Page | I

Liverpool John Moores University

An Investigation into Consumer Buying Behaviour: User-Friendliness as Success

Factor in High-Tech Products

A study of consumer behaviours to determine the importance of usability in the success of high-tech products

Dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Administration at Liverpool John Moores University

Tom Jacob

MBA 2010

Page | II

Declaration

I, Tom Jacob, declare that no portion of the work referred to in this dissertation has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning. Further, all the work in this dissertation is entirely my own, unless referenced in the text as a specific source and included in the bibliography.

Page | III

Acknowledgements

My profound thanks to my research supervisor with whom I had the great luxury of working: Ron Bray. In addition, I would like to express my immense gratitude to my parents and sisters who stood with me in the bleakest of hours and offered words of wisdom and encouragement. To my uncle John Mathew, I could not have done this without your guidance, and to my grandmother Rosy Mathew, I am grateful for your prayers in heaven.

This dissertation could not have been written without the generous assistance of countless individuals who shared their knowledge and expertise. To all of you, I extend my deep appreciation.

Page | IV

Abstract

Our generation, living in a technology-dominated world, makes extensive use of

electronic devices and information services to make their lives more simple and

satisfying. Intense competition in this sector had prompted the manufactures to

concentrate on adding more and more specs/features to their devices, mostly at the

expense of reduced usability.

However, technically advanced products like Sony PlayStation3 are losing market

share to spec-light competitors, while the users of prominent operating systems

like Microsoft Windows are reverting to older versions of the software. In light of

these developments, this research will analyse the consumer philosophies when

choosing hi-tech products; thereby determining the importance of user-

friendliness in the success of high-tech products.

This research uses ‘Phenomenology’ as its research philosophy, complimented by

an ‘Inductive’ research approach. The research choice is ‘Qualitative Mono-

Method’ with an ‘Open-End Survey’ used as the research strategy. Primary data -

collected using an ‘Open-End Questionnaire’- is analysed using the ‘Content

Analysis’ method. Sampling methods used are Convenience & Snowball methods.

This research takes three sets of sample products, -Nintendo Wii & Sony

PlayStation, Apple iPhone & Blackberry Curve, and Google Chrome & Microsoft

Internet Explorer to research on this subject. Participants were enquired about the

usability of the products to determine the relationship between usability and sales.

After analysing 42 participant responses, this researcher hypothesised that

usability can win over a customer, and that the customers are willing to pay a

premium for usability. It was also clear that the usability of a product could create

an emotional attachment with the brand for the users. The hypothesises where

proven using the primary and secondary data. The researcher then reviews the

academic literature in light of the findings after which a set of recommendations is

provided to the technology industry, which if properly implemented, can drive the

sales figures.

Page | V

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 - Introduction 01 Overview of the Research Problem 02 Industry Background 03 Challenges facing the Industry 03 Current Trends 04 Research Problem 04 Rationale 05 Benefits to the Industry 05 Benefits to the Academics and the Society 05 Personal Benefits 06 Research Objectives 06 Research Questions 06 Dissertation Structure 07 Chapter 2 - Critical Literature Review 08 Concept of User-Friendliness 09 Attributes of Usability 10 Learnability 10 Memorability 11 Efficiency 11 Errors 12 Satisfaction 13 Universal Usability 13 Concept of Consumer Buying Behaviour 15 Six Stage Buying Process 15 Factors Influencing Consumer Behaviour 16 Personal Factors 17 Cultural Factors 17 Social Factors 18 Psychological Factors 19 Situational Factors 19 Types of Buying Behaviour 20 Relevant Theories and Models 22 Marshallian Theory 22 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory 23 Needs-Opportunities-Abilities Model 24

Page | VI

Porter's Generic Strategies 25 The Extended Marketing Mix 26 Associated Theories and Relevant Literature 27 Recent Developments and Debates 27 Emergence of Online Stores and Internet Economy 27 Products as a Platform 28 The ‘Virtual’ Customer Behaviour 29 Service as a Product 29 Conceptual Framework 30 Chapter 3 - Research Methodology 31 Research Philosophy: Phenomenology 32 Brief on Other Philosophies 32 Justification of the Adopted Philosophy 33 Research Approach: Inductive 33 Brief on Other Approaches 34 Justification of the Adopted Approach 34 Research Strategy: Open-End Survey 35 Brief on Other Strategies 35 Justification of the Adopted Strategy 35 Research Choice: Qualitative Mono-Method 36 Brief on Other Choices 36 Justification of the Adopted Choice 37 Time Horizon: Cross-sectional 37 Brief on Other Time Horizons 37 Justification of the Adopted Time Horizon 37 Data Collection and Analysis 38 Primary Data Collection: Open-end Questionnaire 38 Brief on Other Primary Data Collection Methods 38 Justification of the Adopted Data Collection Method 38 Secondary Data 39 Data Analysis: Content Analysis 39 Sampling: Convenience, Snowball Methods 39 Justification for the Adopted Sampling Methods 40 Sampling Size 40 Sampling Criteria 40

Page | VII

Scope and Implications of the Research 40 Reliability, Credibility and Validity of the Research 41 Ethical Issues 41 Conceptual Framework Linkage 42 Chapter 4 - Findings and Results of Data 43 Questionnaire Distribution and Response 44 Primary Data 44 Reported Usage of the Selected Products 44 Demographic Characteristics of the Participants 45 Participants’ Comfortability with Hi-Tech Products 46 Responses to the Questionnaire 47 Respondent Reaction to the Usability of Their Products 52 Secondary Data 53 Sales Figures of the Shortlisted Devices 53 Retail Price of the Shortlisted Devices 56 Chapter 5 - Analysis of Data and Discussion 57 Analysis of Product Ownership Patterns 58 Demographic Trends 58 Analysis of Questionnaire Answers 58 Usability of Shortlisted Products:

Discussion about Respondents’ Perception 65 User-friendliness of Sony PlayStation 65 Analysis in Context of Academic Literature 65 User-friendliness of Nintendo Wii 66 Analysis in Context of Academic Literature 66 User-friendliness of Google Chrome 67 Analysis in Context of Academic Literature 67 User-friendliness of Microsoft Internet Explorer 68 Analysis in Context of Academic Literature 68 User-friendliness of Blackberry Curve 69 Analysis in Context of Academic Literature 69 User-friendliness of Apple iPhone 70 Analysis in Context of Academic Literature 70 Analysis of Answers and Discussion:

Derived Trends and Patterns 71

Page | VIII

Working Hypothesises: In Context of the Research Questions 72

Evidences for Validating the Hypothesises 72 Evidence from Primary Data 72 Evidence from Secondary Data 73 Theory Formulation 76 Chapter 6 - Conclusion and Recommendations 77 Conclusion 78 Research Findings in the Context of Research Questions 78 Review of Academic Literature in Light of the Findings 79 Limitations of the Research 80 Recommendations 81 Suggestions for the Hi-Tech Industry 81 Scope for Future Studies 81 Chapter 6 - Personal Statement on Reflective Learning 83 Concept of Reflective Learning 84 Importance of Reflective Learning 84 Self Reflections on the Learning Experience 84 Reflections on the Content of Dissertation 85 Reflections on the Process of Working 86 Summary of Reflective Learning Experience 88 Bibliography 89 Appendixes 100 Appendix 1: A Questionnaire on

The User-friendliness of High-Tech Products 101 Appendix 2: Research Gantt Chart 108

Page | IX

List of Figures

No. Name of the Figure Page Figure 01 Learning Curves 10 Figure 02 Factors Influencing Customer Behaviours 17 Figure 03 Types Of Buying Behaviours 20 Figure 04 Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs 23 Figure 05 Needs-Opportunities-Abilities (NOA) Model 24 Figure 06 Porter's Generic Strategies 25 Figure 07 Online Buying Process Acts As A Sieve 28 Figure 08 The Research Onion 31 Figure 09 Research Choices 36 Figure 10 Reported Usage Of The Selected Products 44 Figure 11 Age Characteristics Of The Participants 45 Figure 12 Participants By Gender 46 Figure 13 Averages Of Comfortability With Technology By Different Age Groups 47 Figure 14 Influencing Factors When Participants Originally Brought The Products 48 Figure 15 What Is More Important? Usability Or Features? 49 Figure 16 Should Manufactures Focus More On Usability Or Better Features? 50 Figure 17 How do the Usability Features Of The Owned Products Improve Life? 51 Figure 18 Worldwide Sales Of Wii 53 Figure 19 Worldwide Sales Of PlayStation 53 Figure 20 Market Share Of Internet Explorer 54 Figure 21 Market Share Of Chrome 54 Figure 22 Worldwide Sales Of iPhone 55 Figure 23 Worldwide Smart-Phone Market Share 2008-09 56 Figure 24 Difference Between Genders In Their Perception About Usability 62 Figure 25 Participants’ Willingness to Pay a premium For better Usability 63 Figure 26 Growth Rate of Smart-Phones in 2008-09 74 Figure 27 iPhone Sales - Annual Moving Average 75 Figure 28 Kolb’s Learning Cycle 83 Figure 29 Research Gantt Chart 108

1

Chapter: 1 Introduction

_______________________________________________

This chapter acts as an introduction to the dissertation by explaining the research

problem and its significance in the real world. A brief background of the industry

is given, followed by the rationale for selecting this topic. This chapter will also

provide the research objectives and questions and will detail the dissertation

structure.

2

“Complexity is the problem; Ease of use is the solution; Productivity is the impact” (John Falk Kelley 1983)

Overview of the Research Problem

Living in a world dominated by technology, we use a range of electronic devices

and gadgetry everyday to make our life easier, enjoyable, simple and more

satisfying. Our generation have mobile phones, instant messaging and social

network services to stay in touch with the loved ones; portable media players keep

them stress-free while game consoles entertain them. Today’s businesspersons

carry tablet computers, which enables them to trade on the go. Technology, they

say, is bringing the world -and its people- together.

Still, these days our lives are more complicated than ever. Every new device or

new versions of existing gadgets guarantee to be the easiest ever, but complicate

things even more. Developers strive to add new features in to their products every

day. Latest mobile phones have evolved beyond being phones into life-style

devices full of content and applications. Modern mobile phones integrate cameras

and satellite navigation systems, making it more convenient. However, these

advances come at a cost; with primary purposes like cellular reception, voice

clarity and battery life having suffered.

Services like blogs and social networking sites have empowered our society by

giving our people a stage to make their voices heard. However, at the same time,

citizens are increasingly concerned about privacy issues and identity theft. New

versions of operating systems are so resource demanding and buggy that users are

reverting to older versions.

Add all this to the fact that most of these devices and services do not interact with

each other; one will understand the plight of the public. Technology was supposed

to liberate us. Instead, it has enslaved us. It has to be said, promises of efficiency

and simplicity have not been kept.

3

Where does this leave the technology industry? Is the industry trying to

incorporate highly complex features in to their products that consumers do not

actually need or use? Can new and better features alone attract customers? Will a

possibly basic product that is more easy-to-use persuade an end user? Is it latest

functionality over usability?

Industry Background

One of the fastest growing sectors of our time, technology industry -companies

that design, manufacture, and distribute electronic devices, software and

information services- is unique do to its high investment in research and

development. Due to this focus on research, it is also a highly evolving industry.

Public interest in this relatively young industry -its origins in the invention of

integrated circuits in 1950s- is exceptionally high, largely due to the brisk pace of

communication and technological development witnessed in the last two decades

and the way it has changed our lives (msu.edu 2009).

Global leaders in the sector are Apple, AMD, Canon, Dell, Google, HP, Hitachi,

IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Nintendo, Nokia, Oracle, Palm, Samsung, Sony and

Toshiba. It is noted that most of these companies have tried and failed to grow out

of their core sub-sectors. Examples are Microsoft and Dell, who tried -not with

much success- to develop online and mobile phone businesses respectively.

Challenges facing the Industry

In spite of the fast growth rate, Hi-Tech industry is facing numerous challenges.

Technology companies are increasingly vulnerable to tough competition and

privacy laws, with the situation made complex by the varied interpretations of

these laws by different countries. Many of the industry leaders are currently under

investigation or previously have been heavily fined. Examples are Microsoft and

Intel, who were fined by the European Union for anti-trust practices (bbc.co.uk

2009). Critics have also questioned the ethical consciousness of the companies

that have access to the private data of millions around the world, who then use this

data for targeted advertising (Brennan & Johnson 2004). The British national

4

daily newspaper ‘The Guardian’ (2009) while reporting that facebook.com is

experiencing a mass exodus due to its recently changed privacy policy highlighted

this ethical concern. Digital piracy is another problem faced by the industry, with

some estimates calculating annual global losses of $20-22 billion (usitc.gov 2009)

in potential income due to copyright infringements.

Current Trends

In yesteryears, customers had little choice in the market, as there were only a

handful of players. Traditionally, new features are the primary selling point in this

sector. This has changed drastically in the last five years. As the industry matured

-with more sub-sectors, competitors and products coming in to the market-,

industry leaders started losing customers to new and upcoming companies, which

then prompted the developers and marketers to focus on new selling points like

user-friendliness to attract or retain customers. This paradigm shift is the basis of

my research.

Research Problem

The purpose of this research is to analyse the consumer philosophies when

choosing technological products. What does the consumer look for when he/she

buys a Hi-Tech product? Latest features or usability? Can the usability of products

influence buying decisions? If so, how significant is this factor to consumers?

I am taking three set of sample products, Nintendo Wii and Sony PlayStation from

gaming sector, Apple iPhone and Blackberry Curve from smart-phone sector and

Google Chrome and Microsoft Internet Explorer from web browsers to research

on this subject. In every set, one is a market leading company or product and the

other one a new pretender who focuses on being more user-friendly. How are

these products fairing in the market? Will the consumer choose a user-friendly

product in favour of the more sophisticated one? What makes a consumer go for a

product? Is it the easy-to-use ‘user interface’? Alternatively, is it the new features?

Perhaps a shorter learning curve? What do the consumers value more? Usability

or latest functionality?

5

Rationale

The rationale for selecting three pair of products instead of one is many. Firstly, as

my research is industry centred rather than product specific, use of three separate

set of products will not broaden the scope of my research. Instead, I will benefit

from a bigger pool of data that can be obtained, which is the second reason for

using three pair of products. I have been very careful while choosing the products.

By choosing products that public uses in everyday life, rather than a niche gadget,

I am confident of getting high quality data aplenty. This will in turn, bring out

clearer patterns and trends that can be used to form an inductive hypothesis.

Benefits to the Industry

This research will help the developers to better understand the needs of the

consumer. The study will bring out the different priorities within different

segments of the market, which will help in marketing communications. How can

the industry align their strategic capabilities and core competences to better suit

the needs of the consumer? This research will help them to better direct their

energies towards developing systems that have an optimal blend of features and

user-friendliness.

Benefits to the Academics and the Society

Even though a wealth of literature is available on the subjects like Usability and

Consumer Buying Behaviour with many theories explaining the different aspects

of them, not much has be written on what -if any- effect user-friendliness has on

customers and their purchasing choices. Although closing this knowledge gap will

be well over the scope of this dissertation, this research aim -at the least- to draw

attention to the latest trends and developments in the subject. How will the current

economic climate, a great-unknown quantity, influence the customer perceptions

on user-friendliness? Is there a relationship between geodemographics of the

customers and their perception about usability? Academics and the society in

general will benefit from the answers provided by this dissertation.

6

Personal Benefits

As a tech savvy person, I am most frustrated by the unfriendly nature of today’s

technological devices, software and services that seems to make our life overly

complicated. It would definitely make my day more stress-free and easy if my

gadgets were less complicated and easy to use. This will also be a unique

opportunity to study consumer buying behaviours, which will aid me in my career

as a marketing professional. Additionally, as a future manager, this researcher will

be expected to show the determination and expertise to effectively manage

businesses and projects. This research will demonstrate the authors’ ability to

recognize and solve day-to-day business problems while meeting tough budgeting

and time requirements.

Research Objectives

In accordance to the research problem and rationale detailed above, this research

aims to:

1. Analyse the consumer philosophies when selecting and buying Hi-

Tech products for personal use.

2. Find if user-friendliness of a product can influence buying decisions.

If so, quantify the significance of this factor to the consumer.

3. Find if customers associate user-friendliness with ‘added value’.

Research Questions

1. Will a possibly basic (feature-wise) product that is more user-

friendly win an end user?

2. If that is the case, then how important is this usability factor to a

potential buyer? Will he/she pay a premium for it?

3. Is User-friendliness a strong brand building/busting point?

7

Dissertation Structure

Chapter One – Introduction

Chapter Two – Critical Literature Review

Chapter Three – Research Methodology

Chapter Four – Findings and Results of Data

Chapter Five – Analysis of Data and Discussion

Chapter Six – Conclusion and Recommendations

Chapter Seven – Personal Statement on Reflective Learning

8

Chapter: 2 Critical Literature Review

_______________________________________________

This chapter attempts a critical review of the academic literature relevant to this

research. This review is important in two ways; primarily, it ensures a thorough

understanding of topic area, and secondly, the researcher can compare and

contrast related concepts, theories and debates. The first few sections of this

chapter explain the concept, attributes and factors of user-friendliness and

customer buying behaviour. This is followed by a review of the relevant theories

and models and an analysis of related debates and recent developments in the

industry. The chapter is concluded by a conceptual framework linking the

literature and the research.

9

Concept of User-Friendliness

User-friendliness is defined by dictionary.cambridge.org (2009) as “easy to use or

understand”, where as International Standards Organization describe it as the

“effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users can achieve

specified goals in particular environment” (Karwowski 2001). International

Standards Organization elaborates on the concept by explaining that user-

friendliness is indeed a measurable value; most accurately calculated by studying

how easily an individual can use a tool to achieve its intended goal.

Hooks & Ferry (2001) notice that ‘user-friendly’ is a particularly troublesome

word, arguing that a product developer who is comfortable with the technology is

guaranteed to have a different threshold for ‘user-friendly’ than the end customer.

The argument is that a technological product can be made only with a ‘certain

kind’ of customer in mind, and a customer who is not of that ‘certain kind’ will

struggle to adapt, no matter how user-friendly a tool is. Hooks & Ferry further this

argument by stating that developers rarely experience the ‘real world

environment’ where their products will eventually be used; which of course

further complicates their idea of user-friendliness.

Jane Carey (1995) hypothesize that user-friendliness is linked to the productivity

of the system. She identified various factors like “flexibility, task orientation, ease

of use, efficiency, fault tolerance, predictability, and ease of learning” which will

improve the user-friendliness of a system. This leads to the logic that user-

friendliness can be calculated by the effectiveness and efficiency of the system.

This validates ISO’s stand that user-friendliness is a measurable value.

Effectiveness and efficiency can be measured. However, satisfaction -which is

difficult to quantitatively measure- might be seen as the most important aspect of

usability for products whose use is voluntary (Karwowski 2001). This becomes

important when we look at the fact that most of the ‘virtual’ products like web-

based e-mail and cloud computing are free with providers turning to ‘after sales

satisfaction’ as a competitive advantage with which they can capture and retain

customers.

10

Attributes of Usability

Jakob Nielsen (1993), a usability consultant argues that user-friendliness is not a

one-dimensional property, but a combination of various factors. He identified five

attributes of usability, which are 1) Learnability, 2) Memorability, 3) Efficiency,

4) Errors and 5) Satisfaction. Nielsen pointed out that user-friendliness can be

systematically analysed and measured by defining it in terms of these more clear-

cut and quantifiable components.

Learnability

Learnability or ‘ease of learning’ (Carey 1995) is perhaps the most important

usability attribute; in the sense that most people judges the user-friendliness of a

new system or tool in a matter of hours. Figure 1 show the “ease of learning”

experience of a novice user, whereby the user is quickly acquainted to the system.

Jane Carey acknowledges that the initial ease of learning is the easiest of the

usability characteristics to quantify. Hammond, Gross & Wesson (2002) finds that

most users start using a system before completely learning it i.e. people tend to

11

explore and learn as they use the new system. This is particularly true in the case

of users who do not receive formal training before using a new device. Dumas &

Redish (1999) explains that most users will try to be productive with their time -

inevitably spending less time learning the system-, which will lead to an

exploratory learning of the new device.

This exploratory learning style requires the system to have a high level of

memorability, which Nielsen identifies as the second attribute of user-friendliness.

Jane Carey (1995) describes memorability using the terms ‘predictability’ and

‘ease of use’. According to Nielsen, new systems must be designed so that an end

user can easily remember how to utilize the system. This particularly applies in

the case of a novice user who finds it easier to follow simple and precise steps that

can get them the desired results. This type of users will try to execute commands

or gestures (like ‘right-clicking’ to access a menu) they learned elsewhere in the

system in other parts of the system.

Memorability

Henry Simpson (1984) suggest that a program or system should be consistent in

the user interface i.e. functions in different areas of the system or device should

interact with the user in an expected way. Computer science professor Ben

Shneiderman (1987) supports this by arguing that developers should strive for

consistency, as it will greatly reduce the learning curve. For example, a gesture

like ‘double-click’ should accomplish the same task in any window or level of the

program. This consistency in the UI will lead the user to be more familiar and

confident with the system (Dumas & Redish 1999).

Once users have gone through the initial stages of familiarising with the device,

and are comfortable with the system, they expect the system to increase their

productivity. Dumas & Redish note that users associate usability with

productivity. This means that users have an eye on the time it takes to get things

done and the number of steps they go through to accomplish a task. Jane Carey

describes this as the ‘efficiency’ factor.

Efficiency

12

Green & Jordan (1999) argues that sustainable usability can only be achieved

when a device is efficient enough to save its users time and effort. Wickens et al.

(2004) finds that customers choose an Apple iPod rather than a competitor’s

media player due to this ‘efficiency’ in playing media files. In other words, an

iPod serves its users not only by playing high quality media, but also by saving

them time and effort through its innovative, intuitive and minimalist UI.

Shneiderman (2000) theorize that efficiency becomes the most important factor if

the device is to be used frequently in day-to-day life (e.g.: mobile phones and

personal digital assistants).

An error can be defined as an instruction that is not recognised by the system

either due to inadequate user inputs or due to a system failure. Nielsen categorises

errors into simple (errors which have little effect other that some delay in

operational time) and catastrophic (errors which are missed by the user;

consequently destroying hardware & data or making defective products). As no

system can possibly be made fully error proof, efforts should be made to make the

user aware of the errors as and when they occur.

Errors

In most scenarios, this task is accomplished by displaying error messages which

inform the user about the errors (even potential ones) and advice them on possible

solutions. These messages have dual purpose. First, they give early warnings that

may prevent the escalation of the situation in to a catastrophic one. Secondly, they

give vital information that can prove invaluable if technical assistance is needed.

Cougias et al. (2003) stresses the importance of contingency planning when

dealing with errors, warning that backup schedules should be strictly followed.

They recommend recovery procedures to be built into every system so that users

can recover from a serious error without data loss or external help. Tony Steidler-

Dennison (2009) identifies Mac OSX Snow Leopard’s automated backup and

recovery tools (“robust, outstanding and easy to configure”) as a major user-

friendly feature when compared with the limited tools available in Microsoft

Windows 7.

13

Satisfaction is an attribute of usability whereby the device strikes a chord with the

user. This becomes significant when device is employed on a discretionary basis

like personal computing. Carroll & Thomas (1988) believes that when the users

are after an enriching experience rather than productivity, satisfaction becomes the

most important aspect of usability. This rationale holds true in the case of

‘Mozilla Firefox’ browser whose residential market share is much higher than the

corporate one (marketingcharts.com 2009). This shows that the people who use

‘Internet Explorer’ at office switch to Firefox when they are at home.

Satisfaction

Karwowski (2001) suggests that satisfaction is linked with human psychology i.e.

no manufacturer can ever fully guarantee product satisfaction. Kurtz (2008)

maintains that marketing is vital to user-satisfaction. He argues that a well-

marketed product, which has a ‘feel good factor’ to it, is guaranteed to generate

user-satisfaction.

Agreeing partially, Parasuraman et al. (2009) writes that clever integrated

marketing communications can influence human psychology and thereby the

perceived satisfaction levels, but only if the basic product is better than average.

According to them, Apple Inc. makes use of intelligent marketing to promote the

idea that their products are very user friendly, particularly the recent ‘I am a Mac’

series of advertisements that can lead the Mac users in to thinking that they are

using a very user-friendly system.

Universal Usability

Prof. Ben Shneiderman (2000) introduced the concept of universal usability,

which takes in to account the diversity of user population and user needs, rather

than the ‘average user’. Ben Shneiderman has always rejected the notion of

designing a product with an ‘average user’ in mind. He suggests that -considering

the fact that no two users are the same- there are no ‘average users’ but only

‘unique users’.

14

Even though many critics decry as practically impossible, Shneiderman insists

that with more consumer participation, good design practices, and methodical

testing, universal usability can be achieved. An earlier work (Shneiderman 1987)

argues that developers should strive for consistency, as it will greatly reduce the

learning curve.

Jonathan Lazar (2007) explains the elements of universal usability, which are 1)

User & Technology diversity and 2) Closing the ‘knowledge gap’. Technology

diversity consists of different hardware (e.g.: servers, workstations, portables and

mobiles), OS platforms and standards. User diversity includes the user’s age,

income, special needs, culture and expertise. If there is a gap between ‘what the

user knows’ and ‘what the user need to know’ then there is a ‘knowledge gap’

(Shneiderman 2000). This gap can be filled with the efficient use of help menus,

practice sections and tutorials.

Sarah Horton (2005) proposed a set of universal usability guidelines in her work

‘Access by Design: A Guide to Universal Usability for Web Designers’ which

includes simplicity of design, build quality (user controls, flexibility, fallbacks

etc) and use of open standards. She recommends that every system should

incorporate certain levels of flexibility and personalization options that the users

can modify to make the system their own.

The concept of universal usability is particularly relevant when we consider

modern mobile operating systems like Google Android that advertise themselves

as ‘extremely customizable’. Mozilla Foundation who develops the Mozilla

Firefox, -the second most popular browser in the world in terms of usage and the

largest gainer of market share in the last three years (netapplications.com 2010)-

have always maintained that the browser’s innovative customization options have

helped it to differentiate itself from the more established competitors in the

market. Kenneth Feldt (2007) thinks of this capability -the ever-growing library of

browser extensions that enhance the functionality of the browser in some way - as

a core competency, as no other internet browser has effectively replicated this

functionality.

15

Concept of Consumer Buying Behaviour

‘Consumer buying behaviour’ is defined by businessdictionary.com (2009) as a

process “by which individuals search for, select, purchase, use, and dispose of

goods and services, in satisfaction of their needs and wants”. Knowing what -and

what not- a consumer needs, what he purchases and how it is used is important

when it comes to delivering successful products to the market. By understanding

the customer needs, businesses can be proactive while developing new products

and services (Egan 2007). However, this is perhaps the most challenging of tasks

as, in practice at least, every customer is unique and has his own set of reasons for

buying a particular product.

The earliest literature on customer buying behaviour is perhaps by Fan Li -also

known as Tao Zhu Gong- of ancient China who predated Aristotle by a couple of

centuries. His book, known in English as ‘Golden Rules of Business Success’,

speaks about the importance of understanding the current & predicting the future

consumer trends and educating customers, thereby influencing their purchasing

decisions (Hui Xu 1998).

Six Stage Buying Process

A customer passes through six stages while buying a product (Vashisht 2005).

According to this model, for a customer to buy a product, he must first be aware

of a need. This need can be anything from ‘being hungry’ to a desire to ‘look

good’. Neal & Quester (2006) observed that this need could be externally

stimulated either by marketing communications or by seeing the product in use.

When a customer is aware of his need he then, mostly subconsciously, decides on

how much effort he should put into satisfy this need. This decision depends on

how important (socially, economically & psychologically) the product is to him.

For example, a short stature woman will be highly involved in buying her shoes,

as it is psychologically important to her.

16

The third stage is the information search, the intensity of which depends on the

involvement level. In a high involvement purchase, customer will seek guidance

from friends & family, marketers and public sources like magazines. He will also

tryout (e.g.: test-drive a car) the product if possible. By then, a customer will have

a shortlist from which he will buy the product.

In the fourth stage, the shortlisted products will be evaluated against each other

and the needs. According to Wilson & Gilligan (2005), in this stage customers

will evaluate each product as a bundle of attributes with varying abilities. Neal et

al. (2004) notice that factors like brands can weigh-in in this evaluation. By the

end of this stage, the customer would have decided on a particular product to buy.

The fifth stage is the purchase decision whereby the customer buys the product. It

is noted (Vashisht 2005) that unexpected situational factors might change the

decision of the customer in this stage. For example, if a product the customer

planned to buy is out of stock, he might be forced to buy a different one. Mullin &

Cummins (2008) hypothesize that Sales Promotions can effectively influence

purchase decisions at this stage.

The final stage is the post purchase behaviour whereby the customer experience

different levels of satisfaction while using the product. Recently, this stage has

gained prominence; as modern customers, who have greater choice than ever

before, might not come back for the product if he/she is not satisfied. It is noted

that detailed instruction manuals and after-sales support can increase customer

satisfaction (Adcock et al. 2001). A notable example is Apple Inc.’s personal

training program called ‘One to One’ for their new customers (apple.com 2010).

Factors Influencing Consumer Behaviour

Various texts classify the many factors influencing customer behaviour in

different ways. Examples are Inner & Outer factors by J Koudelka (1997) and

classification in to Personal, Sociocultural & Psychological factors by Bob Perry

(2009). Rama Moahana Rao (2007) identifies several influences, which he

categorises in to Internal, External and Marketing factors. According to Mowen &

17

Minor (2009), there are five factors -1) Personal, 2) Social, 3) Cultural, 4)

Psychological and 5) Situational Influences- which influence customer buying

behaviour. This classification is also endorsed by Berkman & Gilson (1986),

Gilligan & Wilson (2009) and Kotler et al. (2008). Vashisht (2005) is of the

opinion that situational forces can be an important factor that influences customer

behaviour (Figure 2).

Matin Khan (2007) suggests that an individual’s unique characteristics like Age &

‘Life-Cycle Stage’, Education, Profession, Financial Situation, Character & Self-

concept and Life-Style will influence his/her customer behaviour. Matin Khan

further explains that an individual’s physical factors like weight, height and health

will also reflect in his buying choices. Kotler et al. (2008) finds that these factors

are highly linked with psychological factors while Vashisht (2005) acknowledges

that the strategists use these factors for market segmentation.

Personal Factors

Bob Perry (2009) is of the opinion that cultural factors -a set of attitudes,

perceptions, values and practices- has the most important influence on customer

buying choices as it is the primary cause of an individual’s wants and behaviour.

Cultural factor can be subdivided in to three -main culture, sub culture and social

class- factors.

Cultural Factors

18

The main culture -dominated by a person’s social culture and education- shape the

base of an individual’s choices, views and behaviour patterns. This is then

influenced by sub cultures like religious views, geographical area, life experiences

and situations. Sub cultures like organizational and geographical cultures can be a

huge influence in the making of behavioural patterns (Gilligan & Wilson 2009).

They also note that these subcultures play a critical role in creating different

market segments.

Social Class refers to the tier of the social structure to which a consumer belongs.

Social Class is the sum of a set of variables like occupation, income, legacy and

education. Berkman & Gilson (1986) predicts that members of the same social

class will exhibit identical behavioural patterns. Berkman & Gilson also notes that

it is possible, in long term, to move between social classes as the customer’s

profession, financial situation and social status changes. They hypothesize that

this change will also be reflected in the customers buying habits.

Social factors refer to the influence exerted by a string of relationships, roles and

personal status. Any social relationship -from a closed family circle to an open

secondary membership groups like professional societies- can influence the

behaviour of an individual. Other groups like Aspirational and Dissociative

groups will also influence a customer’s buying choices. Hoyer & Macinnis (2009)

suggests that influence of social groups will vary at different stages of a person’s

life cycle & product life cycle as well as in the case of different products.

Social Factors

Social factors are particularly important in the modern ‘socially-connected’ world

as customers are increasingly consulting reference groups like online friends and

review groups before committing to a new product. In extreme cases, people

choose a product not essentially due to it being the best in the market, but due to it

being used by the majority in their social group (Wellman & Haythornthwaite

2002). This explains the success of orkut.com in India and Brazil where is it the

most widely used social networking site, while elsewhere in the world it is

considered as mediocre when compared to facebook.com.

19

An umbrella term used to represent factors like motivation, perception, learning,

needs, beliefs and attitudes; Psychological factors is the most challenging of the

five to examine properly. Daniel Funk (2008) believes that motivation is the most

important of these factors. He explains that sufficiently intensified biogenic and

psychogenic needs -individually or combined- creates motivation. Motivation has

been a subject of many a research and subsequently the literature on it is quite

extensive. Prominent authors like Maslow, Marshal, Herzberg, Alderfer Vroom,

Freud and Veblen have written on the subject. How a person perceives a given

situation, -what he takes in- determines much of his behaviour. Kurtz et al. (2009)

writes that this perception depends much on what people actually want to perceive

as well as the actual stimuli. Perceptions are shaped by a person’s learning,

experience, beliefs & attitudes (Herzberg 1987). External stimulus like

advertisements can also have an effect on perception.

Psychological Factors

Foxall et al. (1998) is of the opinion that Situational factors account for 20-45

percent of customer buying behaviours. Situations consist of five characteristics,

which are physical environment, social surrounds, temporal perspectives, task

definitions and antecedent states. Physical environment include all material

influences like weather, location and lighting. Influences like persons and their

roles, interactions and crowds come under social surroundings. Temporal

perspective refers to time constraints and seasonal pressures (Runyon & Stewart

1987). An example is a Christmas shopping which differs from summer shopping.

Situational Factors

Task definition is described by the role an individual is playing at any given

moment. This role will force the individual to make certain choices. This will

explain the different buying decisions made by the same individual when buying a

lunch for his family versus a formal power lunch. When a momentary mood or

condition clouds a customer’s evaluation, that antecedent state will influence him

into making certain purchasing choices. This will explain an expensive gift to a

valentine by an otherwise close-fisted boyfriend.

20

Types of Buying Behaviour

Buying Behaviour is classified in to four (Assael 1987), depending on the extent

of involvement and the type, value & complexity of the product the customer

intends to purchase. They are Habitual, Dissonance-reducing, Variety-seeking and

Complex buying behaviours (Figure 3).

These behaviours -which take shape in the second stage of buying process- will

outline the customer’s buying process and dictate the influences exerted by

external factors. For example, while buying a toothbrush, the customer might not

evaluate many competitive products nor will he cater the opinion of social groups.

This will lead to a quick purchasing decision. The same customer will spend

considerable time evaluating different choices and will get advice from his social

groups while buying a television or a car.

Customers exhibit a habitual buying behaviour when the personal involvement

and the difference between competitive products are negligible. While buying salt

or coffee, the customer has little to no involvement in the purchase, as he is

21

buying a low-cost product that is essentially the same irrespective of the brand.

According to Kotler et al. (2008), customers who show habitual buying behaviour

reach for the same brand every time; more due to habit than the brand loyalty.

This type of purchase is characterised by a fast purchase and low price. Examples

are most food products, beverages and auto-fuel.

Variety-seeking buying behaviour is the mostly the same as habitual buying

behaviour, the difference being the customer decide on a different brand every

time. This is not a sign of customer involvement, but of his variety-seeking

mindset or boredom. Adcock et al. (2001) clarifies that the customer chooses a

new brand not due to the dissatisfaction for the original brand; but to satisfy his

own craving to try out new things. Examples are confessionary, fast food and

breakfast cereals.

Dissonance-reducing buying behaviour takes place when a highly involved

customer who is purchasing an expensive and risky product, sees negligible

difference between the many products in the market. While buying a diamond

ring, a customer will be highly involved due to the cost and risk of the purchase,

but will find little product differentiation between the brands. This type of

behaviour is characterised by a relatively fast purchase and the customer

experiencing a post-purchase dissonance (Kotler et al. 2008), primarily due to the

reasoning that the other brands are as good as the purchased or possibly better.

Wilson & Gilligan (2005) finds that the price acts as an influential factor in this

type of behaviour. This is due to the little perceived difference between the

different brands.

The last type of buying behaviour is called complex buying behaviour. Here, a

highly involved customer who is in the market for an expensive product faces a

marketplace full of brands with significant differences. This inevitably means that

the customer has to put an effort and learn about the product category. An

example is a customer who is shopping around for a new personal computer. This

customer will go through a lengthy ‘Information Search’ stage and ‘Evaluation of

Alternatives’ stage (Assael 1987). It is noted (Baker 2003) that social groups will

strongly influence the purchasing decision as the customer will court the opinion

22

of his peers. Baker also suggests that a strong brand or a well-planned integrated

marketing communications will influence the customer in this stage more than the

actual quality of the products. This is because the customer will associate a good

brand with quality and better after sales support.

Relevant Theories and Models

The complexity of consumer buying behaviour is perhaps best reflected in the

wealth of disciplines that offer theories explaining it. Fields like economics,

marketing studies, environmental studies, philosophy, psychology, psychiatry,

political science, anthropology, sociology and ethical studies offer theories

explaining the motives of consumption (OECD 2002, p. 61). This also explains

the wealth of literature available on the subject.

Academics of various disciplines -from economics and politics to psychology-

have tried to explain what prompts the customer to purchase a particular product,

with authors like Freud, a professor of medicine and Karl Marx, a political

economist writing on the subject.

According to Cooper & Channon (1998), economists were the first professional

group to offer a theory on buying behaviour. Alfred Marshall -in his seminal work

‘Principles of Economics’- attempted to derive the consumers’ equilibrium in to a

one-commodity framework. Marshallian Theory holds that buying decisions are a

result of rational and conscious economic calculations (Aréna & Quéré 2003). The

theory assumes that customers are always logical in nature and is fully aware of

the market. The Marshallian Theory also assumed that the utility functions are

independent of each other.

Marshallian Theory

The main criticism of this theory is that the cardinal measurement of utility is

unrealistic. It does not take in to account other stimuli (e.g.: marketing and social

factors) that affect consumer buying behaviours (Aréna & Quéré 2003). The

assumption that the consumer is fully aware of the market and has complete

mobility is also unrealistic. Another weakness of Marshallian theory is its inability

23

to adequately explain the ideas of substitutes and complements. As my research

strives to understand the benefits of usability factor and its influence on customer

buying behaviour, I am actually trying to contradict this theory.

Another influential theory in this subject is Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of

Needs, which envisions a pyramid-shaped arrangement of human needs (Figure

4). In his paper titled ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’ published in the

Psychological Review, Maslow categorises human needs in to Physiological,

Safety, Love & Belonging, Esteem and Self-Actualization (Maslow 1943).

Maslow hypothesized that these needs form a hierarchy where by an individual

can pursue higher-level needs only after satisfying the more fundamental needs.

Marketers use this theory to better understand the consumer needs and to define

market segments.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory

In relation to my study, this theory brings up some interesting questions about the

needs of a customer who buys a technological product like a music player or a

game console. Can usability of a product affect the need? Alternatively, is

usability itself a need, possibly of a higher hierarchy? This research will attempt

to answer these questions.

24

Maslow’s theory has its share of critics who argue that it is not practical to

categorize ever-changing needs of a changing society (Hadkins 2009). Wahba &

Bridgewell (1976) in their study about the theory found little evidence of a

definite hierarchy of needs in their subjects. Manfred Max-Neef (1991), a Chilean

economist disagreed with the hierarchical nature of Maslow’s theory and

developed his own ontological and non-hierarchical list that included factors like

freedom and leisure.

Another useful framework is the Needs-Opportunities-Abilities (NOA) Model

(OECD 2002, pp. 66-68), which hypothesises that the buy products for what the

product can do to add to the quality of life. This theory suggests that buying

behaviour is a correlation of motivation -needs & opportunities- and behavioural

control -opportunities & abilities- (Gatersleben & Vlek 1998). The theory is

unique in the scene that that it takes in to account both the macro (society) and

micro (individual) level needs. As seen in Figure 5; comfort and pleasure, factors

influencing ‘needs’ will directly relate to the user-friendly issue.

Needs-Opportunities-Abilities Model

25

As motivation and behavioural control are opposing factors, it will be worthwhile

to compare both and study the tradeoffs between the two. This will in turn help

me to study the relationship between usability (motivation) and price (behavioural

control).

Michael Porter (1998) describes a framework by which businesses can better

position themselves in a market and sustain their competitive advantage by

leveraging their strengths. Porter suggests two ways of achieving market

leadership, which are lowest cost of operation and product uniqueness. This result

in three generic strategies, which are 1) cost leadership, 2) differentiation and 3)

focus (divided into cost focus and differentiation focus); depending on the chosen

scope of the market (Figure 6).

Porter's Generic Strategies

Cost Leadership is achieved by maximising the efficiency, scale and size of the

business. Gavin Reid (1993) identifies factors like product standardisation, use of

technology, and large-scale production as the characteristics of this approach.

Differentiation strategy makes use of unique and innovative products to capture

26

the market. Companies with good research & development teams and a reputation

for quality can use this strategy vey effectively (Stahl & Grigsby 1997). Apple

Inc. utilises this strategy in all of their product lines. Focus strategy concentrates

on a narrow segment by employing a firm’s unique expertise and specialised

products. The idea is to serve a small segment better by using all the recourses of

the company and thereby create a loyal following. Rolls-Royce and Ferrari are

successful examples.

Critics have always questioned the rigidness, lack of specificity and limiting

nature of Generic strategies (Cliff Bowman 2008). New concepts like ‘Creating

New Market Space’ (Kim & Mauborgne 2005) contradict Porter's theory.

The Extended Marketing Mix

Booms & Bitner (1981) expanded the Marketing Mix by adding three more Ps -

People, Process and Physical Evidence- to the primary 4Ps -Product, Price, Place

and Promotion-. They argue that this extended model is more relevant in the

service industry dominated modern world.

People refer to all the individuals who are involved -directly or indirectly- in

delivery and add value to the product or service. These include the management,

after-sales technicians and the customer himself. Process is defined as the manner

by which a product or service is delivered. Consumer perception of efficiency,

adaptability and quality of the service depends on the process. An example is

McDonald’s Restaurants’ meal preparation process -transparent and quick-, which

reassures the customer about the quality of the product and the service. Physical

evidence refers to the delivery environment of the service. This includes both

tangible -appearance, buildings, documents- and the intangible - perception,

experience, satisfaction- environments (Ennew & Waite 2007).

My research will try to understand the effects of the extended marketing mix on

usability. How does the additional Ps affect the user-friendliness of a product?

Place, one of the original marketing-mix has evolved due to the emergence of

online stores and Internet banking in the last decade. How does this influence the

usability of a product or service?

27

In addition to the theories discussed above, models like ‘variables that make life

worth living’ (Hareide 1994), ‘conditions for human development and existence’

by Allardt (1994), and ‘18 terminal values & 18 instrumental values’ by Rokeach

(1979) tries to explain consumer behaviours.

Associated Theories and Relevant Literature

Apart from these theories, there are a many books written on the subject, looking

at buying behaviours and usability from different viewpoints and depths.

Prominent authors who have written on this subject include Roy Wells Hill,

Johannes Du Plessis, Richard J Varey, Malcolm McDonald, Patricia Parrott and

Mika Hannula. ‘Explaining Buyer Behaviour: Central Concepts and Philosophy

of Science Issues’ by John O’Shaughnessy offers a simplistic view of buying

behaviour where as ‘The Marketing Book ‎’ by Michael John Baker explains the

same from a marketing point of view. ‘Understanding the Consumer’ by Isabelle

Szmigin chooses to challenge the existing functionally driven marketing thinking

towards the customer.

Recent Developments and Debates

The rapid growth of information and communication technologies in the past

decade has had a profound impact on our society. Internet is enabling the modern

customer to make informed buying decisions. The prominence of online stores

like amazon.com, instant success of services like twitter.com and emergence of

innovative business models like ad-supported Google model are increasingly

questioning the relevance of ‘20th century’ customer theories (Pollard 2005).

Various online retailers in U.K. have generated sales amounting to £4.1 billion in

February 2010, a 13% increase in like-to-like sales when compared to £3.6 billion

sales in February 2009 (internetretailing.net 2010). This phenomenal growth rate,

in the middle of the worst recession of over 80 years, shows the growing

importance of the internet economy and online stores in today’s market.

Emergence of Online Stores and Internet Economy

28

This development raises some questions about the importance of various factors

in Marketing Mix. Promotion, for example, now needs to take in account the

effects of the influences of social networks (Telegraph 2010). Price faces pressure

from the increased choice afforded to the customer by the internet. The

Marshallian assumption of an all-aware customer is now truer than ever.

User-friendliness of prominent virtual stores is questioned by a study by usability

consultants UIE (guuui.com 2003) that showed that only 34% of the purchase-

ready customers could achieve their objectives (Figure 7). The study also notes

that astonishing 11% of the customers experienced after-sales problems. This

research will try to find the reasons of such a high drop rate.

‘Product as a platform’ is another trend that is making a comeback in the industry.

Companies, increasingly worried about losing the customer, are trying to tie them

to products that are increasingly acting as platforms.

Products as a Platform

Pioneers of this approach were Microsoft Corporation who makes sure that their

market leading products like Microsoft Office, Microsoft SQL Server and Internet

Explorer worked only on the Windows OS, thereby forcing the customers to

continue using the platform (Lessig 2001). Today, Apple Inc. and Google Inc. are

29

using this approach with great effect to promote their mobile businesses. Both

Apple iPhone and Google Android are promoted as platforms, which can deliver

entertainment and productivity on the go (Faas 2009). The prospect of getting

tied-up to a particular platform will have grave implications for customer choice

and usability.

The ‘Virtual’ Customer Behaviour

George Zinkhan et al. (2000) identified a change of behaviour in people when

they are online, which he calls ‘Alternative Persona’. According to him, this

happens as the consumer behaviour changes in response to the technology.

George Zinkhan finds that people use the internet to reinvent themselves.

An example would be a shy person who becomes very talkative in an online chat

room. Adcock et al. (2001) finds that the customers are increasingly looking for

an experience, something more than just the product. This is evident in the airlines

industry where customers are offered chauffeur services and sky-beds. Another

example is the modern shopping centres that incorporate restaurants and cinemas.

One of the key debates making big noise in this area is the issue of how better to

meet customer needs. There is a new wave of thinking that products can be

replaced by services. Latest innovations in the industry like ‘Cloud Computing’

are based on this concept (itgovernance.co.uk 2010).

Service as a Product

It is argued that a customer do not need to own a song (even in an electronic

format), but just want to hear it anytime he wishes. Instead of owning songs in

physical form (CDs or hard disk), the customer is presented with a large catalogue

of songs which can be streamed to his hardware as and when he wishes. It is

known as a ‘service’ because of the recurring fees structure, lack of a physical

product, frequently updated product -in this case, the music catalogue and the

included support. This ‘service as a product’ initiative might have far reaching

consequences when it comes to buying behaviours and usability as a factor that

affect buying behaviours.

30

Conceptual Framework

Research Questions Relevant Models & Theories

Conceptual Framework

Will a possibly basic (feature-wise) product that is more user-friendly win an end user?

Needs-Opportunities-Abilities (NOA) Model

NOA Model suggests that customers buy products for what the product can do to add to the quality of life. So, what is more important for quality of life? Features or Usability?

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Is Usability itself a need? Possibly of a higher hierarchy than the features?

If so, how important is usability factor to a potential buyer? Will he/she pay more for it?

Marshallian Theory Marshallian Theory holds that buying decisions are a result of rational economic calculations. Is it right?

Needs-Opportunities-Abilities Model

How strongly does Usability affect motivation?

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Can Usability of a product affect the need?

Is User-friendliness a strong brand building/ busting point?

Porter's Generic Strategies

Can companies use the Usability factor for their competitive advantage? The Extended

Marketing Mix

31

Chapter: 3 Research Methodology

_______________________________________________

This chapter describes, in detail, the methodological approach to this research.

This researcher uses the framework called Research Onion (Figure 8) developed

by Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill (2007). This chapter discusses the philosophy,

approach, strategy, choice, time horizon, sampling techniques and data collection

& analysis methods chosen by the researcher and justifies them in context of the

questions and objectives of the study. The scope and the ethical issues of the

research are also discussed. The last part of the chapter links the research design

and the conceptual framework.

32

Research Philosophy: Phenomenology

Described by Husserl (1983) as the “genuine positivism”, Phenomenology is the

study of subjective experiences; to describe how things appear to the experiencing

person, especially if the ‘experience’ is sustained and penetrating (Lacey 1996).

David Woodruff Smith (2005) further explains phenomenology “as a method of

inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are

perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent

of human consciousness”. Phenomenology, distinguished by characteristics like

directedness, embodiment and worldliness (Langdridge 2006), theorises that

reality is within an individual’s personal perception; within his feelings and

intentions (Sprenkle & Piercy 2005).

Dermot Moran (2000) described phenomenology as an attempt to describe a

‘phenomena’. He clarifies that it is the appearance and the feel of the object that

holds true, at least to the consciousness of an experiencing person.

Phenomenology recognizes that an object is defined not only by its physical

attributes, but also by the way it is experienced by an individual. Prominent

authors on the subject are Heidegger, Stein, Scheler, Levinas and Ricoeur.

Saunders et al. (2009) recommends, among others, Positivism, Realism and

Interpretivism as ideal philosophies for an academic research. Positivism, a

philosophy of science holds that scientific truth can and should be proved &

verified using observable facts and data. Largely based on the ideas of the French

philosopher Auguste Comte, Positivism became a prominent research philosophy

in the early twentieth century. It is now mainly used in quantitative studies.

Brief on Other Philosophies

Interpretivism, a research philosophy used in social researches, tries to understand

the meaning humans attach with any experience (Schutt 2006). This philosophy

argues that there are factors that cannot be scientifically measured or generalized.

It is understood that Interpretivism -as a philosophy- borrows heavily from

Phenomenology (Saunders et al. 2009). Realism is a philosophical stand, which

33

hypothesises that reality, and in extension truth, has an existence outside our

minds. Quite opposite to Idealism, Realism advocates a scientific outlook to

knowledge gathering and is somewhat similar to positivism in that respect. Other

notable philosophies are Axiology, Objectivism, Subjectivism and Pragmatism.

I am trying to understand the influence of user-friendliness in a customer.

Usability is a non-physical attribute, which can only be described in the process of

experiencing a device or service. This dismisses positivism and realism as useful

philosophies as they reject the notion of ‘experience’.

Justification of the Adopted Philosophy

Consumers’ buying decisions are based on ‘what they see in the product’. It is

also noted that user-friendliness is a matter of personal perception and will differ

from person to person. While Interpretivism can be a good choice for my

research, it is noted that this philosophy has its roots in Phenomenology. It is also

criticised for adopting an empathetic stance. As my research tries to understand

how products appear to the consumer and what appeals them, Phenomenology

will be appropriate to my study. Phenomenology will also help me to quantify the

usability experience of the customer.

Research Approach: Inductive Typically used in interpretivist qualitative research, Inductive approach begins

with a specific observation that is then developed in to a tentative hypothesis,

which is then tested (Hesse-Biber & Leavy 2005). Here, the theoretical position is

developed -induced- after the collection and analysis of data. This approach is

more useful for understanding the meanings individuals attach to events (Saunders

et al. 2007). Jary & Jary (1991) notes that “qualitative techniques relay on the

skills of the researcher as an interviewer or observer in gathering data”.

Also known as the ‘bottom-up’ approach, an inductive research involves four

stages, -1- beginning with specific observations and measures -2- from which

some patterns and regularities emerge -3- that are formulated in to rough

hypotheses that are tested -4- and in the end, come up with conclusions or theories

34

(Robson 2002). Inductive research is less formal and less structured. According to

Gratton & Jones (2004), inductive research will take more time and resources, as

theory needs to gradually emerge from the collected data. Saunders et al. (2007)

adds that this approach is more risky, as there is always a possibility of no clear

patterns or trends emerging from the data collected.

The only other approach suggested by Saunders et al. (2007) is the deductive

approach. According to Reyes (2004), a deductive research is an extension of the

current literature on the subject. The researcher base his study on a hypothesis

formulated from the existing literature and will then try to gather data to prove the

hypothesis. A successful deductive study will validate the hypothesis and in

extension the existing literature on the subject. This approach is considered a safer

way of conducting a study as it guarantees a result (Gratton & Jones2004).

Brief on Other Approaches

According to Neil Moonie (2003), Inductive approach is normally used while

trying to understand how people observe, interact with and experience other

objects in a ‘natural setting’. This is very true in the case of my research, which is

trying to find patterns in customer buying behaviours and how an intangible

feature -usability- of devices and services affect customers.

Justification of the Adopted Approach

Deductive approach will not be a good approach for this research, as I do not have

a strong hypothesis to begin with. Instead, this researcher has to collect data from

customers and then try to induce a hypothesis from the collected data.

The first step of my research is to collect information from consumers who have

brought or are planning to buy products that I have shortlisted. The data collected

will then be used to check for pattern and trends. Once such trends are identified,

it will be used to form the hypothesis. To effectively cancel out the chance of no

useful patterns emerging, I have started out with three pairs of products, which

will provide the broadest possible data set.

35

Research Strategy: Open-End Survey

Arlene Fink (2003) recommends survey as an ideal research strategy in a

qualitative research. According to him, an open-ended survey can be used in a

qualitative research to collect the much-needed primary data. Open-ended surveys

allow the participant to respond in a personal manner, thereby providing unique

primarily qualitative data. It is noted that a qualitative survey can “provide depth

and individual meaning to the questions of interest” (Gratton & Jones 2004).

Saunders et al. (2009) identifies many research strategies like experiment, case

study, action research, grounded theory, ethnography and archival research while

arguing that assigning a strategy to any particular research approach is “unduly

simplistic”. They also stress that every strategy is as good as the other.

Experiment is the study of casual links between two variables. Action Research is

more participatory in nature; allowing improvement in one’s practical knowledge.

This type of research is usually done to solve practical issues in organizations.

Brief on Other Strategies

Grounded theory tries to develop a hypothesis from the corpus of collected data

(Strauss & Corbin 1990) and later uses historical research -evaluation of data

related to past occurrences- in order to test the hypotheses (Gay 1996). One

advantage of grounded theory approach is that theory building and data collection

go hand-in-hand, which makes it almost a fail-safe strategy. Case study is an in

depth analysis of a single incident or group with a view of identifying the primary

principles. Ethnography -an inductive strategy with its roots in anthropology-

attempts to see the world through the research subjects’ eyes.

An open-ended survey is the most cost effective way to gather substantial

qualitative primary data in a short time period. The open-ended nature of the

survey will ensure that the researcher will obtain qualitative data. This open-

endedness of the survey will also reduce bias, as the same set of questions will be

presented to everyone, with researcher set limitations not affecting the answers.

Justification of the Adopted Strategy

36

The researcher could have used other qualitative strategies like Grounded theory

or ethnography, but dismissed both due to the extremely time consuming

processes involved with both strategies.

Research Choice: Qualitative Mono-Method Referred to as research design by authors like Tashakkori & Teddlie (2003), the

research choice of this study is ‘qualitative mono-method’; a single qualitative

data collection method and related analysis procedures will be utilized. According

to Maxwell (2005), this is particularly useful when the research subject is very

complex and cannot be answered by a simple yes or no hypothesis. Maxwell also

notes that a mono method is much easier to plan and carryout.

Researcher would like to state that some quantitative data would also be collected

from the participants in the study. This will mostly be socio-demographic data,

which will aid the researcher whilst formulating hypothesises from primary data.

There are two other choices (Figure 9) a researcher can follow: multi-method and

mixed method (Saunders et al. 2009, p. 151). If the researcher uses more than one

data collection method, all of the same (qualitative or quantitative) technique, it is

called a multi-method. Mixed Method makes use of multiple collection methods,

regardless of it being qualitative or quantitative method.

Brief on Other Choices

37

One advantage of a qualitative research is that it is not dependent on sample sizes,

with meaningful results generated from relatively small sample groups.

Disadvantages to the qualitative choice includes the fact that it cannot be precisely

replicated, meaning they cannot be peer reviewed.

Justification of the Adopted Choice

Researcher chooses not to follow a multi or mixed method mainly due to time and

budget constraints. Researcher also took in to consideration, the scope of this

academic research, which does not allow an extensive study.

Time Horizon: Cross-sectional This research is a cross-sectional study in customer behaviour; I am studying a

peculiar phenomenon in technological sector whereby new priorities like usability

is taking a predominant place. This study is a ‘snap-shot’ of the customer

behaviour of our time. Saunders et al. (2007) finds that most of the academic

studies will be using a cross-sectional technique due to the time constrains

involved.

According to Saunders et al. (2009, p. 155) there are cross-sectional and

longitudinal time horizons. If the cross-sectional study is a ‘snap-shot’, then

longitudinal research is considered a journal of snapshots. This will need the

researcher to keep on observing the subjects over a time-period, which makes a

longitudinal study ideal for studying change and long-term development.

Brief on Other Time Horizons

As I am trying to describe a phenomenon of our time, cross-sectional study will

be more suited for my study. A longitudinal study is would have been more

appropriate if I was focusing on the changing behaviours of the customers. It is

also understood that longitudinal studies take more time and resources, both of

which are luxuries for me.

Justification of the Adopted Time Horizon

38

Data Collection and Analysis

Researcher will be using an open-end questionnaire to collect the primary data.

The open-ended nature of the questionnaire will allow the participants to answer

without any outside influence or limitations (Fink 2003). An open-ended

questionnaire will allow the researcher to collect large amounts of primary data in

a short time. An open-ended questionnaire is more suited for a qualitative research

as it can bring out the personal feelings and attitudes of the participants.

Primary Data Collection: Open-end Questionnaire

In addition to the questions related to the research, the questionnaire will have

small section aimed at collecting socio-demographic data of the participants. This

is collected to aid the author to formulate a working hypothesises from the data.

Most researchers prefer observation of participant groups, interviews and open-

end questionnaires as the data collection method for a qualitative study (Saunders

et al. 2007). Among them, interviews and open-end questionnaires are the only

valid options if the researcher is pursuing open-ended survey as the research

strategy. Interview can be defined as data gathered from one-to-one conversations

with the participants. Marschan-Piekkari & Welch (2004) writes that interviews

can generate highly accurate qualitative data, but at the price of high cost and

restricted participation.

Brief on Other Primary Data Collection Methods

The primary reason for choosing an open-ended questionnaire survey is due to it

being a quick way of collecting qualitative data when compared to personal

interviews. It is also noted that it is relatively inexpensive when compared to

interviews; particularly in context of a limited dissertation budget.

Justification of the Adopted Data Collection Method

The open-endedness of the questionnaire means that most of the participants will

give spontaneous and truthful answers much like that to an interview. The non-

identifying nature of the questionnaire will be an added advantage. Participates

39

will be more comfortable and honest while answering a questionnaire as he/she

cannot be later identified. The open-ended nature of this type of survey also

reduces bias as the same questionnaire is presented to everyone, with researcher

set limitations not affecting the answers.

In this qualitative research, secondary data will be used to verify the various

working hypothesises developed from the primary data. In reference of this

research, secondary data will be the sales and usage figures of the selected

products. For the benefit of validity and reliability of the research, only official

websites of product makers and respectable research sources will be consulted for

the secondary data. Online recourses like athens, emerald and mintel will also be

used to collect secondary data.

Secondary Data

Defined by Markel (1998) as a systematic and meticulous analysis of recorded

message characteristics, content analysis is becoming increasingly popular among

qualitative researchers. An open-end questionnaire can be analysed for different

keywords & frequencies and can be categorised for a quantitative examination.

This researcher will be using an open analysis rather than prescriptive analysis.

Initial analysis will be made using software like NVivo 7 and Microsoft Excel.

Data Analysis: Content Analysis

Sampling: Convenience, Snowball Methods This research will make use of two nonprobability-sampling techniques, which

are convenience sampling and snowball sampling. Convenience sampling makes

use of a sample of the population that is close to hand (Lohr, 1999). Snowballing

is a similar technique whereby existing participants enlist more qualified subjects

into the study. The questionnaire will be distributed in three ways. Most of the

questionnaires will be personally distributed in the campus and neighbourhood.

Secondly, the questionnaires will be emailed to the members of the researcher’s

social network. Finally, the recipients of the questionnaires will be requested to

redistribute the questionnaire if anyone of their peer groups is interested.

40

Both techniques are chosen due to the relative ease of recruiting participants. By

using the convenience method, the researcher can approach the people he

personally knows. Another reason is that the only criterion for participation is that

the participant should have owned one of the selected products for at least a

month. This makes other characteristics of the participants relatively irrelevant;

although non-personal identifying demographic data of the participants is

collected for quantitative analysis. The limited nature of this research was also

taken in to consideration.

Justification for the Adopted Sampling Methods

This researcher decided that a sample size of fifty participants would be ideal for

the research. Considering that some participates will not return the completed

forms, the researcher will send out at least two hundred forms. The sample size

was limited to fifty people due to time, budget and other practical limitations like

distribution and collection of forms. However, if more of the questionnaires come

back in time, they will also be analysed.

Sampling Size

• Participants must own or have regularly used at least one of the shortlisted

products for a minimum period of one month. The researcher assumes that

this time-period is needed for a person to effectively understand the usability

issues of a device or a system.

Sampling Criteria

• Participants should be, at the very least, the age of eighteen. This is for the

compliance of legal requirements, if any.

Scope and Implications of the Research

This research is confined to a meticulous examination of the customer perception

of usability. The researcher is trying to understand the customer and his priorities;

not the industry or the selected products. Therefore, the researcher makes no claim

to study the products -or their perceived sales-; they are just devices to understand

41

the customer better. The research will also be limited by the practicality of the

decided budget of One Thousand Pound Sterling (with 15 percent tolerance) and

the geodemographics of United Kingdom.

Golafshani (2003) argues that reliability of a research is related to generalisability

of the result. He also advocates the use of triangulation of the primary data. The

researcher will validate any hypothesis developed from the data collected using

secondary data. If authenticated by the secondary data, the generalisability of the

research will also be proven.

Reliability, Credibility and Validity of the Research

The credibility of the research will be questioned by the relatively small sample

size and proper use of data analysis techniques. According to Patton (2002),

formulation and evaluation of rival conclusions will increase the credibility of the

study. He also stresses the importance of analysing ‘negative cases’ -exceptions-

which can prove the rule.

The validity of this research can be testing with a quantitative study using the

developed theory. This can be done by collecting detailed secondary data with

which the theory can be tested. The researcher will also summit the collected

primary data and academic resources to the research guide so that it can be

independently audited.

Ethical Issues

While collecting primary data, the researcher will face many ethical issues in

relation to voluntary participation and informed consent. In order to negate this,

the researcher intents to bring out a fact file -this will be attached to every copy of

the questionnaire- (please see Appendix 1) to fully inform the prospective

participants about the procedures of the research and involved risks. Principles of

anonymity and confidentiality will be strictly adhered and no personally

identifiable data will be collected. The analysis of the data collected will be

submitted in a form that does not identify the participants.

42

While analysing the collected data, researcher should take care not to misinterpret

the data, which might lead to serious implications. Plagiarism will be effectively

negated by proper usage of Harvard-referencing system and turn-it-in service.

Conceptual Framework Linkage

Research Questions Conceptual Framework Examples of Questionnaire Questions

Will a possibly basic (feature-wise) product that is more user-friendly win an end user?

NOA Model suggests that customers buy products for what the product can do to add to the quality of life. So, what is more important for quality of life? Features or Usability?

When buying a product, what are the factors you give more importance to?

Will you sacrifice some technological advances for better usability?

Is Usability itself a need? Possibly of a higher hierarchy than the features?

If at all, how does Usability of a product improve your life?

If so, how important is usability factor to a potential buyer? E.g.: Will he/she pay more for it?

Marshallian Theory holds that buying decisions are a result of rational economic calculations. Is it right?

Are you willing to pay a premium for an intangible factor like User-friendliness?

How strongly does Usability affect motivation?

If willing to pay more, by how much?

Can Usability of a product affect the need?

Have you brought products (which are otherwise not required) just because it is user-friendly?

Is User-friendliness a strong brand building/ busting point?

Can companies use the Usability factor for their competitive advantage?

Does the user-friendliness of a particular product affect your perception of maker/competitor brands?

43

Chapter: 4 Findings and Results of Data

_______________________________________________

This chapter details the results of the data collected by the researcher during the

data collection process. The first part of this chapter gives a brief on the

distribution of the questionnaire and the response rates. The results of the primary

data are detailed in the next section. This section tries to quantify the answers to

the questionnaire as well as the different characteristics of the participants. The

chapter is concluded with a synopsis of the secondary data collected: the sales

figures, market shares and the retail price of the shortlisted products.

44

Questionnaire Distribution and Response

A total of 236 questionnaires were distributed among the sample population.

Owing to the fact that it was a lengthy open-ended questionnaire, the researcher

was expecting a low turnover rate of 20-25%. 47 (19.92%) participants responded

to the questionnaire, of which 5 (2.12%) were invalid as per the eligibility criteria.

Only 42 (17.80%) eligible participant responses were gathered; 84% of the

researcher’s initial target. For a copy of the questionnaire, please see Appendix 1.

Primary Data

Reported Usage of the Selected Products

As seen from the Figure 10, 13 (30.95%) respondents said that they own a game

console; with 9 (21.43%) of them owning a Sony PlayStation and 4 (9.52%) using

a Nintendo Wii. 13 (30.95%) participants owned one of the shortlisted smart-

phones; with 8 (19.05%) possessing an Apple iPhone and 5 (11.90%) having a

45

Blackberry Curve. While it came to web browsers, a free product, all 42

participants admitted to be using one. 34 (80.95%) respondents noted that they use

Microsoft Internet Explorer while 11 (26.19%) declared that they use Google

Chrome.

Demographic Characteristics of the Participants

This qualitative questionnaire had requested three demographic characteristics of

the participants; age, sex and the participant’s comfortability with technology. The

researcher believes that this data will become important later in the research,

especially, at the time of formulating a working hypothesis.

The age of the 42 participants varied from 19 to 66 years (Figure 11). Seventeen

(42.86%) of the participants were young adults, aged between 19 and 30. Nine

(21.43%) participants reported their age as between 30 and 40 while eleven

(26.19%) participants said that they are between 40 and 50 years old. Four

(9.52%) participants were above 50; all of them aged more than 62, eldest being

69. As seen from Figure 12, out of the 42 respondents, 24 (57%) were male and

18 (43%) were female.

46

Participants’ Comfortability with Hi-Tech Products

When asked how comfortable the participants are with technology and Hi-Tech

products, the answers varied from “very very comfortable” to “I am more than

alright; but once things go wrong, I panic” to “can get along”. Figure 13 is a

quantitative representation of these opinions, with “very very comfortable”

interpreted as 90% comfort levels and “can get along” given a 35% comfort level.

All participants below 30 stated that they were very comfortable with technology.

Most participants from 30-40 age group responded to this question with “very

comfortable” with some saying they can “only efficiently use technology products

which [they] are trained on”. On average, this group was given a score of 85% in

comfort levels.

Participants aged between 40 and 50 where comfortable with technology, but not

at the levels where quality of life is enhanced. All 4 respondents aged 60+ told the

researcher that they are “not very comfortable with latest technology, but can use

if essential” thereby qualifying for a 35% comfort level.

47

Responses to the Questionnaire

Apart from the demographic and product ownership questions, eleven questions

were asked to the participants to obtain their views about the user-friendliness of

the products they are using, their perception on how usability can add value to

products and how the usability of a product can influence their attitude towards

the maker/ competitor.

Question 1: While buying the product/s you are using, what are the factors

you gave importance to?

While analysing the answers, recurring keywords were noted and quantified

(Figure 14). 27 participants stated that user-friendliness was an influencing factor,

while 24 noted that specs of the products were an influencing factor. Platform

independence and software updates were important for 5 and 4 participants

respectively.

Brand was significant for 16 respondents while after-sales and value for money

influenced 11 and 13 participants respectively. 12 respondents looked for build

quality while another 12 said that the product was forced up on them.

48

Question 2: When you first considered buying the product/s you own, what

weightage -if any- did you give to its user-friendliness?

15 (36%) participants replied to this question saying that they gave no weightage

to user-friendliness while buying a product. One respondent wrote, “Usability is a

matter of one getting used to products. So [I was] more interested in technology

and features”. All others (27) agreed that they thought about this factor. 13

(30.95%) respondents said that it was “very important” while all others (33.33%)

noted “it makes things easier, but it’s not indispensable”.

Question 3: In your opinion, is better usability more important than the

latest functionality features of your device/software?

13 participants (30.95%) told the interviewer that specs/features of a device is

more important than its usability (Figure 15). One participant wrote, “Definitely

features; usability is [more of a] perception”. 17 participants (40.47 %) were of

the opinion that usability is more important than features with one female

49

respondent noting “because of it, I went back to [an] older version [of the

product]”. Rest of the participants (28.57%) did not have a strong opinion, with

most saying that “both are important” and “both are interconnected”.

Question 4: In relation to the current devices you use; if given a choice will

you sacrifice some technological advances for better usability?

16 (38.10%) participants replied to this question with a “yes”. 4 respondents

singled out the buggy software updates of PlayStation3, while a Blackberry user

envied “the easiness with which his colleague could browse on his iPhone”. All

other respondents (26) said that they would not change if they get a choice,

although the reasons for that varied. One participant said: “I took the time and

effort to learn the changes when I moved from IE6 to IE7. Now, I am comfortable

with IE7 and don’t want to change even if it is for the better”

Question 5: Do you think that companies should focus on usability rather

than trying to incorporate more features in to new devices?

As detailed in Figure 16, fifteen respondents (35.71%) told the researcher that

they would like the manufactures to concentrate on usability more than new and

advanced features. One respondent said that she “don’t use the GPS mapping

50

service of her Blackberry Curve as it is difficult to use it on the move”. 10

participants (23.81%) said that they want the companies to add new features. A

PlayStation3 user noted that he “brought the PS3 only because it had the added

feature of Blu-ray player”. Rest of the participants (40.47%) wanted the

manufactures to keep a balance, with one respondent noting, “One can only

improve the usability of what is there in the first place”.

Question 6: While upgrading, will superior specs/features alone influence

you? Will you buy a less advanced product with good usability?

50% of the respondents said that they would look for a product that combines both

usability and sophisticated features. This idea was best expressed by a respondent

who noted that “it is not easy to choose between new features and good usability;

[but] I would certainly not use an obsolete product just because it is more usable”.

6 respondents (14.29%) said that they would go for a user-friendly product, with a

participant saying, “It is the first and basic characteristic of technological

products”. 15 participants (35.71%) said that they would go for better features.

51

Question 7: In your opinion, -if at all- how do the usability features of your

product/s improve your life?

When asked about the improvements in the quality of life afforded by the

usability features of their products, participants used keywords like “Less Stress”,

“Better Efficiency”, “Save Time”, “Easy to Manage”, “More Satisfaction” and

“Saves Money” (Figure 17). 52% of the participants acknowledged that usability

features saved them time while 38% admitted that it made them more efficient.

Question 8: Do you think that better usability adds value to your product?

If so how?

31 participants (73.81%) agreed in principle that usability does add value to their

products while 11 disagreed. Participants who agreed noted the below advantages.

• High resale value

• Chance of repeat purchase

• Word of mouth publicity

• Less money spend on after-sales support

• Emotional attachment and feel good factor for the brand

52

Question 9: If usability does indeed add value to products, are you willing

to pay a premium for better usability? If so, how much?

In Question 8, 11 participates (26.19%) had answered that usability does not add

value to the products. Therefore, their answers were not taken in to consideration.

Of the rest 31 respondents, 6 (19.35%) said that they will pay between 10-20%

more a more usable product, with the highest being 20% (1 participant). 12

(38.71%) participants were prepared to pay a premium of up-to 10% for a more

user-friendly product. The rest 13 (41.94%) were not prepared to pay more for

usability, with one arguing, “It should be designed into a product from the time of

conception”.

Question 10: Have you brought products (which are otherwise not required)

just because it is user-friendly?

15 participants (35.71%) admitted that they have brought a product due to the

user-friendliness of the product. The rest said “no” to the question, with some

adding that they “will never buy a product just for its usability”.

Question 11: How does the user-friendliness of your products affect your

perception of maker/competitor brands?

34 participants (80.95%) are of the opinion that the perceived usability levels of a

product can affect a brand. As one of the participants put it, “[good usability

levels] makes me think that they think about their customers”. Another participant

noted that “vista was the last straw; I went over to the Mac side.” 8 participants

(19.05%) said that usability did not affect their feeling about brands.

Respondent Reaction to the Usability of Their Products

Out of the 9 participants who are using PlayStation, 4 (44.44%) said that the

console was user-friendly while all 4 participants who were using Wii said that its

usability features are very good. 8 respondents (72.73%) who were using Chrome

noted that they were attracted to the browser due to its user-friendliness. Only 10

Internet Explorer users (29.41%) said that their browser was easy to use. 3 Curve

users (60%) and 7 iPhone users (87.5%) said that their phones are user-friendly.

53

Secondary Data

Sales Figures of the Shortlisted Devices

Nintendo Wii: Introduces in the third quarter of 2006, the game console have

sold a total of 67.45 million units by the end of 2009 (Figure 18). That equals to

an average sales of 5.19 million units every quarter.

54

Sony PlayStation: This study uses the aggregate sales of PS2 and PS3 sales.

Researcher believes that this can bring out a clearer picture of the power shift in

the market. PS2 and PS3 have sold 13.5 and 23.1 million units respectively

between Jan 2008 and Dec 2009 (Figure 19). Combined, 4.88 million PlayStations

were sold a quarter over the study period. Sony has shipped 33.5 million PS3s by

the end of Q3 2009 (scei.co.jp 2010).

Microsoft Internet Explorer: IE had a market share of 74.18% in September

2008. Steady erosion meant that this market share went down to 60.65% by

March 2010. The only period IE could arrest this slump was around mid 2009.

55

Google Chrome: Released in late 2008, Chrome captured one percent of the

market share within a month; primarily due to the very strong Google brand

(tgdaily.com 2008). In December 2009, Chrome became the third most used web

browser by capturing a market share of 4.63%. From August 2008 through to

April 2010 Chrome’s market share have grown from 0.0% to 6.13%, (Figure 21)

the highest rise registered (netmarketshare.com 2010) by any web browser in that

timeframe.

Apple iPhone: Launched in June 2007, iPhone took just 74 days to go over a

million-sold mark (gizmodo.com 2007). Since then, the device has gone from

strength to strength with 8.74 million sold in Q3 2009 (Figure 22). iPhone sales

have increased every quarter since the company introduced its flagship iPhone

3GS in July 2009.

Blackberry Curve: First released in 2007, Curve is the customer-oriented phone

developed by RIM to counter the increasingly multimedia friendly competition. A

success by all means -it outsold the iPhone in US during the Q1, 2009 (cnet.com

2009)-, it helped Blackberry to retain its second place in the worldwide smart

phone market in 2009 (Figure 23).

56

Retail Price of the Shortlisted Devices

Product Price

Nintendo Wii £179.99

Sony PlayStation 3 Slim £269.99

Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 Free

Google Chrome 4 Free

Apple iPhone 3GS 16GB £539.99

Blackberry Curve 8900 £269.99

Reference: amazon.co.uk All prices are correct as of 05.04.2010

57

Chapter: 5 Analysis of Data and Discussion

_______________________________________________

This chapter tries to interpret the collected data so that trends and patterns can be

derived from it. The first section of this chapter analyse the ownership and

demographic trends. The next section discusses the primary data in detail. A list

of derived trends and patterns is provided in the next section; from which the

working hypothesises are formulated. The researcher then tries justifies these

hypothesises with primary and secondary data after which the theory is proposed.

58

Analysis of Product Ownership Patterns

Apart from the web browser, no participant claimed to have owned two products

of the same sub-category. When it came to web browsers -a free product-, most

people tent to keep two products in their computers, even though almost all of

them use their favourite browser most of the time. In other groups -consoles and

phones- some participants have used the second product occasionally, mostly

trying them out at social gatherings. Out of 34 participants who use Internet

Explorer, only 18 (52.94%) claimed to be using it as their main browser with the

rest admitting to using it occasionally, mostly as a backup.

From this usage patterns, we can understand that it is hard to retain customers in

the new ‘internet economy’, where switching cost is increasingly going down.

This adds to the pressure on the manufactures to deliver a compelling experience.

Demographic Trends

From the analysis of responses to the question about comfortability levels with hi-

tech products, it is clear that age have an inverse effect on one’s comfort levels

with technology and hi-tech products (Figure 13, Chapter 4). While everyone

below 30 was very comfortable with hi-tech products, the graph falls steadily with

the participants of older age groups becoming increasingly uncomfortable with hi-

tech products. This means that manufactures who target customers with advanced

age should put more effort to enhance the usability of their devices.

Analysis of Questionnaire Answers

Question 1: While buying the product/s you are using, what are the factors

you gave importance to?

It is clear that (Figure 14, Chapter 4) user-friendliness is a very important element

for customers with 64% of the participants checking on that aspect of the product.

However, so are the specs/features of the product with 57% participants checking

59

the specs of the product before buying it. One interesting fact is that all female

participants (18) replied that they looked in to the user-friendliness of the product.

Another finding is that Internet Explorer was used by all respondents (12) who

said that the product was forced on them. As one participant put it, “Internet

Explorer was just there”. It is also clear that a good brand can turn heads -3rd

highest in factors- with 38% admitting that they were influenced by brands.

Question 2: When you first considered buying the product/s you own, what

weightage -if any- did you give to its user-friendliness?

In the context of this research, it is important to note that 27 (64.29%) of the

participants admitted to have given the user-friendliness of the device some

weightage when buying the product. Almost one-third (30.95%) said that usability

of the product is “very important”.

A related detail is that every one of the respondents -12 participants- who uses an

iPhone and/or Chrome said that user-friendliness was given “very important”

weightage when they brought the product. This shows the importance of user-

friendliness; especially in a scenario where switching costs are negligible, as in

the case of Chrome.

Question 3: In your opinion, is better usability more important than the

latest functionality features of your device/software?

17 participants (40%) acknowledged that usability of the device is more important

than the specs. One iPhone user said, “The latest HTC HD2 is a good example.

Wonderful hardware; but the software [Windows Mobile 6.5] is so woeful that the

hardware is not used to the potential. I haven’t seen a phone that comes close [to

iPhone] in terms of total usage”. A female participant replied that she “went back

to [an] older version [of the product]” due to usability issues.

Another iPhone user commented on a thoughtful feature where by the iPhone

recognises a phone number in an email, message or a webpage. “Before, I had to

copy or write down the number somewhere; Apple has made the whole process so

simple. That is what I need, not extra memory or more megapixels”

60

No member of the surveyed female population stated that features are more

important than usability. While 10 (55.56%) women stated that usability was

more important, only 7 (29.17%) male participants agreed with them. It is also

noted that all members of 60+ age group said that usability was more important. It

is clear that female population are more concerned about usability than their male

counterparts. The age of the customers is again in the spotlight, as the 60+ age

group unanimously voted for usability.

Question 4: In relation to the current devices you use; if given a choice will

you sacrifice some technological advances for better usability?

More than a third of the participants said that they would sacrifice some

technological advances for better usability. A Chrome user noted this by saying,

“It lacks the features [like] RSS feeds or session management but [in] browsing

[Chrome] is the best”. An IE user commented on its usability by saying that he

“know that it is a bit slow but I like that fact that it doesn’t have any compatibility

issues. And because it is automatically updated by Windows, I don’t have to

worry about checking for updates”.

The fact that all 10 participants who owned a Wii and/or iPhone -both devices

were given high usability ratings by participants- responded by saying that they

won’t change any device characteristics underline the devices’ usability. Out of

the 16 participants who said “yes” to change, 12 (75%) were women. This again

underlines the importance of user-friendliness among women population.

Question 5: Do you think that companies should focus on usability rather

than trying to incorporate more features in to new devices?

More than a third of the respondents wanted the manufactures to improve the

usability before adding to the feature list. Most of these users are not using many

of the advanced features of their devices. As one PS3 user put it, “I rarely use the

Blu-ray anyway. Sony should have used their manpower to improve the game

play instead”. Another respondent do not use the GPS system of her Curve due to

usability issues. One Chrome user said that he “doesn’t need the best, just good

basics. That is why I am using Chrome. No, it doesn’t have any frills, but the

61

basics [which are] speed [and] security is done right”. This same emotion was

expressed by a Wii user who said, “All I want is to have a good time. It is not

about the best specs; but about a good enough experience”.

It is also interesting to find that 38% of the respondents are ready to settle for the

‘good enough’ rather than the ‘best’. 10 of the 15 respondents (66.67%) who said

that the manufactures should focus more on usability were women. All of the 60+

age group wanted the manufactures to do the same. Technology industry that has

traditionally relied on new features for driving the sales up can take advantage of

this new ‘good enough’ revolution by better aligning their competences.

Question 6: While upgrading, will superior specs/features alone influence

you? Will you buy a less advanced product with good usability?

The predominant thought of the participants was that both factors would be

looked into. One participant noted that “one cannot separate them; both are

important; more of a 50:50 weightage”. When added to the participants who

replied that a more user-friendly product would be chosen, 64.29% respondents

said that usability would influence their buying. This shows that the industry

cannot depend on advances specs alone to sell their products. For Hi-Tech

companies, it would be wise to invest more in usability of the products.

All the respondents who said that they would go for a more user-friendly system

were either a Wii owner or women. All the participants who owned a Wii (4)

stated that they would go for a more usable product. This again brings the ‘good

enough’ theory in to spotlight.

Question 7: In your opinion, -if at all- how do the usability features of your

product/s improve your life?

This question brought some thought-provoking responses from the participants.

More than half (52%) of the respondents noted that user-friendliness of a device

saves time. Chrome users (26.19%) influenced this; with all of them noting the

increased browsing speeds. Efficiency came second on the list with 38% noticing

an increase in productivity. Perhaps the most striking -at least in the context of

62

this research- observation is that 33% of the people relate usability with

satisfaction. That is, a third of the customers, when they look for better usability,

are expecting an experience from the device. This explains the success of Wii,

which although inferior in specs, gives a better experience -through its innovative

motion capturing game play- than the rivals.

Out of the 14 participants who gave ‘Satisfaction’ as an answer, 10 (71.42%) were

women. The only other sector dominated by women respondents is the ‘Easy to

Manage’ category where they have a representation of 63.63%. ‘Better

Efficiency’ sector consisted of 63.16% male responses. This shows the different

perceptions of both genders with women associating usability with satisfaction

and Manageability. On the other hand, men are more interested in the efficiency a

system (Figure 24).

Question 8: Do you think that better usability adds value to your product?

If so how?

Almost three-quarters (73.81%) of the respondents think that usability adds some

value to the product. 35.48% of that group associated that added value to non-

monetary values. 16.13% participants noted the emotional attachment they feel for

a user-friendly product and the brand as a whole. Related comments like ‘word of

mouth publicity’ show that a user-friendliness of a product can positively

influence the brand image. This observation is very important -in the context of

this research- as it demonstrates the constructive effect of usability on brands.

63

Other remarks like ‘repeat purchase’ and ‘less money spend on after-sales

support’ shows the monetary values of usability as well. 20 respondents

associated value with money; they mentioned ‘resale value’ and ‘money spent on

support’ as the value adding factors. 15 (75%) of that group are male participants.

This again highlights the difference between genders in their perception of

usability.

Question 9: If usability does indeed add value to products, are you willing

to pay a premium for better usability? If so, how much?

Answers of the 11 respondents (26.19%) who said that user-friendliness does not

add value to the products in the Question 8 were not taken in to deliberation.

Among the rest, 58.06% respondents were prepared to pay a premium for better

usability. Out of the 42 total participants, 18 (42.86%) are willing to pay more for

better usability. This partially explains the success of iPhone that is priced higher

than similar competitive products -often with better specs-, but offers better user

experience.

64

Out of 14 woman participants who agreed to the value added nature of usability,

11 (78.57%) were prepared to pay for better usability, while only 7 male

participants (41.17%) were ready to pay a premium for a more user-friendly

product. 2 respondents also considered usability as a luxury.

Question 10: Have you brought products (which are otherwise not required)

just because it is user-friendly?

It is interesting to note that more than a third (35.71%) of the participants has

brought a product due to its usability. This figure is influenced by the Chrome

users who defected from the default browser of the OS due to usability issues. All

15 participants who said that they have brought a product due to its usability were

using Chrome and/or iPhone. Out of them, 9 participants (60%) were of the

‘below 30’ age group.

8 participants (53.33%) who said “yes” to this question were Chrome users. This

shows the importance of usability in today’s internet economy. As most of these

products are free, usability becomes vital. The significance of usability is evident

from the fact that Google promotes its browser as “streamlined, clean and simple”

and “designed for efficiency and ease of use” (google.co.uk 2010).

Question 11: How does the user-friendliness of your products affect your

perception of maker/competitor brands?

Four out of five participants agreed that the usability levels of a product could

have an effect on their perception of the brand. 7 participants (16.67%) said that

they have changed brand loyalties due to a usability issue. Another 4 are thinking

of changing the current brand on the next upgrade cycle.

This supports the opinion -expressed in response to Question 8- that the product’s

usability can encourage an emotional attachment with the brand; thereby creating

a halo effect. This explains the increased sales of Mac computers in 2009 while

PC sales dropped by 6.7%. In a similar case, the usability issues of Windows

Vista damaged the Microsoft brand. This shows that companies can enhance the

brand reputation by using the usability of their products as an advantage.

65

Usability of Shortlisted Products: Discussion about Respondents’ Perception

User-friendliness of Sony PlayStation

All participants who said that the system was user-friendly cited very different

reasons for saying so. Two participants -both using PS2- noted the compatibility

for the older PS1 games and the availability of cheap games as the usability

factors that they liked most. Another user, owner of the more modern PS3

commented on the integration of a Blu-ray Disc as his best-loved usability feature.

The fourth respondent highlighted the controller of his PS3, which he felt

“reduced the learning curve”. Users who were not impressed with the user-

friendliness of their PlayStations also cited a variety of reasons for their

displeasure. Chief among them was the “buggy software of PS3”. 4 (44.44%)

owners complained about this issue. Other complaints included the “disappointing

online gaming experience” and “non compatibility with the PS2 games”.

From the responses of participants, it is clear that the user-friendliness of

PlayStation has gone down a notch with PS3. All the participants who are still

using a PS2 (27.27%) are very happy about the usability elements of it. Only 2

(22.22%) of the PS3 users are completely happy with the system. The researcher

understand that the factors like compatibility (e.g.: with PS2 games for PS3),

continuity (e.g.: PS3 controller’s look and feel) and support structure (e.g.: online

gaming experience) will increase the usability of a system.

Analysis in Context of Academic Literature

This researcher notes that Jakob Nielsen is correct in identifying ‘Learnability’

and ‘Errors’ as usability elements; both being highlighted by respondents when

speaking about the usability of PS3. The researcher notes that the participants also

talked about extendibility -non-compatibility and disappointing online gaming in

PS3- as a usability feature. Extendibility can be added as a factor of usability and

can be significant if the latest market trend of ‘Products as a Platform’ catches on.

66

User-friendliness of Nintendo Wii

All 4 participants who are using Wii were happy with the user-friendliness of the

device. One participant highlighted the exceptional usability of the system by

stating, “Wii involves you in the game play; so much so that my mother who is 56

wants to play. It is an immersive experience”. All the Wii users commented on

this novel and innovative game play -which utilises motion sensing technology-

by saying that “it is more satisfying”. One user compared his Wii to a PS3 by

saying, “Wii is not great on specs [when compared to a PS3] but then, it gives a

better and more interactive gaming experience. My children can’t get enough [of

it]”. He also noted the ‘sociability’ of the device by commenting, “Now that we

all play it, our family spends more time together than ever before”. Another user

commented on the backward compatibility of the device as “simply great. Now I

can use all my [GameCube] Game Discs”. He also noted the availability of

reasonability priced accessories and games, which according to him “bring down

the overall cost of ownership”.

From the responses of Wii users, it is clear that the overall usability of the system

is very high. Although the specs are noticeably inferior when compared to the

competing PS3, Wii have succeeded in providing a better gaming experience. The

sales figures (Figure 18, Chapter 4) indicate that this ‘experience’ have won over

the customers. Wii outsold PS3 in all 8 quarters. Even the combined sales of PS2

and PS3 could only capture 3 of the 8 quarters. This clearly indicates that a user-

friendly system with average specs can win over the market. The -comparatively-

lower price of Wii also shows that better usability does not mean higher price.

Analysis in Context of Academic Literature

The success of Wii shows that usability can be effectively used as part of a

differentiation strategy (Porter's Generic Strategies). In a crowded market that was

dominated by Xbox and PlayStation, Wii used the usability card to differentiate

itself. This not only helped Nintendo to sell many units, but also brought new age

groups in to the picture. With women and elderly people showing an interest in

Wii, this strategy has paid huge dividends for Nintendo.

67

User-friendliness of Google Chrome

All the Chrome users told the researcher that they were happy with the browser.

72.73% of them were attracted to the browser due to the user-friendly nature of

the browser. According to a user, this user-friendly nature starts from the time of

installation. “The whole installation was completed in under a minute. It even

imported my bookmarks”. Another user commented on the simple interface by

saying, “it doesn’t appear to exist. That is the best compliment I can give”. One

participant noted the speed of the browser and said “it is just not the browsing

speed; the boot-up speed is also the best of the class”. The security of the browser

was highlighted by a user. “I went over from Safari when I saw [that] Chrome

[was the only one] standing in the Pwn2Own hacking competition”. Other users

commented on usability features like ‘Incognito mode’ and ‘Omnibox’ as “simple

additions, but done right. They enhance the browsing”.

'The criticism of Chrome came from an unlikely source: IE users. One IE user

said that Chrome forgo many a feature in the name of simplicity. “It doesn’t have

RSS or Print preview” while another was concerned about the privacy.

General consciousness of the users is that Chrome is an improvement for the users

who desire a better browsing ‘experience’. This -need for an experience- is

becoming a recurring pattern. Chrome’s lack of frills does not hinder its adoption.

It is the highest gainer in market share in the last 18 months, which again shows

that the customer is ready to settle for the basics if it is done right. Chrome shows

that a product can capture market share by improving the usability.

Analysis in Context of Academic Literature

It is interesting to think about the Marketing Mix in context of the emergence of

online stores and internet economy. The traditional importance of ‘Place’ is

reduced due the extensive use of search engines and product placements. Chrome

is an example with the website -place- of chrome not given great importance. It

can be argued that the ‘Place’ is nonexistent in the case of Chrome. Still, the

product is ‘selling’ well which points towards reduced effect of ‘Place’.

68

User-friendliness of Microsoft Internet Explorer

A unique case, in the sense that it is installed in most computers regardless of a

conscious decision, IE is used by 34 of the respondents, but only 18 (52.94%) of

them use it as their main browser. This shows that one of two participants are

dissatisfied with the product so much so that they are willing to invest time and

effort to find a new browser. These participants use IE as a fallback browser, a

backup if everything else fails.

Some users did find IE easy to use. One user argued that the familiarity of the

browser makes it user-friendly. “There is no learning curve and that makes me

more productive”. Another user said “I know [all the] keyboard shortcuts [and

the] menu system”. A different user commented on the compatibility of IE by

saying that other browsers “doesn’t work on all sites which makes it difficult to

commit”. The main problems identified by the participants are the lack of speed -

52% of the participants associated usability with speed-, and security -less stress

and manageability-. These issues can be traced directly to usability perceptions of

the users (Figure 17, Chapter 4).

The fallback status of IE shows that it is indeed a reliable browser; but when it

comes to providing a ‘browsing experience’, it falls short of the competitors. It is

clear that the browser has some usability elements like ‘compatibility’ and

‘familiarity’. In spite of this, IE is losing market share, which shows the

importance of the ‘satisfaction’ element of usability which is not provided by IE.

Analysis in Context of Academic Literature

Users of IE have brought about striking revelations on how customers view the

usability factor as a need. It seems as if there are two levels of usability; one level

is ‘need of achievement’ while another plain is ‘need of satisfaction’. This can be

directly traced to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory, which envisions a layered

arrangement of needs. ‘Need of achievement’ can be related to ‘Esteem’ and

‘Satisfaction’ can be classed as a ‘Self-actualization’ need. This can explain the

fall back status assigned to IE by many users.

69

User-friendliness of Blackberry Curve

All the 5 participants who were using a Blackberry Curve admitted that they are

using it a as a ‘productivity tool’. 3 users said that the phone was provided by

their employer. One user noted that his blackberry enabled him “to be more

efficient”. All 5 users said that the device made them more efficient at work. One

user hailed the clever use of key board shortcuts on the device; saying “the ability

to type ‘@’ by hitting the spacebar might not look much, but on a small device

like a mobile, things like that becomes very important”. Another user noted that

the trackball of the device makes it very easy to browse on the phone. “The fact

that the trackball mimics a mouse makes the use of blackberry a pleasure”. The

main criticism of the Blackberry is that it is “too work oriented”. One iPhone user

said, “[with] Blackberry it is all about work, outside it is pretty much just another

phone”. This highlights the changing attitude of the modern customer who wants

the device to adapt to different roles. Where as in yesteryears they were prepared

to buy a second device for the multimedia needs, today’s customers are looking

for “jack of all trades” as one user put it. Another user complained about the lack

of extendibility of Blackberry by saying, “lack of apps is a major frustration”.

In spite of the criticisms, only 2 of 5 users will consider switching to different

phone. This shows that the Blackberry have some usability elements that the

competitors find hard to replicate. Nevertheless, it has lost the once prominent

position it had in the smart-phone market. This is due to two things; firstly,

expectations of the customers are changing rapidly and then Blackberry was slow

to react to latest usability trends like ‘content availability’.

Analysis in Context of Academic Literature

The case of Blackberry Curve draws attention to the limitations of the Marshallian

Theory in the modern world. In accordance to the theory, Blackberries -which are

economical yet more efficient- should be a runaway success. Instead, primary and

secondary data suggest that it is actually losing market share to the competition.

Researcher’s initial impressions about this theory -in the context of this research-

have been proven right.

70

User-friendliness of Apple iPhone

87.5% of the iPhone users admitted that it is a very user-friendly device. One user

likened the experience to that of a Wii by saying, “As in Wii, it makes you feel as

if you are a part of the whole thing. It is motion sensing for Wii, touch for

iPhone”. Another user noted, “I was up and running with in no time. Somehow,

everything in iPhone comes to you logically, like ‘pinching’ to zoom. It is just not

about the simplicity; you almost do it without anyone showing you”. This shows

the excellent learnability of the device. Another user spoke about iPhone’s

efficiency; “iPhone is very efficient in the sense that I can get the job done with

the least possible interference. It is also about good interoperability. For example,

I click an address in ‘contacts’ and next thing, I am in ‘maps’ that gives me

directions”. This shows that interoperability is very important in mobile devices.

Especially when a Curve user said that, she does not use the GPS due to usability

issues. Satisfaction is another factor highlighted by iPhone users. “I am somehow

more at ease with it. It is such a rewarding experience”. Extendibility is another

factor noted by a user who said “It is truly as apple says it is: there is an app for

it”. 5 users (62.5%) noted this as a usability factor.

iPhone’s sales prove that the customers are willing to pay more for usability. It

has sold almost 9 million units in Q3:2009 in spite of being one of the most

expensive phones in the market. Another interesting trend is the growing

importance of ‘extendibility’ as a usability feature with users looking for add-ons

(apps) which can extend the usability of their devices. This can also be seen in the

case of browsers, with ‘browser extensions’ a big draw for many customers.

Analysis in Context of Academic Literature

Shneiderman’s concept of Universal Usability is considered a practical

impossibility, but this researcher is left to wonder: can extendibility close the

‘knowledge gap’? If extendibility can be built in to every product, then customers

can pick and choose the add-ons; creating their own product, a product which is as

unique as the user. The researcher thinks that this is the real success of iPhone.

With a choice mix of apps loaded, every iPhone is as unique as its owner.

71

Analysis of Answers and Discussion: Derived Trends and Patterns

• Age has an inverse effect on customers comfort levels with technology and

Hi-Tech products

• User-friendliness is very important for two third of the customers, with

64.29% respondents saying that usability will influence their buying

• 35.71% of the participants have brought a product which is otherwise not

needed due to its usability

• Usability is vital in a scenario where switching costs are negligible

• For 40% participants, usability is more important than the specs of the system

• Female participants were more concerned about the usability than their male

counterparts

• All the members of 60+ age group said that usability was more important

than specs/features

• More than one third of the participants said that they will sacrifice some

technological advances for better usability

• Customers associate usability with time saving, efficiency, satisfaction and

manageability, in that order

• Lack of satisfaction factor can negate all other usability elements

• Increasingly, customers are expecting an ‘experience’ from their devices

• Female participants translate usability as satisfaction and manageability while

for male participants, usability equals better efficiency

• Three-quarters of the participants said that usability can add value to products

• User-friendliness of a product will influence the brand, including monetary

effects

• 16.67% participants have changed brand loyalties due to a usability issue

• 42.86% of the participants are willing to pay more for better usability

• Compatibility can create a perception of usability

• Extendibility and the availability of content have become more important

than ever

72

Working Hypothesises: In Context of the Research Questions

Based on the collected data, the patterns & trends derived from it and in context of

the research objectives and questions, the researcher proposes the following

hypothesises.

1. User-friendliness of a product can effectively negate the superior specs of

a competitor product and win over the customer

2. Customers do associate user friendliness with ‘added value’ and are

willing to pay a premium for it

3. For the users, usability of a product can create an emotional attachment

with the brand

Evidences for Validating the Hypothesises

Evidence from Primary Data

H 1: User-friendliness of a product can effectively negate the superior specs

of a competitor product and win over the customer

• 64.29% of the participants give the user-friendliness of a device some

weightage when buying a product.

• 30.95% of the participants note that the usability of the product is ‘very

important’.

• 17 (40%) participants acknowledged that the usability of a device is more

important than the specs.

• A third of the participants are willing to sacrifice some technological

advances for better usability.

• One third of the respondents wanted the manufactures to improve the

usability of devices before adding to the feature list.

• 35.71% participants have brought a product just because it is more user-

friendly.

73

H 2: Customers do associate user friendliness with ‘added value’ and are

willing to pay a premium for it

• 73.81% of the respondents think that usability adds some value to the

product, with 35.48% of that group associating the ‘added value’ to non-

monetary values.

• Participants acknowledged the visible effects of usability like Efficiency,

Time saving and Manageability.

• Participants also noted the monetary values like the high resale value and

the savings on after-sales support.

• 18 respondents (42.86%) are willing to pay a premium for better usability.

• 35.71% the participants have brought a product just because it is more

user-friendly, showing that they are willing to pay for usability.

H 3: For the users, usability of a product can create an emotional

attachment with the brand

• 34 participants (80.95%) said that the usability levels of a product could

affect the brand, with many noting that the usability of a product can

create an emotional attachment and feel good factor for the brand.

• Economic benefits for the brand include the chance of repeat customers

and free publicity through word of mouth.

• 7 participants (16.67%) said that they have changed brand loyalties due to

a usability issue.

Evidence from Secondary Data

H 1: User-friendliness of a product can effectively negate the superior specs

of a competitor product and win over the customer

• Wii have outsold the PlayStations -a superior brand with better specs and a

market leader at the time- for all but 3 quarters since the start of 2008.

Total lifetime sales of the Wii (67.45 million at the end of Q3 2009) are

more than double the sales of Sony’s flagship console PS3 (33.5 million at

the end of Q3 2009).

74

• Google Chrome have captured a sizable market share (6.13% as of Mar

2010) and have become the third most used web browser in the world in

spite of its reputation as a ‘tiny, no-frills’ browser.

• iPhone registered its best quarterly sales (8.74 million) in the last quarter

of 2009. This comes at a time when the market is increasingly littered with

smart-phones that have better specs. It is also noted that the iPhone OS

lacks many advanced features like multi-tasking and ability to handle flash

videos when compared to other mobile OSs (bbc.co.uk 2009).

H 2: Customers do associate user friendliness with ‘added value’ and are

willing to pay a premium for it

• Apple iPhone is priced at £539.99, which is double the price of a

Blackberry Curve that is retailed at £269.99. In spite of this, iPhone’s year

on year growth rate in 2008/09 is 82.9% (Figure 26). This is a phenomenal

rate when compared to the 46.6% growth rate of Blackberries and the

16.2% industry average in the same time-period (Figure 23, Chapter 4).

The annual moving average of iPhone sales are also very healthy (Figure

27).

75

• Google Chrome users are forced to pay a premium -in terms of the time

and effort used for finding the product, downloading and installing- when

pitted against default browser of their systems. In spite of that Chrome’s

market share have grown from 0.0% to 6.13% (Figure 21, Chapter 4), the

highest rise registered by any web browser in that timeframe.

H 3: For the users, usability of a product can create an emotional

attachment with the brand

• Google Chrome’s quick rise through the ranks was strongly aided by the

brand image of Google. Google’s primary product, the Google Search is

known for its simple and user-friendly webpage design, with Marissa

Mayer Google's director of consumer web products insisting that ‘less is

more’ (fastcompany.com 2005). This usability experience has prompted

many customers to try Chrome.

• A study conducted by mediapost.com (2010) found that 48.7% of the

450000 customers who purchased an Apple iPad in the first week of

availability owned an Apple iPhone or iPod Touch. That means, around

220000 customers purchased a radically new product just because of the

user-friendliness of their iPhone and iPod Touch. This shows that usability

can indeed create an emotional attachment for the brand in the minds of

the customers.

76

Theory Formulation

This research has gathered enough evidence to suggest that the proposed

hypothesises is valid. Based on the collected data and validated hypothesises, the

researcher note down the following theory.

User-friendliness adds tangible and intangible value to a hi-

tech product, thereby generating better sales and an

emotional attachment for the brand. It can also act as a

counter balance to the superior specs of a competing product

77

Chapter: 6 Conclusion and Recommendations

_______________________________________________

This chapter acts as a conclusion to the research by drawing a cohesive summary

of the research findings. The first part of this chapter brings together the findings

in the context of the original research questions. The next section is a brief review

of the academic literature in light of the findings. The researcher then explains the

limitations of the study, which is followed by a set of recommendations for the

Hi-Tech industry in light of the findings. The last section suggests some topics

that might be of interest to future researchers.

78

Conclusion

With this dissertation, the researcher aspired to determine the importance of

usability in the success of high-tech products. In order to attain this aim, the

researcher had put forward three research questions in the introductory chapter.

These questions became the very foundation of the research. The literature review

explored the academic background while the questionnaire -an extension and

expansion of the research questions in itself- collected the primary data from 42

participants. Hypothesises were derived from the answers; which were later

substantiated using the primary and secondary data. After analysing all these

findings, the research now believes that he has successfully answered the research

questions.

Research Findings in the Context of Research Questions

Question 1: Will a possibly basic (feature-wise) product that is more user-

friendly win an end user?

Researcher reached the conclusion that the customers are willing to relinquish the

latest features for better usability. The primary data suggests that 64.29%

respondents weigh-up the usability of a hi-tech product while buying; with 40%

participants acknowledging that usability is more important than the specs. One

third of the participants are willing to forgo some technical advances for better

usability, with 35.71% participants having brought a product just because it is

more user-friendly. When looking at the secondary data it is clear that the Wii,

Chrome and iPhone have managed to capture market share from industry leaders

like PlayStation, Internet Explorer and Blackberry Curve.

Question 2: How important is the usability factor to a potential buyer? Will

he/she pay a premium for it?

It is clear from the primary data that the customers associate usability with ‘added

value’; with 73.81% respondents thinking that usability add some value to the

product. Monetary value includes high resale value and the savings on after-sales

support while intangible effects like Time saving and manageability were also

79

mentioned. 42.86% participants are willing to pay a premium for better usability.

This also reflects in the secondary data with iPhone, a more expensive phone

selling on par with the market leader Blackberry. Even though a free product, the

users of Google Chrome -the highest gainer of market share in the last two years-

have to spend time and effort in terms of finding the product, downloading and

installing. This shows that the customers are willing to spend money, time and

effort for better usability.

Question 3: Is User-friendliness a strong brand building/busting point?

This research shows that the usability levels of a product can create an emotional

attachment with the brand for the customers with 80.95% participants noting that

the usability levels of a product can affect the brand perceptions. Benefits for the

brand include the chance of repeat customers and free publicity through word of

mouth. Secondary data suggests that Apple brand have gained a loyal following

due to the user-friendly nature of iPhone. Chrome’s customer acceptance was

strongly aided by the brand image of Google.

Review of Academic Literature in Light of the Findings

• The researcher finds that the factors of usability as identified by Jakob

Nielsen are accurate, but would add one more to it: Extendibility.

• Usability can fit in to the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, starting in ‘Esteem’ level

by helping achievement, with some elements like satisfaction classed as a ‘Self-

actualization’ need.

• Marshallian Theory that holds that buying decisions are a result of rational

economic calculations is irrelevant in today’s world. It is found that the

customers do consider intangible elements like satisfaction while making

buying decisions.

• Concerning the Needs-Opportunities-Abilities model, this research finds that

usability can create motivation by influencing needs.

• Looking at Porter's generic strategies, it is noted that usability can be used as

part of a differentiation strategy; as successfully implemented by Apple Inc.

80

• With the emergence of online stores and internet economy, importance of the

‘Place’ in ‘Extended Marketing Mix’ has been reduced. This is because a

simple search can find comparable products in an online marketplace.

• Shneiderman’s Universal Usability concept can indeed be practical in the real

world. Extendibility of products like iPhone and Chrome can be effectively

used to close the ‘knowledge gap’.

Limitations of the Research

This researcher wishes to state that this is a dissertation research; hence was

completed with strict time, monetary and other resource constrains. Consequently,

the following limitations should be taken into account while considering the

research and findings.

• Word Limitation: This dissertation has a 20000 (±10%) word limit, which

restricted the researcher from reviewing much of the literature available on

the subject. Researcher was also forced to shorten the analysis of primary data

due to this limitation.

• Time Constrains: This research was concluded within one academic semester.

This timeframe gave the researcher limited time to gather the primary data,

which prompted him to go for an open-ended questionnaire rather than much

more theoretically accepted personal interviews or peer groups observations.

It is also noted that better analysis would have been possible with more time.

A Gantt chart is provided (Appendix 2) for the details.

• Limited Participation: The research conclusions are based on the responses of

42 participants who had returned the completed questionnaires. Therefore,

this researcher makes no claim for the results being a true representation of

the British population.

• Human Error: This research, being a qualitative one, relies on the research

and analytic skills of the researcher as much as on the quality of data

gathered. The researcher acknowledges his limited expertise and experience

in the research area. It is also noted that this is the first time the researcher is

undertaking a research of this scope. All this can affect the quality of the data

analysis, and therefore reduces the significance of the findings.

81

Recommendations

Suggestions for the Hi-Tech Industry

This research proves that modern customers do factor in the usability of a hi-tech

product while making buying decisions. In light of the research findings, this

researcher would like to make the following recommendations to the

manufactures of the Hi-Tech products.

• While conceiving a new product, make an effort to improve the usability side

of it. Market research in to how the product is used in the real world will give

valuable information about the usability expectations of the customers. This

can bring in more sales and in extension, brand loyalty as in the case of Apple

Inc.

• While adding more specs/features in to the product, make sure that usability

is not compromised. It is better not to have a feature than making the whole

device harder to use. An example is the feature filled PlaySation3 losing

ground to the spec-light Wii.

• Extendibility, compatibility and availability of content can create a perception

that the product is user-friendly. Examples are iPhone (availability of content

through iTunes), Chrome (extendibility though browser extensions) and Wii

(compatibility through the ability to play older game titles) which all have

done well in the market.

• Customers are willing to pay a premium for better usability, as demonstrated

by Apple Inc. This can potentially lead to better profits; all that is needed is a

better ‘project conceive and design team’.

Scope for Future Studies

The primary data collected by the researcher have brought out many interesting

trends and patterns. Due to the research limitations discussed earlier in the

chapter, this researcher could not follow up on all of them. However, the

researcher is happy to highlight a few of them that might interest the academics.

82

• Large Scale Research on the Same Topic: This research, although constrained

in many ways, have found that user-friendliness of a Hi-Tech product do

influence customer buying choices. In light of the gravity of the findings, this

researcher would like to propose a large-scale study on the same subject.

• Effect of Age on Usability: This research has found that age has an inverse

effect on customer’s comfort levels with technology and hi-tech products.

The industry and customers would stand to benefit if a study is conducted to

establish the relationships between usability and age.

• Extendibility and Universal Usability: This researcher notes the relationship

between Extendibility and Universal Usability, which he believes is

significant enough to warrant an academic study.

• Gender and Usability: One of the constant trends brought out by the analysis

of participant responses was that women found usability more important than

men did. It is also noted that men and women has different perceptions about

usability. This will be an intriguing research topic for a sociologist.

83

Chapter: 7 Personal Statement

On Reflective Learning _______________________________________________

This chapter reflects on what the researcher have learned while going through the

process of writing this dissertation. The researcher employs a technique called

reflective learning as explained in Kolb’s Learning Cycle (Figure 28) so that he

can learn from his own experiences. The first part of this chapter explains the

concept of reflective learning, which is then followed by the researcher’s

reflections on the learning experience. He reflects both on the content and the

process of doing the dissertation, with points like learning targets and future

applications of the learning explained.

84

“Tell me, and I will forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand” (Confucius 450 BC)

Concept of Reflective Learning

Reflective Learning is a learning technique whereby a previous experience is

reflected on by an individual so that he/she can learn from the experience (David

Kolb 1984). Reflective Learning, -if made a routine- can develop an individual

not only as a student but also as a human-being, as it forced him/her to learn from

his/her own life. According to David Kolb, an individual goes through four stages

of learning which are 1) Having an experience 2) Reflecting on that experience 3)

Learning from the experience and 4) Try out the new learning.

Importance of Reflective Learning

Reflection can assist in developing a critical and analytical mind, which will help

an individual to assess himself against his own values and the values of the

society. It can also assist by

• Putting you in control of your own personal growth

• Identifying your shortcomings and giving you personal targets

• Making you more self aware; and by extension a confident person

Self Reflections on the Learning Experience

Now that I am at the last stage of a long journey -a quest which had its own fair

share of highs and lows- I think that this is a good time to look back; to take stock

of the progress I have made, both as an academic and a human being. I will be

reflecting on the dissertation content and the process of writing the dissertation;

on how I was encouraged by the highs and spurred by the lows. Also reflected on

are my learning targets, my quest for achieving those targets and how I can apply

what I have learned in my future workplace and life.

85

Reflections on the Content of Dissertation

Appraisal of Learning: This researcher chose the dissertation topic because of

the personal experience of usability problems while handling Hi-Tech devices.

This meant that the researcher -with no background in the topic- had to work extra

hard to gain knowledge about the literature.

At the start of the dissertation, researcher had set himself a personal target of

gaining theoretical knowledge about usability. This Researcher is happy to state

that he has achieved his original learning target, which can be seen from the

detailed nature of the ‘Literature Review’ Chapter. The way the researcher has

commented on the academic literature in the ‘Analysis of Data and Discussion’

again proves this.

On reflection, the researcher notes that his decision to go with an unfamiliar topic

did create some problems, but ultimately returned a satisfying experience,

enabling him to gain valuable knowledge about an increasingly important

consumer issue. The researcher notes that he could not cover the wealth of the

academic literature due to the research limitations.

How Learning Occurred: Looking back, the researcher sees that the personal

learning process was quite strange. He seemed to learn more about the theories

while analysing the primary data, which sometimes forced him to go back and

review the ‘Literature review’ section. This was quite a revelation for the

researcher. The theories came to life and appeared to have a different meaning

altogether when evaluated against the primary data.

This researcher remembers an incident where be the primary data prompted him

to go back to the books for a better interpretation of ‘Universal Usability’. The

researcher first thought it was an impractical and idealistic concept; but included it

in the ‘Literature Review’ to negate the researcher prejudice. This scenario

changed when he found how ‘Extendibility’ could help achieve Universal

Usability. This prompted the researcher to revisit the ‘Literature Review’ and

rewrite the whole section about Universal Usability.

86

This showed to the researcher that theory can never be properly understood in

isolation; what it needs is quality primary data which can then give it proper

meaning. Researcher also learned that he should be open to new interpretations of

the theories and literature.

Future Application of the Learning: The theories and concepts learned while

doing this dissertation will help the researcher in two ways. Firstly, as a future

marketing professional, this researcher has gained valuable insights in to a largely

unrecognised problem like Usability. This will help the researcher to better

understand and handle his future customers.

This research have rekindled academic mind of the researcher. He started this

dissertation as his last academic work, but now is seriously thinking about

furthering his studies. One of the main reasons for this is the realisation that he

has not even scratched the surface of the literature available on the subject. When

this research stared, this researcher had a feeling that his glass was pretty much

full. Strangely, now at the end of this dissertation, the researcher realises that his

glass is not full; not even close. This can be clearly seen from two entries in to the

researcher’s personal diary given below

“This is it. The last one. After this.... Well, I think I am well equipped.

All I need is the right job” (as entered on 21.09.2009)

“Suddenly, it feels as if I have just started... Is this my last academic

work? This research has done to me what that little child had done to

the King: Yes, the King is indeed naked” (as entered on 20.04.2010)

Reflections on the Process of Working

Appraisal of Learning: When the researcher started this research, -being his first

time undertaking a research of this scale- he was sceptical about his ability to

successfully complete the research. Researcher had two targets; firstly, to learn

how collect primary data and then learn how to structure an academic report of

this scale. In the past, researcher had problems collecting primary data and was

erratic with his word-processing skills.

87

While reflecting, the researcher feels that he has done a good job in both

categories. Aware of his past problems with data collection, researcher became

very meticulous about the questionnaire. He selected two sampling techniques

(Convenience, Snowball Methods) which virtually guaranteed him enough

responses. In the past, the research had noticed the participant’s preference to

short questionnaires. Researcher made sure that his questionnaire was a short one

with only 15 questions. When it came to word processing skills, researcher took

extra time to seek help from a friend who was good at Microsoft Word. This

facilitated the learning of new shortcuts and techniques and enhanced the

productivity and efficiency of the researcher.

How Learning Occurred: The researcher realises that he became aware of his

deficiencies due to the reflective learning style. If he had not looked back to his

previous experiences, he would never have realised his inadequacies in the first

place.

The researcher remembers a meeting with his research guide; he was criticised for

lingering too much in the ‘Literature Review’ section. He was asked to “move on

and get things done”. This prompted the researcher to reflect on the research

limitations like timeframes. The research guide would be pleased to know that this

researcher learned from that incident and started working within the time

limitations for the rest of the research.

Future Application of the Learning: On reflecting on the process of doing this

dissertation, one thing the research learned was how to effectively manage time.

This can become critical at his future workplace where he will have to meet strict

deadlines to stay competitive.

Another skill the researcher will take with him is his newfound word processing

skills. The researcher is now confident that he can effectively structure long

reports using a word processor. This will become crucial in the modern workplace

where almost all the work is done on a computer. The researcher is also confident

that he has become a much better data collector. This will help the researcher in

his future researches, if he chooses to pursue higher studies.

88

Summary of Reflective Learning Experience

The researcher finds that the reflective learning technique has changed him for the

better in both -academic and personal- lives. He finds that his habit of keeping a

personal diary -a habit he started on the advice of his professor- have enabled him

to audit his academic and personal lives at regular intervals. He intends to keep on

writing a personal diary so that he can continue his reflective learning.

89

Bibliography _______________________________________________

90

• Adcock, D., Halborg, A. & Ross, C. (2001) Marketing: Principles And

Practice, London: Pearson Education.

• Allardt, E. (1994), “Having, Loving, Being: An Alternative To The Swedish

Model Of Welfare Research” in M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (eds.), The Quality of

Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

• Apple.com (2010) “One To One”, http://www.apple.com/retail/onetoone/

[accessed 13 Feb 2010].

• Apple.com (2010) “Press Releases: Sales Figures”, http://www.apple.com

/pr/library/ [accessed 21 Mar 2010].

• Aréna, R. & Quéré, M. (2003), The Economics Of Alfred Marshall: Revisiting

Marshall's Legacy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

• Assael, H. (1987), Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, Boston, MA:

Kent Publishing Company.

• Baker, M. J. (2003), The Marketing Book, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

• BBC.co.uk (2009), “Apple Unveils New iPhone Features”, http://news.bbc.co.

uk/1/hi/technology/7949557.stm [accessed 19 Sep 2009].

• BBC.co.uk (2009), “EU Slaps A Record Fine On Intel”, http://news.bbc.co.uk

/1/hi/8047546.stm [accessed 27 Dec 2009].

• Berkman, H. W. & Gilson, C. C. (1986), Consumer Behaviour: Concepts And

Strategies, Boston, MA: Kent Publishing Company.

• Booms, B. H. & Bitner, M. J. (1981), “Marketing Strategies And

Organizational Structures For Service Firms” in J. Donnelly & W. George

(eds.), Marketing of Services, Chicago: American Marketing Association.

• Bowman, C. (2008), “Generic Strategies: A Substitute For Thinking?”, 360°

The Ashridge Journal, 5(2).

• Brown, A. (2009), “Consumer Buying Behaviour”, http://www.udel.edu

/alex/chapt6.html [accessed 29 Sep 2009].

• Brennan, L. L. & Johnson, V. E. (2004), Social, Ethical And Policy

Implications Of Information Technology, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.

• Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2003), Business Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

91

• Businessdictionary.com (2009), “Consumer-Buying-Behaviour”, http://

www.businessdictionary.com/definition/consumer-buying-behavior.html

[accessed 2 Sep 2009].

• Canalys Estimates (2010), “Canalys Quarterly Research Highlights”, http://

www.canalys.com/pr/2010/r2010021.html [accessed 05 Apr 2010].

• Carey, J. M. (1995), Human Factors In Information Systems: Emerging

Theoretical Bases, Bristol: Intellect Books.

• Carroll, J. W. & Thomas, J. C. (1988), “Fun”, SIGCHI Bulletin, 19(3).

• Clark, M., Wilkie, E. & Wood, R. (1998), Researching And Writing

Dissertations In Hospitality And Tourism, London: Cengage Learning EMEA.

• Cnet.com (2009), “BlackBerry Curve outsells the iPhone 3G”, http://news.

cnet.com/blackberry-curve-outsells-the-iphone-3g/ [accessed 29 Mar 2010].

• Comscore.com (2010), “December 2009 U.S. Mobile Subscriber Market

Share”, http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/2/

comScore_Reports_December_2009_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share

[accessed 29 Mar 2010].

• Coolican, H. (1999), Research Methods And Statistics In Psychology (3rd

edition), London: Hodder & Stoughton.

• Cooper, C. L. & Channon D. F. (1998), The Concise Blackwell Encyclopaedia

Of Management, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

• Cougias, D. J., Heiberger, E. L. & Koop, K. (2003), The Backup Book:

Disaster Recovery From Desktop To Data Centre, Boston, MA: Schaser-

Vartan Books.

• Dickens, P. (2004), Society & Nature: Changing Our Environment, Changing

Ourselves, London: Wiley-Blackwell.

• Dictionary.cambridge.org (2009), “User-Friendliness”, http://dictionary.

cambridge.org/define.asp?key=87511&dict=CALD [accessed 21 Sep 2009].

• Dumas, J. S. & Redish, J. C. (1999), A Practical Guide To Usability Testing,

Wiltshire: Cromwell Press.

• Egan, J. (2007), Marketing Communications, London: Cengage Learning

EMEA.

92

• Ennew, C. & Waite, N. (2007), Financial Services Marketing: An

International Guide To Principles And Practice, Oxford: Butterworth-

Heinemann.

• Faas, R. (2009), iPhone For Work: Increasing Productivity For Busy

Professionals, New York: Apress.

• Fastcompany.com (2005), “The Beauty Of Simplicity”, http://www.

fastcompany.com/magazine/100/beauty-of-simplicity.html [accessed 29 Mar

2010].

• Feldt, K. C. (2007), Programming Firefox, Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media.

• Fink, A. (2003), The Survey Handbook, London: SAGE Publications.

• Foxall, G. R., Goldsmith, R. E. & Brown, S. (1998), Consumer Psychology

For Marketing, London: Cengage Learning EMEA.

• Funk, D. C. (2008), Consumer Behaviour In Sport And Events: Marketing

Action, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

• Gatersleben, B. & Vlek, C. (1998), “Household Consumption, Quality of Life

and Environmental Impacts” in K. J. Noorman & A. J. M. Schoot-Uiterkamp

(eds.), Green Households? Domestic Consumers, Environment And

Sustainability, London: Earthscan.

• Gay, L. R. (1996), Educational Research: Competencies For Analysis And

Application (5th edition), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

• Gilligan, C., & Wilson, R. M. S. (2005), Strategic Marketing Management:

Planning, Implementation And Control, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

• Gilligan, C., & Wilson, R. M. S. (2009), Strategic Marketing Planning,

Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

• Gizmodo.com (2007), “Apple Sells 1 Millionth iPhone”, http://gizmodo.com/

298050/apple-sells-1-millionth-iphone [accessed 15 Jan 2010].

• Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery Of Grounded Theory,

Chicago: Aldine.

• Golafshani, N. (2003), “Understanding Reliability And Validity In Qualitative

Research”, The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.

• Google.co.uk (2010), “Why Use Google Chrome?”, http://www.google.co.uk/

chrome/intl/en-GB/more/index.html [accessed 01 Apr 2010].

93

• Govindarajan, M. (2007), Marketing Management: Concepts, Cases,

Challenges And Trends, New Delhi: PHI Learning.

• Gratton, C. & Jones, I. (2004), Research Methods For Sport Studies, London:

Routledge.

• Green, W. S. & Jordan, P. S. (1999) Human Factors In Product Design:

Current Practice And Future Trends, Danvers, MA: CRC Press.

• Guardian.co.uk (2009), “The Facebook Backlash”, http://www.guardian.

co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/07/facebook-exodus-social-

networking [accessed 26 Dec 2009].

• Guardian.co.uk (2010), “Apple's Amazing Numbers: Where Did The iPhone

Sales Come From?”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/

apr/21/apple-financial-results-analysis [accessed 22 Apr 2010].

• Guuui.com (2003), “Supporting Customers' Decision-Making Process”,

http://www.guuui.com/issues/02_03.php [accessed 16 Feb 2010].

• Hadkins, E. (2009), “On the Variety of Human Needs: Maslow and Max-

Neef”, http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/01/06/maslow-max-neef/

[accessed 29 Dec 2009].

• Hammond, J., Gross, T. & Wesson, J. (2002) Usability: Gaining A

Competitive Edge, Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

• Hareide, D. (1994), “Has The Quality Of Life Improved In Western Europe?”

in M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (eds.), The Quality of Life, Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

• Herzberg, F. I. (1987), “One More Time: How Do You Motivate

Employees?”, Harvard Business Review, 65(5), 109-120.

• Hooks, I. F. & Farry, K. A. (2001), Customer-Centred Products: Creating

Successful Products Through Smart Requirements Management, New York:

Amacom.

• Horton, S. (2005), Access By Design: A Guide To Universal Usability For

Web Designers, Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.

• Hoyer, W. D. & Macinnis, D. J. (2009) Consumer Behaviour, London:

Cengage Learning EMEA.

94

• Husserl, E. (1983), Ideas Pertaining To A Pure Phenomenology And To A

Phenomenological Philosophy, The Hague: Nijhoff.

• Internetretailing.net (2010), “Internet shopping grew 13% in February”,

http://www.internetretailing.net/2010/03/internet-shopping-grew-up-13-in-

february/ [accessed 23 Mar 2010].

• Itgovernance.co.uk (2010), “Service as a Product”, http://www.

itgovernance.co.uk/service-as-a-product.aspx [accessed 23 Mar 2010].

• Jary, D. & Jary, J. (1991), The HarperCollins Dictionary Of Sociology,

Glasgow: Harper-Collins.

• Karwowski, W. (2001), International Encyclopaedia Of Ergonomics And

Human Factors, London: Taylor & Francis.

• Kelley, J. F. (1983), Natural Language And Computers: Six Empirical Steps

For Writing An Easy-To-Use Computer Application, Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University.

• Khan, M. A. (2007), Consumer Behaviour, New Delhi: New Age

International.

• Kim, W. C. & Mauborgne, R. (2005), Blue Ocean Strategy, Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Press.

• Kolb, D. A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience As The Source Of

Learning And Development, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

• Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Wong, V. & Saunders, J. (2008), Principles Of

Marketing, London: Pearson Education.

• Koudelka, J. (1997), Consumer Behaviour And Marketing, Prague: Grada.

• Kurtz, D. L. (2008), Contemporary Marketing, London: Cengage Learning

EMEA.

• Kurtz, D. L., Mackenzie, H. F. & Snow, K. (2009), Contemporary Marketing,

London: Cengage Learning EMEA.

• Lacey, A. R. (1996), A Dictionary Of Philosophy, London: Routledge.

• Langdridge, D. (2006), Phenomenological Psychology: Theory, Research And

Method, Harlow: Pearson Education.

• Lazar, J. (2007), Universal Usability: Designing Computer Interfaces For

Diverse User Populations, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

95

• Leavy, P. & Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2005), The Practice Of Qualitative Research,

Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

• Lessig, L. (2001), The Future Of Ideas: The Fate Of The Commons In A

Connected World, New York: Random House.

• Lohr, S. L. (1999), Sampling: Design And Analysis, Pacific Grove, CA:

Duxbury.

• Markel, N. (1998), Semiotic Psychology: Speech At An Index Of Emotions

And Attitudes, New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

• Marketingcharts.com (2009), “Firefox Market Share”, http://www.marketing

charts.com/interactive/firefox-share-tops-20-in-november-7380/ [accessed 25

Sep 2009].

• Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C. (2004), Handbook Of Qualitative

Research Methods For International Business, Northampton, MA: Edward

Elgar Publishing.

• Maslow, A. H. (1943), “A Theory of Human Motivation”, Psychological

Review, 50(4), 370-396.

• Max-Neef, M. A., Elizalde, A. & Hopenhayn, M. (1991), Human Scale

Development: Conception, Application And Further Reflections, New York:

Apex.

• Maxwell, J. A. (2005), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive

Approach, London: SAGE Publications.

• McKenna, F. E. (2000), Business Psychology And Organisational Behaviour:

A Student's Handbook, New York: Psychology Press.

• Moonie, N. (2003), BTEC National Care, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

• Moran, D. (2000), Introduction To Phenomenology, London: Routledge.

• Mowen, J. C. & Minor, M. (2001), Consumer Behaviour: A Framework, New

Jersey: Prentice Hall.

• Msu.edu (2009), “Technology: Background”, http://globaledge.msu.

edu/industries/technology/background/ [accessed 26 Dec 2009].

• Neal, C., Quester, P. & Pettigrew, S. (2006), Consumer Behaviour:

Implications For Marketing Strategy, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.

96

• Neal, C., Quester, P. & Pettigrew, S. (2007), Consumer Behaviour:

Implications For Marketing Strategy (5th edition), Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.

• Netapplications.com (2010), “Browser Market Share”, http://marketshare.

hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0 [accessed 05 Feb 2010].

• Netmarketshare.com (2010), “Top Browser Share Trend”, www.

netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=1&qptimeframe=M&

qpsp=111&qpnp=25 [accessed 04 Apr 2010].

• Nielsen, J. (1993), Usability Engineering, Boston, MA: Academic Press.

• Nintendo.co.jp (2010), “Consolidated Financial Highlights”, www.nintendo.

co.jp/ir/pdf/2009/090730e.pdf [accessed 29 Mar 2010].

• OECD (2002), Towards Sustainable Household Consumption? : Trends And

Policies In OECD Countries, Paris: OECD Publishing.

• Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. & Krishnan, R. (2009), Marketing Research,

New Delhi: Wiley India.

• Patton, M. Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation And Research Methods, London:

SAGE Publications.

• Patton, M. Q. (2002), Qualitative Research And Evaluation Methods, London:

SAGE Publications.

• Perry, B. (2009), CIMA Learning System: Enterprise Operations, Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.

• Pollard, D. (2005), “Why Google's Business Model Is So Revolutionary”, http:

//blogs.salon.com/0002007/2005/10/16.html [accessed 22 Jan 2010].

• Porter, M. E. (1980), Competitive Strategy, New York: The Free Press.

• Porter, M. E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, New York: The Free Press.

• Porter, M. E. (1998), Competitive Strategy: Techniques For Analyzing

Industries And Competitors, New York: The Free Press.

• Rao, K. R. M. (2007), Services Marketing, New Delhi: Pearson Education.

• Reid, G. C. (1993), Small Business Enterprise: An Economic Analysis,

London: Routledge.

• Reyes, M. (2004), Social Research: A Deductive Approach, Quezon City: Rex

Bookstore Inc.

97

• Robson, C. (2002), Real World Research: A Resource For Social Scientists

And Practitioner-Researchers, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

• Rokeach, M. (1979), Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal,

New York: Free Press.

• Runyon, K. E. & Stewart, D. W. (1987), Consumer Behaviour And The

Practice Of Marketing, Princeton, NC: Merrill Publishing.

• Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2002), Research Methods For

Business Students (3rd edition), London: Pearson Education.

• Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods For

Business Students (4th edition), London: Pearson Education.

• Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009), Research Methods For

Business Students (5th edition), London: Pearson Education.

• Scei.co.jp (2010), “PlayStation2 Worldwide Hardware Unit Sales”,

http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps2_sale_e.html [accessed 04 Apr

2010].

• Scei.co.jp (2010), “PlayStation3 Worldwide Hardware Unit Sales”,

http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3_sale_e.html [accessed 04 Apr

2010].

• Schutt, R. K. (2006), Investigating The Social World: The Process And

Practice Of Research, Newbury Park, CA: Pine Forge Press.

• Shneiderman, B. (1987), Designing The User Interface: Strategies For

Effective Human-Computer Interaction, London: Addison-Wesley.

• Shneiderman, B. (2000), “Universal Usability”, Communications Of The

ACM, 43(5), 84-91.

• Simpson, H. (1984), Design Of User-Friendly Programs For Small

Computers, New York: McGraw-Hill.

• Smith, D. W. (2005), Phenomenology And Philosophy Of Mind, Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

• Sprenkle, D. H. & Piercy, F. P. (2005), Research Methods In Family Therapy,

New York: Guilford Press.

• Stahl, M. J. & Grigsby, D. W. (1997), Strategic Management, Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing.

98

• Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1990), Basics Of Qualitative Research: Grounded

Theory Procedures And Techniques, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

• Steidler-Dennison, T. (2009), Mac For Linux Geeks, New York: Apress.

• Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003), Handbook Of Mixed Methods In Social

And Behavioural Research, London: SAGE Publications.

• Telegraph.co.uk (2010) “Online Shopping And Social Media”, http://www.

telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/technology/broadband/7482480/Online-shopping-

and-social-media.html [accessed 23 Mar 2010].

• TGDaily.com (2008), “Google Chrome Crosses 1% Market Share Again”,

http://www.tgdaily.com/trendwatch-features/40575-google-chrome-crosses-1-

market-share-again [accessed 29 Mar 2010].

• Usitc.gov (2009), “Protecting U.S. Intellectual Property Rights And The

Challenges Of Digital Piracy”, http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/

working_papers/wp_id_05.pdf [accessed 26 Dec 2009].

• Vashisht, K. (2005), A Practical Approach To Marketing Management, New

Delhi: Atlantic Publishers.

• Wahba, A., & Bridgewell, L. (1976), “Maslow Reconsidered: A Review Of

Research On The Need Hierarchy Theory”, Organizational Behaviour And

Human Performance 15, 212-240.

• Watson, R. T., Berthon, P., Pitt L. F. & Zinkhan, G. M. (2000), Electronic

Commerce: The Strategic Perspective, Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press.

• Webster, M. (1985), Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, London:

Merriam-Webster Inc.

• Weitz, B. A., Wensley, R. (2002), Handbook Of Marketing, Thousand Oaks:

SAGE Publications.

• Wellman, B. & Haythornthwaite, C. A. (2002), The Internet In Everyday Life,

Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

• Wickens, C. D., Lee, J. D. & Gordon-Becker, S. (2004) An Introduction To

Human Factors Engineering, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

• Xu, H. (1998), Golden Rules For Business Success, Singapore: Asiapac

Books.

99

• Yeow, C. C. (2005), Firefox Secrets: A Need-To-Know Guide, San Francisco,

CA: SitePoint Pty.

• Yeshin, T., C.I.M (1998), Integrated Marketing Communications: The

Holistic Approach, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

• Zikmund, W. G. (2000), Business Research Methods (6th edition), Fort Worth,

TX: Dryden Press.

100

Appendixes _______________________________________________

101

Appendix 1

A Questionnaire on The User-friendliness of High-Tech Products

Dear Participant,

This questionnaire requests your candid opinion in regards to your experiences

with high-tech products. The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect the

required primary data for a dissertation that is to be submitted in part fulfilment of

the Master of Business Administration degree at Liverpool John Moores

University. The researcher is investigating consumer behaviours to determine the

importance of user-friendliness in the success of high-tech products.

The researcher fully appreciates that you may be working on a tight schedule;

however, your participation in this research would assist the researcher to better

understand the customer philosophies while buying a high-tech product. This

study will help the technology industry to better evaluate customer priorities and

by extension, bring out better products. In that respect, you -as a customer- will be

a beneficiary of this research. Your co-operation is deeply appreciated.

You should be, at the very least, the age of eighteen. This is for the compliance of

legal requirements, if any. You should also own or have regularly used at least

one of the shortlisted products (please see question 1) for a minimum period of

one month.

Eligibility

The researcher takes your privacy very seriously. Principles of anonymity and

confidentiality will be strictly adhered and no personally identifiable data will be

collected or stored. The expressed comments and views will be treated in strict

confidence. The analysis of the data collected will be submitted in a form that

does not identify the participants. A copy of the findings can be forwarded to you

on request for complete transparency.

Confidentiality

102

This is an open-ended questionnaire, i.e. the researcher is looking for your

opinion. There are no right or wrong answers, only opinions. You have to

reply to the questions in your own words; explaining good or bad

experiences, the circumstances that led up to them and what happened after,

all in your own words. Additional space has been offered at the end of the

questionnaire to enable you to provide any relevant information or experience you

may wish to share, but are not covered by the questions.

Directions

Note: If the answer to Q1 is ‘NO’, then you are ineligible to participate in this research

Q1 Do you own or actively use any of the following products? Give details. Nintendo Wii, Sony PlayStation, Apple iPhone, Blackberry Curve, Google Chrome, Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Q2 While buying the product/s you are using, what are the factors you gave

more importance to?

103

Q3 In relation to the product/s you own or use; when you first considered buying it, what weightage -if any- did you give the usability factor of the product?

Q4 In your opinion, is better usability more important than the latest

functionality features of your device/software?

Q5 In relation to the current devices you use; if given a choice will you

sacrifice some technological advances for better usability?

104

Q6 Do you think that the manufacturers should try to improve the usability of your products rather than trying to incorporate more and more highly advanced features?

Q7

When considering a replacement for your current device/software, will new and better technological features alone influence you? Will you choose a system with basic features, but good usability?

Q8 In your opinion, -if at all- how do the usability features of your product/s

improve your life?

105

Q9 Do you think that better usability adds value to your product? If so how?

Q10

If usability does indeed add value to products, are you willing to pay a premium for better usability? If so, how much?

Q11 Have you brought products (which are otherwise not required) just

because it is user-friendly?

106

Q12 How does the user-friendliness of your products affect your perception of maker/competitor brands?

Q13 Generally, how comfortable are you with hi-tech products?

Q14 State Your Age. Note: If you are not, at the very least, the age of

eighteen, then you are ineligible to participate in this research. You do not need to answer other questions or return the questionnaire.

Q15 State Your Gender.

107

Provide any relevant information or experience you may wish to share, but are not covered by the questions

108

Appendix 2

Research Gantt Chart