well as a good feedback platform to make it more

valuable for customers to participate.

55

These two main options show that, depending on the target group, firms need to apply different

method to achieve better customers involvement. For the customers who are concerned about their

needs and have interest to express it, firms can focus on the use of Quality Function Deployment.

When it comes to customers who treasure their time and effort on doing something, it is better to

use Prototype. By providing crucial and necessary technologies along with a good feedback system,

firms can ensure that the customers spend their times and effort valuably in order to improve a new

product.

4.6 Reliability

TABLE 14 - RELIABILITY

Involvement Methods Cronbach Alpha

Reliability Tested Questions

Quality Function Deployment

Question 3, 10, 14 and 18. These four questions focus on the 5 activities within Quality Function Deployment. Each activity includes 4 categories: Preferences, Interest, Needs and Value. The answers for each activity are used for Reliability test.

Customer Survey 0,843

Focus Group 0,849

One-to-one Interview 0,928

Interaction with Salespeople 0,865

Customer Complaints 0,770

Prototype Question 5, 11, 15 and 19. These four questions focus on the 5 activities within Prototype. Each activity includes 4 categories: Preferences, Interest, Needs and Value. The answers for each activity are used for Reliability test.

Prototype Access 0,955

Prototype Community 0,939

Prototype Technologies 0,957

Prototype Feedback Platform 0,957

Idea Generation Activities Question 7, 12, 16 and 20. These four questions focus on the 5 activities within Idea Generation Activities. Each activity includes 4 categories: Preferences, Interest, Needs and Value. The answers for each activity are used for Reliability test.

Conference 0,865

Virtual Platform 0,912

Idea Competition 0,815

Communication with Representative

0,897

Lead-User Involvement Question 9, 13, 17 and 21. These four questions focus on the 5 activities within Lead-Phone Contact 0,789

56

Personal Meeting 0,913 user Involvement. Each activity includes 4 categories: Preferences, Interest, Needs and Value. The answers for each activity are used for Reliability test.

Brainstorming Group 0,831

According to Bryman and Bell (2005), a Cronbach Alpha result between 0,60 and 0,80 is often

chosen as an acceptable level of reliability. According to Table 14, all the Cronbach Alpha values

are higher than 0,70 which mean that the empirical data are reliable and acceptable. High alpha

values a high consistency in the answers of respondents.

5 DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION

In this research, the degree of customer involvement is measured with the three items system from

Zaichkowsky, 1985; Skrivastave, Kamavat and Suklani, 2012: Interests, Needs and Values. In this

system, Interests refers to the personal interest that customers have towards the process or activity

(ibid). From this system, it can be understood that customers tend to involve more within the

process when:

1) They have more interested in the process

2) Participate in the process can satisfy their needs

3) Customers find it valuable to participate in the process

The empirical data gathered customers’ perception on the Interests, Needs and Values that they

have towards the involvement with NPD process through for different communication methods.

Through the analysis of Interests, Needs and Values measurements, it can be seen that which

method is perceived with higher involvement degree from customers’ perspective.

5.1 Customer Involvement with Quality Function Deployment method

Table 4 presented all the summarized data for Quality Function Deployment method.

There are five main activities under Quality Function Deployment: Customer Survey, Focus Group,

One-to-one Interview, Interaction With Salespeople, Customer Complaints. Customer Complaints

57

is the most preferred one with high measurements of Interests, Needs and Values. The other four

methods which have been used by firms for long time and have proven their effectiveness, however,

from customers’ perspective, they are not the most preferred. Customers have lowest interests in

Customer Survey and Interaction with Salespeople. Based on more than 50% of respondents, these

two activities bring very low or no value to the customers.

One of the most interesting observation is the big difference between Customer Survey and

Customer Complaints. Even though the two activities are quite similar to the extend that the

companies receive comments from the customers; the customers’ perceptions about Customer

Survey and Customer Complaints are quite different. Customers think much more positively about

Customer Complaints. One way to explain this is that, when firms conduct customer survey, they

only include those questions that they predicted before. In the case of Customer Complaints,

whenever customers have a problem or an issue, they can voice their complaints to the firms. One

more difference between the two approaches is that, customer survey is delivered to customers

unexpectedly, however, customer complaints do not have this barrier since customers can choose

anytime they want to express their problems. Hence, from the customers’ perspective, Customer

Complaints is better.

Quality Function Deployment only has Customer Complaints which surpasses all approaches in

other communication methods to become the approach with highest involvement degree from

customers’ perspective. When it comes to all activities, Quality Function Deployment scored

lowered than Prototype and Idea Generation Activities method. This findings indicate that, Quality

Function Deployment is not the best method, but Customer Complaints is the best one to use from

Quality Function Deployment.

5.2 Customer Involvement with Prototype method

There are four main aspects in Prototype: Prototype Access, Prototype Community, Prototype

Technologies and Prototype Feedback Platform. In overall, Prototype received highly positive

responses for all approaches. Amongst all four aspects, Prototype Technologies has the highest

ratings. Customers are most interested in having good access to technologies.This is also the most

needed and valuable aspect for the customers. Rank after Prototype Technologies is Prototype

Feedback Platform then Prototype Access, and the lowest rating is Prototype Community.

Possible explanations for this ranking from customers perspective can be specified to three reasons:

58

! When customers are interested in testing the prototype, they expect to be able to fully check all

the functions and possible improvement for it. As a result, they need the firms to provide all

necessary and important technologies for testing. Without a good supply of these technologies,

prototype testing can be less interesting and valuable for the customers.

! Feedback platform is the second important aspect since it is the main communication channel

and possibly the fastest communication way between firms and customers. Under the

circumstances where customers explored certain errors or design flaws, they expect their

feedbacks to be delivered and proceeded fast in order to make immediate and necessary changes

to the final product. Therefore, a good feedback platform is very important and valuable from

customers’ point of view.

! Being able to access the prototype is the first step of prototype testing. Customers consider this

highly important because the easier it is to access prototype, the more convenient it is for

customers to conduct tests. When it comes to testing, the customers can face the problem with

testing location, the proper time of testing. Therefore, if firms can eliminate the problem with

prototype access, customers can focus on testing without worrying.

Though Prototype does not have the highest rating for all of its aspects, however, the ratings for all

aspects are quite similar. Since the four aspects of Prototype method are strongly connected to each

other, if customers are involved with Prototype method, their involvement can be strengthened by

all four aspects at the same time. In illustration, firms start Prototype method with providing easy

and convenient access to the prototype, this step can draw the attention and increase the interest

from customers’ side Meanwhile, firms also provide necessary and crucial technologies for

prototype testing to make sure customers are equipped with all the tools they needs- This will not

only enable customers to check how the prototype can satisfy their needs but also make ensure that

customers spend their time and effort in a more valuable way. Then firms focus on building proper

feedback platforms and prototype community where customers can interact with both firms and

other testers. By developing all four aspects at the same time, the customer involvement can be

increased to a large extend.

59

5.3 Customer Involvement with Idea Generation Activities method

There are four major activities in Idea Generation method: Conference, Virtual Platform, Idea

Competition and Communication with Representatives. Based on customers’ responses, Virtual

Platform and Idea Competition have the highest measurements for customer involvement.

Communication with Representatives and Conference receive less positive responses.

From the distribution of customers’ perspectives, it can be seen that experienced respondents have

high interests in those activities where they can freely express their new product ideas. Virtual

Platform and Idea Competition can satisfy this requirement:

! Virtual Platform allows customers to use softwares to illustrate and design their own ideas in

any way they want. There is no restriction for this way of expressing ideas

! Idea Competition gives customers the chance to present their ideas to public and be judged. In a

competition, participants can focus on develop their ideas carefully and defend it. There is no

limit for idea in a competition and more importantly, since it is a competition, anyone can join

and everyone have equal chance to show their ideas.

In overall, using Idea Generation Activities method is also a good approach, however, the positive

perception toward these activities are not as high as those of Prototype and Quality Function

Deployment’s approach: Customer Complaints. Firms can consider using this method when they

are not able to provide prototype access and necessary technologies in the most convenient way to

the customers.

5.4 Customer Involvement with Lead-user Involvement method

When it comes to Lead-users involvement, it can be seen that, amongst all respondents who have

had experiences, they perceived very positive in all categories, especially for activities Phone

Contact and Personal Meeting. It seems that lead-users have a clear understanding over the product

and its products, and they also have proper solutions for it. As a result, when they have chance to

communicate and participate with responsible people from the companies, they tend to enjoy and

involve more in the NPD process.

There is one problem is that for Lead-user Involvement method, there are only 16 respondents. In

60

comparison to 240 respondents in total, 16 people is a very small which is difficult to general the

population. However, the small amount of experienced respondents also showed that there is a

shortage of Lead-users in the market. And yet, this method is perceived highly positive from the

experienced group. This means, if firms want to take advantage of Lead-users involvement method,

it is highly important to increase the lead-users first. When there are a large number of lead-users in

the market, this method can be applied effective. More customer researches would then be needed

in order to confirm the perception of lead-users on a larger sample.

6 CONCLUSION AND REFLECTIONS

This thesis focused the study around four popular communication methods to involve customers in

New Product Development process, namely: Quality Function Deployment; Prototype; Idea

Generation Activities and Lead-user Involvement. These communication methods have been

reviewed and proven to be widely used by firms and scientifically supported by academic

researchers. The purpose of this research is to : “Evaluate the four popular communication methods

to involve customers in the NPD process from customers’ perspective”.

Each one of the four communication methods has been presented in detailed and specified down to

specific aspects and characteristics where it can be measured. The author applied measurements

system for customer involvement from Zaichkowsky (1985) which includes three measurement

items: Interests, Needs and Values. Each item is measured with Likert-scale 1 to 5 point. In this

measurement system, Interest refers to the personal interest that customers have with the process,

Needs refers to the perceived needs that can be satisfied through the involvement, Values refers to

the perceive benefits and values that customers can receive while involving in certain activity.

A questionnaire of 21 questions has been created based on aspects, characteristics of the

communication methods. 240 respondents answered the questionnaire. The gathered empirical data

provided evidence showing that Customer Complaints - an activity within Quality Function

Deployment is the most positively perceived approach from customers’ perspectives. However, this

does not make Quality Function Deployment become the best communication method to use since

only one out of five main activities are highly positively perceived. In term of overall influences,

Prototype is the most positively perceived communication where all four aspects of Prototype

61

received high positive rating from the customers. This indicated that this is the best communication

method to apply. The findings for Lead-user Involvement showed high positive results, however,

the response rate of experienced respondents was low, therefore, the data is not sufficient enough to

generalize for the whole population. However, data for Lead-user Involvement did show a sign that

this is an effective method to use when the amount of lead-users in the market is high.

7 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

From a managerial point of view, the findings of this research provide options to achieve high

degree of customers involvement. Especially for firms whose NPD process is the key for growing

revenue and profit. Though the data indicates that there are methods which are better perceived than

another from customers perspectives, but it is recommended for managers to apply combination of

methods.

In illustration, since Prototype has high average rating and Customer Complaints is the best

approach under Quality Function Deployment, it is a good option for firms to create a convenient

and powerful platform for customers feedback. This platform will be used for both Prototype testers

and ordinary customers.

Regarding Prototype method, firms needs to focus more on the delivery of Prototype testing

technologies as well as Prototype access. Easier access to prototype and better supply of necessary

technologies and tools for testings means better customers involvement. By testing and improving

the prototype together with customers, firms will be able to strengthen the relationship between

both sides and ensure that the final products are more likely to fit with customers’ expectations.

8 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

There are few limitations which the author faced during the research period. First of all, the

questionnaire was delivered to students, therefore, the findings only indicates perspectives from

customers who are students. Conducting the research on a larger sample and different customers

group are costly, and time-consuming to do so since the author has very limited access to the local

62

people.

Second of all, this research is conducted in Sweden where the language is a major boundary. As a

result, the researchers have problem to access elder customers or customer group who mainly speak

Swedish. Third of all, regarding the Lead-user Involvement, the collected data from experienced

respondents has small amount of responses, therefore, it is difficult to generalize the population.

Besides those limitations, this research only focused on four popular communication methods.

Meanwhile, there are more communication methods which can be used to increase customer

involvement degree. Future researches can focus on two main directions: (1) Repeat the same

research on different or larger sample group; (2) Conduct similar research with more

communication method to enrich empirical data and findings.

63

References

Akao, Y., 1990. QFD: Integrating customer requirements into product design. Productivity Press,

Cambridge, MA.

Aldlaigan, A.H., 2001. Consumer involvement in financial services: an empirical test of two

measures. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 19(6), pp.232-45.

Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., and Newton, R., 2002. Quantitative and qualitative research

in the built environment: application of “mixed” research approach. Work Study, 51(1), pp.17-31.

Berg, B.L., 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bergquist, K. and Abeysekera, J., 1996. Quality function deployment (QFD) - a mean for developing

usable products. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 18(2), pp.269-75.

Bossert, J.L., 1991. Quality function deployment: a practitioner’s approach. Milwaukee: ASQC

Quality Press.

Bouchard, T.J., 1972. A comparison of two brainstorming procedures. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 56(5), pp.418-21.

Brown, S.L., and Eisenhardt, K.M., 1995. Product development: past research, present findings and

future decisions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), pp. 343-78.

Bryman, A., and Bell, E., 2005. Business Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press

Inc.

Bryman, A., and Bell, E., 2007. Business Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press

Inc.

Campbell, R.I., De Beer, D.J., Barnard, L.J., Booysen, G.J., Truscott, M., Cain, R., Burton, M.J., Gyi,

64

D.E. And Hague, R., 2008. Design evolution through customer interaction with functional

prototypes. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(6), pp.617-35.

Carbonell, P., Rodriguez-Escudero, A.I. and Pujari, D., 2009. Customer Involvement in new service

development. An examination of antecendents and outcomes. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 26(5), pp.536-50.

Carbonell, P., Rodriguez-Escudero, A.I. and Pujari, D., 2012. Performance effects of involving lead

users and close customers in new service development. Journal of Services Marketing, 26(7), pp.497-

509.

Carmines, E.G. And Zeller, R.A, 1979. Reliability and validity assessment. New Delhi: SAGE

publications.

Chan, L.K. and Wu, M.L., 2002. Quality function deployment:. a literature review. European Journal

of Operational Research, 14(3), pp.463-97.

Chesbrough, H., 2003. Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from

technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Cinciantelli, S. and Magdison, J. (1993). From experience: consumer idealized design: involving

consumers in the product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10,

pp.341-7.

Connaway, L.S. and Powell, R.R., 2010. Basic Research Methods for Librarians. Libraries

Unlimited.

Deszca, G., Munro, H. And Noori, H., 1999. Developing breakthrough products: challenges and

options for market assessment. Journal of Operations Management, 17(6), pp.613-30.

Dolan, D. and Matthews, M., 1993. Maximizing the utility of customer product testing: beta test

design and management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, pp.318-30.

Featherson, M., 2013. The five most innovative industry. The Labor Academy.

65

Freierman, S., 2011. One million mobile apps and counting at a fast pace. [online] The New York

Times. Available at: <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/technology/one-million-apps-and-

counting.html?_r=0> [Accessed 17 May 2014]

Feng, T., Sun, L. and Zhang, Y., 2010. The effects of customers and supplier involvement on

competitive advantage: an empirical study in China. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8),

pp.1384-94.

Filieri, R., 2013. Consumer co-creation and new product development: a case study in the food

industry. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 31(1), pp.40-53.

Franke, N., von Hippel, E. and Schreier, M., 2006. Finding commercially attractive user innovation, a

test of lead-user theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, pp.301-15.

Frishammar, J. and Horte, S.A., 2005. Managing external information in manufacturing firms: the

impact on innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, pp.251-66.

Ghauri, P., and Gronhaug, K., 2005. Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical Guide. 3rd

ed. Pearson Education Limited: Harlow.

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., Wicki, B., 2008. Research notes and commentaries: what passes as a

rigorous case study. Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), pp.1465-74

Gonzalez, M., 2001. Quality Function Deployment: A Road for Listening the Customer Expectations.

McGraw-Hill Mexico City, Mexico.

Gonzalez, M., Quesada, G. and Bahill, T., 2003. Improving product design using quality function

deployment: the school furniture case in developing countries. Quality Engineering Journal, 16(1),

pp.47-58.

Graziano, M.A. And Raulin, M.L., 2010. Research methods: a process of inquiry. Boston: Pearson

Education Inc.

66

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. L.2010. Multivariate data

analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K., 1994. Competing for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business

School.

Han, S.B., Chen, S.K., Ebrahimpour, M. And Sodhi, M.S., 2001. A conceptual QFD planning model.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(8), pp.796-812.

Herstatt, C., and Hippel, E.V., 1992. Developing New Product Concepts Via the Lead User Method:

A Case Study in a “Low Tech Field”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9(3), pp.213-21.

Hoffmann, E., 2007. Consumer Integration in Sustainable Product Development. Business Strategy

and the Environment, 16(5), pp.322-38.

Holt, K., Geschka, H. And Peterlongo, G., 1984. Need Assesment: A Key to User-Oriented Product

Innovation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Hox, J.J., and Boeije, H.R., 2005. Data Collection, Primary vs. Secondary. Encyclopedia of Social

Measurement, 1, pp.593-9.

Hsieh, Y. And Yuan, S., 2010. Modeling service experience design processes with customer

expectaion management - A system dynamics perspective. Kybernetes, 39(7), pp.1128-44.

Huang, G.Q., Mak, K.L., 1999. Web-based collaborative conceptual design. Journal of Engineering

Design, 10(2), pp.183-94.

Humphreys, A. and Grayson, K., 2008. The intersecting roles of consumer and producer: a critical

perspective on co-production, co-creation and prosuption. Sociology Compass, 2(3), pp.963-80.

Hyde, K.F., 2000. Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qualitative Market

Research: An international Journal, 3(2), pp.82-89.

Jackson, P., 1990. Desk Research. A handbook of market research techniques, pp. 37-52.

67

Jeppesen, L.B. And Molin, M.J., 2003. Consumers as co-developers: learning and innovation outside

the firm. Technology Anaysis & Strategic Management, 15(3), pp.363-83.

Johannessen, J.A., Olaisen, J. And Olsen, B. 1999. Managing and organizing innovation in the

knowledge economy. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2(3), pp.116-28.

Kapferer, J.N. And Laurent, G., 1993. Further evidence on the consumer involvement profile: five

antecedents of involvement. Psychology and Marketing, 10(4), pp.347-55.

Kaulio, M.A., 1998. Customer, consumer and user involvement in product development: a

framework and a review of selected methods. Total Quality Management, 9(1), pp.141-9.

Kim, J.K., Han, C.H., Choi, S.H. and Kim S.H., 1998. A knowledge-based approach to the quality

function deployment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 35(1/2), pp.233-6.

Komaran, R. and Chow-Chua, C., 2002. Managing service quality by combining voice of the service

provider and voice of their customers. Managing Service Quality, 12(2), pp.77-86.

Kristensson, P. And Magnusson, P.R., 2010. Tuning users’ innovativeness during ideation. Creativity

and Innovation Management, 19(2), pp.147-59.

Kristiano, Y., Ajmal, M.M. and Sandhu, M., 2012. Adopting TQM approach to achieve customer

satisfaction. The TQM Journal, 24(1), pp.29-46.

Lagrosen, S., 2005. Customer involvement in new product development: A relationship marketing

perspective. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(4) , pp.424-36.

Lakhani, K. And Wolf, R., 2005. Why hackers do what they do: understanding motivation and effort

in free/open source projects, in Feller, J., Fitzgerald, D., Hissam, S. And Lakhani, K., 2007.

Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lau, A.K.W., 2011. Supplier and customer involvement on new product performance - contextual

factors and an empirical test from manufacturer perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems,

68

111(6), pp.910-42.

Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J., 1985. Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing

Research, 22(2), pp.41-53.

Leonard-Barton, D., 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of

Innovation, HBS Press, Boston.

Lilien, G.L., Morrison, P.D., Searls, K., Sonnack, M. and von Hippel, E., 2002. Performance

assessment of the lead-user idea generation process for new product development. Management

Science, 48(8), pp.1042-59.

Lin, R. J., Chen, R. H., and Chiu, K. K. S., 2009. Customer relationship management and innovation

capability: an empirical study. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 110(1), pp.111-33.

Lockamy, A. and Khurana, A., 1995. Quality function deployment: total quality management for new

product design. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 12(6), pp.73-84.

Lojacono, G. and Zaccai, G., 2004. The evolution of the design-inspired enterprice. Sloan

Management Review, 45(3), pp.75-9.

Lundkvist, A., and Yakhlef, A., 2004. Customer involvement in new service development: a

conversational approach. Managing Service Quality, 14(2/3), pp.249-57.

Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L. and O’Brien, M., 2007. Competing through service: insights from service-

dominant logic. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), pp.5-18.

Lüthje, C. and Herstatt, C., 2004. The lead user method: an outline of empirical findings and issues

for future research.

Karkainen, H., Piippo, P., and Tuominen, M., 2001. Ten tools for customer-driven product

development in industrial companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 69(2), pp.161-

76.

69

MacCormack, A.D., 2001. Product-development practices that work: How Internet companies build

software. Sloan Management, 42(2), pp.75–84.

Mahr, D., 2011. Customer co-creation of knowledge during the innovation process. European

Marketing Academy Conference, pp.24-27.

Malhotra, N. K., 2008. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. 5th ed. Pearson Education

India.

Malhotra, N. K., 2010. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 6th ed. Pearson Education Inc.

Martins, A., Aspinwall, E.M., 2001. Quality Function Deployment: An Empirical Study in the UK.

Total Quality Management Journal, 12(5), pp.575-88.

Mascarenhas, O.A.., Kesavan, R. and Bernacchi, M., 2004. Customer value-chain involvement for

co-creating customer delight. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(7), pp.486-96.

Matzler, K., and Hinterhuber, H.H., 1998. How to make product development projects more

successful by integrating Kano’s model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment.

Technovation, 18(1), pp.25-38.

Maxwell, S.E., and Delaney, H.D., 1990. Designing Experiements and Analyzing Data. Pacific

Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Mehrjerdi, 2010. Quality function deployment and its extensions. International Journal of Quality

&Reliability Management, 27(6), pp.616-40.

Muijs, D., 2004. Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. Sage Publications.

Munksgaard, K.B. and Freytag, P.V., 2011. Complementor involvement in product development.

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 26(4), pp.286-98.

Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F and MacLachlan, D.L., 2004. Responsive and proactive market orientation

and new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5), pp.334-47.

70

Nijssen, E.J. and Lieshout, K.F.M., 1995. Awareness, use and effectiveness of models and methods

for new product development. European Journal of Marketing, 29(10), pp.27-44.

Nolan, S.A. And Heizen, T.E., 2008. Statistics for the behavioral sciences. NY: Worth Publishers.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. And Zeithaml, V.A., 1991. Understanding customer expectations of

service. Sloan Management Review, 32(3), pp.39-48.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. And Zeithaml, V.A., 1993. Research note: More on improving quality

measurement. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), pp.140-7.

O’Connor, G.C., 1998. Market learning and radical innovation: a cross-case comparison of eight

radical innovation projects. Product Innovation Management, 15, pp.151-66.

Ogawa, S. and Piller, F.T., 2006. Reducing the risks of new product development. Sloan

Management Review, 47(2), pp.65-72.

Oosterloo, N., Kratzer, J. and Achterkamp, M.C., 2009. Applying lead user theory to young adults.

Young Consumers, 11(1), pp.5-23.

Pitta, D.A., Franzak, F. and Katsanis, L.P., 1996. Redefining new product development teams:

learning to actualise consumer contributions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 5(6), pp.48-

60.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V., 2000. Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business

Review, 78(Jan/Feb), pp.79-87.

Ruane, J.M., 2005. Essentials of research methods: a guide to social science research. USA:

Blackwell Publishing.

Rothchild, I., 2006. Induction, Deduction, and the scientific method - an eclectic overview of the

practice of science. Available through: SSR website <http://www.ssr.org/Documents/2006-01-

71

04Induction2.pdf > [Accessed 13 April 2013].

Rowley, J., Kupiec-Teahan, B., and Leeming, E., 2007. Customer community and co-creation: a case

study. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 25(2), pp.136-46.

Salomo, S., Steinhoff, F. and Trommsdorff, V., 2003. Customer orientation in innovation projects

and new product development success - the moderating effect of product innovativeness.

International Journal of Technology Management, 26(5/6), pp.442-63.

Sandberg, B., 2007. Customer-related proactiveness in the radical innovation development process.

European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(2), pp.252-67.

Sawhney, M., 2006. Going beyond the product. In: S.L.Vargo, ed. 2006. The service-dominant logic

of marketing, New York, M.E. Sharpe.

Seybold, P., 2006. Outside Innovation: How you customers will co-design your company’s future.

New York: Collins.

Shepherd, C., and Ahmed, P.K., 2000. From product innovation to solutions innovation: a new

paradigm for competitive advantage. European Journal of Innovation Management, 3(2), pp.100-06.

Slater, S.F. 2001. Market orientation at the beginning of a new millenium. Managing Service Quality,

11(4), pp.230-2.

Slater, S.F. And Narver, J.C. 1998. Customer-led and market-oriented: let’s not confuse the two.

Strategic Management Journal, 19(10), pp.1001-6.

Srivastava, A., Karnavat, P. And Suklani, V., 2012. Comparing AMOS and SAS Proc CALIS:

Testing CIP as a second order construct. Statistic and Data Analysis, pp.1-15.

Svendsen, M.F., Haugland, S.A., Gronhaug, K., and Hammervoll, T., 2011. Marketing strategy and

customer involvement in product development. European Journal of Marketing, 45(4), pp.513-30.

Thompke, S. and von Hippel, E., 2002. Customers as innovators: a new way to create value. Harvard

72

Business Review, 80(4), pp.74-81.

Tsai, K.H., 2009. Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: toward a contingency

perspective. Research Policy, 38(5), pp.765-78.

Tseng, M.M., Jiao, J.X., 1998. Computer-aided requirements management for product definition: a

methodology and implementation. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application, 6(2), pp.145-

60.

Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D., 2000. Product design and development. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Ulwick, A.W., 2002. Turn customer input onto innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), pp.91-7.

Urban, G. and von Hippel, E., 1988. Lead user analysis for the development of new industrial

products. Management Science, 34, pp.569-82.

Veryzer, R.W. Jr., 1998. Key factors affecting customer evaluation of discontinuous new products.

Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), pp.136-50.

von Hippel, E., 1986. Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7),

pp.791-805.

von Hippel, E., 1988. The source of innovation. Oxford University Press, USA.

Von Hippel, E., 2005. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Von Hippel, E., Thompke, S. and Sonnack, M., 1999. Creating breakthroughs at 3M. Harvard

Business Review, 77(5), pp.47-57.

Witell, L., Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A. and Löfgren, M., 2011. Idea generation: customer co-

creation versus traditional market research techniques. Journal of Service Management, 22(2),

pp.140-59.

Xie, C., Bagozzi, R.P. and Troye, S.V., 2007. Trying to prosume: toward a theory of consumers as

73

co-creators of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), pp.109-22.

Yin, R.K., 2007. Fallstudier: design och genomförande. Liber AB: Malmö.

Yin, R. K., 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. Vol. 5. Sage Publications, Incorporated.

Zaichkowsky, J.L., 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research,

12(12), pp.341-52.

Zaltman, G. And Wallendorf, M., 1983. Consumer behavior: Basic findings and management

implications”. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. And Parasuramn, A., 1993. The nature and determinants of customer

expectations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), pp.1-12.

I

Appendices

Appendix I Topic List of 36 Reviewed Articles

In order to build up a strong theoretical framework, the author has gone through a certain amount of

literatures to collect relevant theories, perspectives from existing researches. Overtime, the author has

found that there are a lot of methods to involve the customers. There is not many dominant theories

when it comes to customers involvement in NPD. The theories regarding this subject has been

discuss for over 40 years since there is article which was published in the 1970s. However, it is

difficult to find a concentration point to guide the research. The author decides to list the most

common methods to involve customers that have been accepted and discussed by the old scholars.

The following table presents these methods. Within the column next to every method, the author also

provides the references for those articles which have discussed this particular method. Those methods

which have been widely discussed by scholars will be chosen to be the main theories for this

research. By doing a review table of literature, it will be easier for the author to filter the theories in a

more convincing way. According the literature review table below of 36 scientific articles, it can be

seen that Quality Function Deployment, Prototype Testing, Idea Generation Activities and Lead-user

Activities are the four methods which were mentioned the most by scholars. Quality Function

Deployment is discussed in 12 out of 36 articles, Idea Generation Activities is discussed in 10 our of

36 articles; these two methods are the most popular one. Right after these two methods are the

Prototype (7 our of 36 articles) and Lead-user Activities (8 out of 36 articles). Since these four

methods are widely discussed and investigated by the other researchers, they are chosen as the key

concepts to focus on in the theoretical framework. This study also conducts study based on these four

methods.

Methods References Total

Number Quality Function Deployment Bergquist and Abeysekera (1996); Chan and Wu

(2002); Dolan and Matthews (1993); Gonzalez,

Quesada and Bahill (2003); Kaulio (1998); Kim,

et al., (1998); Kristiano, Ajmal and Sandhu

(2012); Lagrosen (2005); Lockamy and Khurana

(1995); Matzler and Hinterhuber (1998); Nijssen

and Lieshout (1995); Sawney, Verona and

Prandeli (2005);

12

II

Prototype Testing Dolan and Matthews (1993); Kaulio (1998);

Mascahenras, Kesavan and Bernacchi (2004);

Nijssen and Lieshout (1995); Sandberg (2007)

Sawney, Verona and Prandeli (2005); Veryzer

(1998)

7

Idea Generation Activities Cinciantelli and Magdison (1993); Frishammar

and Horte (2005); Humphrey and Grayson

(2008); Lagrosen (2005); Lundkvist and Yakhlef

(2004); Nijssen and Lieshout (1995); O’Connor

(1998); Pitta, Franzak and Katsanis (1996) ;

Svendsen, et al., (2011); von Hippel (1986)

10

Lead User Involvement Carbonell, Rodriguez-Escudero and Pujari

(2009); Carbonell, Rodriguez-Escudero and

Pujari (2012); Franke (2006); Herstatt and von

Hippel (1992); Lilien, et al., (2002); Munksgaard

and Freytag (2011); Thompke and von Hippel

(2002); Urban and von Hippel (1988);

8

Direct Communication Salomo, Steinhoff and Trommsdorff, (2003);

Svendsen, et al. (2009);

2

Joint Problem-Solving Feng, Sun and Zhang (2010)

Brown and Eisenhardt (1995);

Lau (2011);

3

Appendix II Questionnaire Form

2014-06-09 11:39Customer Involvement in NPD

Page 1 of 12https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XAoSMz9tWeMTQkFjkf2r4fvJeXuhKxk8ath0-jy0jtQ/viewform

Customer Involvement in NPD

Greetings.

I am a student from Marketing department, Linne University in Växjö, Sweden. My area of research relates to Innovation, New Product/Service Development. I'm using this questionnaire to gather empirical data for my graduation thesis.The collected data serves solely the purpose of academic research. The research topic is Customer Involvement in New Product Development. All your answers will be kept anonymously.

Thank you for participating,Best regards,Nguyen Dat Anh (Danny Mej)

Gender Male

Female

Age

Are you studying in Linne University?

Yes

No

Question 1: How often do you use social networks or digital applications on yourcomputer/smart devices?

Question 2: Have you ever:• Participated in a customer survey from the app producer about quality of the current products?

Yes

No

• Participated in a focus group organized by the app producer to discuss about quality of the currentproducts?

Yes

No

• Been requests for a one-to-one interview with the app producer about quality of the currentproducts?

Edit this form

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XAoSMz9tWeMTQkFjkf2r4fvJeXuhKxk8ath0-jy0jtQ/edit



Yes

No

Had an interesting conversation with salespeople from the app producer about quality of the currentproducts?

Yes

No

• Voiced a customer complaints to the customer services about quality of the current products? Yes

No

Question 3: How do you perceive about the above approaches from the app producer?Customer Survey

1 2 3 4 5

The Least Preferred The Most Preferred

Focus Group

1 2 3 4 5

The Least Preferred The Most Preferre

One-to-one Interview

1 2 3 4 5


Interaction with salespeople

1 2 3 4 5


Able to voice customer complaints

1 2 3 4 5


Question 4: Have you ever:Tried a prototype from the app producer?



Yes

No

Become a member of the app producer’s prototype testing community? Yes

No

Used tools and technologies provided by the app producer to investigate and test the prototype? Yes

No

Sent feedback regarding the tested prototype to the app producer? Yes

No

Question 5: How do you perceive about the below aspects when it comes to testing the appproducer’s prototype?The prototype becomes easy to access

1 2 3 4 5


The community is built for prototype testers

1 2 3 4 5


The company provided users with proper tools and technologies to perform tests

1 2 3 4 5


The company established proper feedback platforms for users

1 2 3 4 5


Question 6: Have you ever:Attend a conference/meeting with the app producer to discuss for new product idea?

Yes



No

Participated in any virtual platform created by the app producer in order to create new idea forproduct?

Yes

No

Participated in any competition organized by the app producer to find new product ideas?

Yes

No

Been able to communicate with the app producer’s representative in other communities beside theofficial online customer community?

Yes

No

Question 7: How do you perceive about the following Idea Generation Activities?Opportunity to attend conference/meeting with the app producer to discuss for new idea.

1 2 3 4 5


App producer create virtual platform where users can freely create new product idea.

1 2 3 4 5


App producer organize competition amongst users to choose the best new product idea.

1 2 3 4 5


App producer have representatives in every popular customers community beside the official one.

1 2 3 4 5


Question 8: Have you ever:Been contacted by the app producer for your personal solutions regarding the development ofcompany’s new product?

Yes



No

Been invited to a personal meeting with representatives from the app producer to discuss aboutdeveloping a new product?

Yes

No

Been requested by the app producer to join a brainstorming group to develop new product?

Yes

No

Question 9: How do you perceive about the following activities by the app producer when theyseek for your help in new product development?Contact for discussion about new product development through phone.

1 2 3 4 5


Have personal meeting for discussion

1 2 3 4 5


Attend brainstorming group for discussion

1 2 3 4 5


Question 10: Rate your interests in participating the following activitiesCustomer survey regarding quality of the current product.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Focus group organized by the company to discuss about quality of the current product.

1 2 3 4 5


One-to-one interview with the company’s representative to discuss about quality of the currentproduct.



1 2 3 4 5


Direct conversation with salespeople about quality of the current product.

1 2 3 4 5


Send feedback to company about product quality.

1 2 3 4 5


Question 11: Which of the following factors can increase your interest in helping the companyto test prototype?The prototype can be accessed easily.

1 2 3 4 5

Strong Disagree Strong Agree

There is a unique and special community for prototype testers.

1 2 3 4 5


All necessary tools and technologies for prototype testing are provided by the company.

1 2 3 4 5


Firms establish a fast and simple feedback platform for prototypes

1 2 3 4 5


Question 12: Rate your interest in participating in the following activitiesAttend conference/meeting with the company exclusively to discuss about idea for new product.

1 2 3 4 5




Participate in any kind of virtual platform to create new product idea.

1 2 3 4 5


Participate in competitions organized by the best new product idea.

1 2 3 4 5


Being able to discuss new product ideas with company’s representatives on any online communityaside from the official one.

1 2 3 4 5


Question 13: Rate your interest in helping the company’s new product development throughthe following approachBeing contacted by the company through phones to discuss product solutions.

1 2 3 4 5


Being invited to a personal meeting with representatives from the company to discuss aboutdeveloping a new product.

1 2 3 4 5


Being requested by the company to join a brainstorming group to develop new product.

1 2 3 4 5


Question 14: Which method do you prefer to use when communicate with the companiesabout your needs from their products?Customer Survey

1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


Focus Group

1 2 3 4 5


One-to-one interview with the company’s representative

1 2 3 4 5


Direct conversation with salespeople

1 2 3 4 5


Customer Feedbacks (You can send feedback when you feel like to)

1 2 3 4 5


Question 15: Rate your need for the following factors when it comes to testing prototypeThe prototype can be accessed easily.

1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5




Firms establish a fast and simple feedback platform for prototypes

1 2 3 4 5


Question 16: When it comes to finding new product idea, which of the following activity iseasier for you to make sure suggested idea can match your need?Attend conference/meeting with the company exclusively to discuss about idea for new product.

1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


Participate in competitions organized by the company to choose the best new product idea.

1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


Question 17: If you have a specific need as well as specific product idea to solve your need,how would you prefer to discuss with the company?Being contacted by the company through phones to discuss product solutions.

1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5





1 2 3 4 5


Question 18: To what extend do you believe participate in the following activities can bevaluable for you?Customer Survey

1 2 3 4 5


Focus Group

1 2 3 4 5


One-to-one interview with the company’s representative

1 2 3 4 5


Direct conversation with salespeople

1 2 3 4 5


Send feedback through Customer Feedback platform

1 2 3 4 5


Question 19: When it comes to testing a prototype, which of the following activities is morelikely to be valuable for you?The prototype can be accessed easily.

1 2 3 4 5





1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


Firms establish a fast and simple feedback platform for prototypes.

1 2 3 4 5


Question 20: In your opinion, which activity is more valuable to you to participate in?Attend conference/meeting with the company exclusively to discuss about idea for new product.

1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


Participate in competitions organized by the company to choose the best new product idea.

1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


Question 21: If you have a specific product idea and clear solution for it, which way is morevaluable for you to express it to the company?



Powered by

Being contacted by the company through phones to discuss product solutions.

1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.

Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Additional Terms

SubmitNever submit passwords through Google Forms.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XAoSMz9tWeMTQkFjkf2r4fvJeXuhKxk8ath0-jy0jtQ/reportabuse?source=https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XAoSMz9tWeMTQkFjkf2r4fvJeXuhKxk8ath0-jy0jtQ/viewform

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

http://www.google.com/google-d-s/terms.html