View
227
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1 6-1
McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2003 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.
2 6-2
CHAPTER SIX
ANALYTICAL ATTRIBUTE APPROACHES:
INTRODUCTION AND PERCEPTUAL MAPPING
3 6-3
What are Analytical Attribute Techniques?
• Basic idea: products are made up of attributes -- a future product change must involve one or more of these attributes.
• Three types of attributes: features, functions, benefits.
• Theoretical sequence: feature permits a function which provides a benefit.
4 6-4
Gap Analysis
• Determinant gap map (produced from managerial input/judgment on products)
• AR perceptual gap map (based on attribute ratings by customers)
• OS perceptual map (based on overall similarities ratings by customers)
5 6-5
A Determinant Gap MapFigure 6.2
6 6-6
1 2 3 .... Options .... X Ideal
12 . . . . . . .15
Att
ribut
esR
espo
nden
ts
12 . .
700.
A Data Cube Figure 6.3
7 6-7
Rate each brand you are familiar with on each of the following: Disagree Agree
1. Attractive design 1..2..3..4..5 2. Stylish 1..2..3..4..5 3. Comfortable to wear 1..2..3..4..5 4. Fashionable 1..2..3..4..5 5. I feel good when I wear it 1..2..3..4..5 6. Is ideal for swimming 1..2..3..4..57. Looks like a designer label 1..2..3..4..58. Easy to swim in 1..2..3..4..59. In style 1..2..3..4..5 10. Great appearance 1..2..3..4..5 11. Comfortable to swim in 1..2..3..4..5 12. This is a desirable label 1..2..3..4..5 13. Gives me the look I like 1..2..3..4..5 14. I like the colors it comes in 1..2..3..4..5 15. Is functional for swimming 1..2..3..4..5
Obtaining Customer PerceptionsFigure 6.4
8 6-8
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Snake Plot of Perceptions (Three Brands)
Aqualine
Islands
Sunflare
Attributes
Ratings
Figure 6.5
9 6-9 Data Reduction Using Multivariate Analysis
• Factor Analysis– Reduces the original number of attributes to a smaller
number of factors, each containing a set of attributes that “hang together”
• Cluster Analysis– Reduces the original number of respondents to a smaller
number of clusters based on their benefits sought, as revealed by their “ideal brand”
10 6-10
Factor Eigenvalue Percent VarianceExplained
1 6.04 40.32 3.34 22.33 0.88 5.94 0.74 4.95 0.62 4.26 0.54 3.67 0.52 3.58 0.44 3.09 0.40 2.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No. of Factors
Pe
rce
nt
Va
ria
nc
eE
xp
lain
ed
The Scree
Selecting the Appropriate Number of Factors Figure 6.6
11 6-11
Attribute Factor 1 --“Fashion”
Factor 2 --“Comfort”
1. Attractive design .796 .0612. Stylish .791 .0293. Comfortable to wear .108 .7824. Fashionable .803 .0775. I feel good when I wear it .039 .7296. Is ideal for swimming .102 .8337. Looks like a designer label .754 .0598. Easy to swim in .093 .7939. In style .762 .12310. Great appearance .758 .20811. Comfortable to swim in .043 .75612. This is a desirable label .807 .08213. Gives me the look I like .810 .05514. I like the colors it comes in .800 .06115. Is functional for swimming .106 .798
Factor Loading MatrixFigure 6.7
12 6-12
Attribute Factor 1 --“Fashion”
Factor 2 --“Comfort”
1. Attractive design 0.145 -0.0222. Stylish 0.146 -0.0303. Comfortable to wear -0.018 0.2134. Fashionable 0.146 -0.0175. I feel good when I wear it -0.028 0.2016. Is ideal for swimming -0.021 0.2277. Looks like a designer label 0.138 -0.0208. Easy to swim in 0.131 0.2169. In style -0.021 -0.00310. Great appearance 0.146 0.02111. Comfortable to swim in -0.029 0.20812. This is a desirable label 0.146 -0.01613. Gives me the look I like 0.148 -0.02414. I like the colors it comes in 0.146 -0.02215. Is functional for swimming -0.019 0.217
Sample calculation of factor scores: From the snake plot, the mean ratings of Aqualine on Attributes1 through 15 are 2.15, 2.40, 3.48, …, 3.77. Multiply each of these mean ratings by the correspondingcoefficient in the factor score coefficient matrix to get Aqualine’s factor scores. For example, on Factor 1, Aqualine’s score is (2.15 x 0.145) + (2.40 x 0.146) + (3.48 x -0.018) + … + (3.77 x -0.019)= 2.48. Similarly, its score on Factor 2 can be calculated as 4.36. All other brands’ factor scores are calculated the same way.
Factor Scores MatrixFigure 6.8
13 6-13
Aqualine
Islands
Splash
Molokai
Sunflare
Gap 1
Gap 2
Fashion
Co
mfo
rt
The AR Perceptual MapFigure 6.9
-2 2
-2
2
14 6-14
Aqualine Islands Sunflare Molokai SplashAqualine X 3 9 5 7Islands X 8 3 4Sunflare X 5 7Molokai X 6Splash X
Dissimilarity MatrixFigure 6.10
15 6-15
Aqualine
Islands
Splash
Molokai
SunflareC
omfort
Fashion
The OS Perceptual Map Figure 6.11
16 6-16
AR Methods OS MethodsInput Required
Brand ratings on specific attributes Overall similarity ratingsAttributes must be pre-specified Respondent uses own judgment of similarity
Analytic Procedures Commonly UsedFactor analysis; multiple discriminant analysis Multidimensional scaling (MDS)
Graphical OutputShows product positions on axesAxes interpretable as underlying dimensions(factors)
Shows product positions relative to each otherAxes obtained through follow-up analysis or mustbe interpreted by the researcher
Where UsedSituations where attributes are easily articulated orvisualized
Situations where it may be difficult for therespondent to articulate or visualize attributes
Source: Adapted from Robert J. Dolan, Managing the New Product Development Process: Cases and Notes(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1993), p. 102.
Comparing AR and OS Methods Figure 6.12
17 6-17
Failures of Gap Analysis
• Input comes from questions on how brands differ (nuances ignored)
• Brands considered as sets of attributes; totalities, interrelationships overlooked; also creations requiring a conceptual leap
• Analysis and mapping may be history by the time data are gathered and analyzed
• Acceptance of findings by persons turned off by mathematical calculations?