I

Katrin Lindenbauer

Institute of Retailing, Sales

and Marketing

a.Univ. Prof. Mag. Dr.

Thomas Werani

April 2018

Identification and quantification of customer benefits of

the new industry automation system KeControl FlexCore –

Recommendations for marketing actions for Keba AG

Master Thesis

to obtain the academic degree of

Master of Science Global Business

in the Master’s Program

Joint Master Program Global Business Russland/Italien

II

Abstract

The company Keba is striving for the development of a sharpened positioning of their new

system KeControl FlexCore, to enhance brand and product awareness in the market and,

consequently attracting potential customers. The challenging market conditions require a

targeted marketing communication in order to stand more out of the market. For this reason,

a value-based approach forms the basis of this project. Identifying the needs and preferences

of potential customers in the market supports in developing customized benefit argumentations

for KeControl FlexCore. In addition to developing a successful product brand, Keba as a

company brand needs to be strengthened as well. For identifying the customers’ requirements

towards new suppliers and a new product, two different research methods were implemented.

The first step required a qualitative approach for gaining product, service and business specific

information. This method supported in obtaining valuable information about the needs of

customers. To reinforce the data collection and to ensure more confident results, a further

quantitative research method was carried out. Both, the internal and external perspective, was

enquired. Through that, results should get clearer, more accurate and include the internal and

external view of the product and on Keba. The results show the differences but also similarities

between the external and internal perspective. Moreover, valuable side information for Keba

was gained through the project. Out of the results, several recommendations towards future

marketing actions could be derived. The collected data provide a rather narrow insight.

However, the data serve as a valuable basis for extending this research project and are also

beneficial and useful for further company internal projects. In any case, the won data should

be used for future projects at Keba.

For obtaining an easier readability there was no focus on a gender-specific formulation which

means that both genders are addressed.

III

Acknowledgement

For supporting me in the development and implementation of this research work, special

thanks go to Ingrid Bramerdorfer and Christian Gabriel who are my supporters and supervisors

at the company Keba. Thanks for supporting and encouraging me a lot from the very

beginning. I appreciate their patience and continuous support towards this personally

challenging but interesting and useful project. Moreover, I would like to thank my supervisor

Prof. Thomas Werani a lot for his patience, for the constructive feedback, for giving instructions

and guiding me through this project and for caring about a good implementation of the project.

Many thanks also go to my family, who was always an emotional support and stood firmly

behind me. Last but not least, I would like to thank all my friends who were also emotional

support and encouraged me continuously to keep on working.

IV

V

Table of content

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Problem definition...................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Definition of the objectives and research questions ................................................... 1

1.3. Course of action for solving the research problem ..................................................... 3

2. Conceptual framework and methodology.......................................................................... 7

2.1. Defining value in business markets ........................................................................... 7

2.2. Characteristics of value in business markets ............................................................. 9

2.3. Customer benefits: Definition and characteristics .................................................... 11

2.4. Methods for identifying customer benefits ............................................................... 17

2.4.1. Means-end-method .......................................................................................... 18

2.4.1.1. Attribute ..................................................................................................... 19

2.4.1.2. Benefit/Consequence ................................................................................ 19

2.4.1.3. Terminal value ........................................................................................... 20

2.4.1.4. Process description ................................................................................... 20

2.4.1.5. Laddering method ..................................................................................... 22

2.4.2. FAB analysis (features, advantages, benefits) .................................................. 25

2.4.2.1. Definition ................................................................................................... 25

2.4.2.2. Process description ................................................................................... 26

2.4.3. Situations-alternatives-features-analysis .......................................................... 27

....................................................................................................................................... 28

2.4.4. Critical reflection on the qualitative methods and method selection .................. 28

2.5. Approaches for structuring customer benefits .......................................................... 33

3. Empirical part: Implementation ....................................................................................... 37

3.1. Identification of customer benefits – internal ............................................................ 37

3.1.1. Internal focus groups ........................................................................................ 37

3.1.2. Structuring customer benefits ........................................................................... 40

3.1.3. Analysis of benefit potentials ............................................................................ 43

3.2. Identification of customer benefits – external ........................................................... 45

3.3. Data processing of internal and external collected data ........................................... 49

3.3.1. Evaluation of benefit potentials ......................................................................... 49

3.3.2. Quantification of benefit potentials .................................................................... 50

3.4. Implications for communication policy ..................................................................... 64

VI

4. Conclusion, recommendations and perspectives ............................................................ 65

4.1. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 65

4.2. Recommendations for further procedure ................................................................. 67

4.3. Future perspectives ................................................................................................. 71

5. References ..................................................................................................................... 73

6. Appendix ........................................................................................................................ 77

VII

Table of figures

Figure 1: Target benefits (Sickel 2013, 69) ............................................................................ 16

Figure 2: Means-End-Approach (Herrmann & Huber 2013, 181) ........................................... 21

Figure 3: Laddering process (Kaciak & Cullen 2006) ............................................................. 23

Figure 4: Situations-Alternatives-Features (Jolibert et al. 2012, 11-12)) ................................ 28

Figure 5: Survey results - The importance of product related and company related

characteristics (Own data analysis of conducted surveys) ..................................................... 61

Figure 6: Survey results - The importance of benefit arguments (Own data analysis of

conducted surveys) ............................................................................................................... 63

List of tables

Table 1: Example of a laddering procedure (Jolibert et al. 2012, 10) ..................................... 24

Table 2: Comparison of qualitative research methods for data collection (self-developed) .... 32

Table 3: Different approaches for structuring customer benefits (Werani 2012; Gärtner &

Riegler-Klinger 2009, 29) ....................................................................................................... 34

Table 4: Customer benefits in the industrial sector (Wildemann 2003, 212) ........................... 36

Table 5: Results of Keba internal qualitative interviews (own conduction) ............................. 41

Table 6: Structuring customer benefits (results of own data collection following Lapierre's

concept of structuring benefits (2000, 125)) ........................................................................... 43

Table 7: Response options for company and system related characteristics ......................... 46

Table 8: Response options for benefit arguments .................................................................. 47

Table 9: Comparison of important features when selecting a new system supplier (own data

analysis of conducted survey, 1/2) ......................................................................................... 51

Table 10: Comparison of important features when selecting a new system supplier (own data

analysis of conducted survey, 2/2) ......................................................................................... 52

Table 11: Comparison of drivers for the change of the automation system supplier (own data

analysis of conducted surveys) .............................................................................................. 54

Table 12: Ranking of company and system related features (Own analysis of the survey results)

.............................................................................................................................................. 56

Table 13: Ranking of benefit expectations (Own analysis of the survey results) .................... 58

Table 14: Comparison of internal defined arguments and external collected arguments ........ 68

List of abbreviations

B2B Business-to-Business

B2C Business-to-Consumer

FAB Features-Advantages-Benefits

MEA Means-End-Analysis

1

1. Introduction

1.1. Problem definition

Keba AG has developed a new industry automation system, called KeControl FlexCore, next

to the existing systems KePlast, KeMotion and KeToKeba AG is currently dealing with the

challenge how to promote the new industry automation system appropriately. The company is

highly innovative in this specific sector, which opens up the possibility to provide customer-

specific solutions. Nevertheless, the company has to demonstrate itself in the market and

against relevant, well-established competitors. As KeControl FlexCore is a rather new product,

it is necessary to identify the value propositions and benefits that Keba can offer with this

system. It is essential because whether a potential customer will sign a contract and buy the

new product or not, depends on the values and benefits that the system can provide and how

those are communicated in the market.

The product awareness of the new system is relatively low and main competitors of Keba are

well-known companies. For this reason, the positioning and the sales arguments of KeControl

FlexCore have to be sharpened in order to increase the customer perception.

For this reason, the identification of critical aspects, which are relevant in the buying decision

process, is required. It is crucial to develop relevant and practical actions that feature an

innovative and sustainable character to guarantee the successful implementation of a new

targeted marketing strategy for KeControl FlexCore.

1.2. Definition of the objectives and research questions

Several research questions emerge from the problem definition above. Those are derived in

the following.

The specific market where Keba is acting, is mainly characterized by poaching customers from

competing companies. As Keba has to position and demonstrate itself in this market next to

established competitors, it is essential to find out which factors animate customers to start

searching for new systems in the market. Out of this, a first research question can be derived:

“What activates a customer to think about a new automation system/-generation? Which

factors play an important role in the decision process?”

2

As mentioned before, there is a need to sharpen the positioning and sales arguments in order

to raise customer perception for KeControl FlexCore. To be able to enhance the positioning

and sales arguments, it is valuable to find out what are the actual needs and expectations of

customers that have to be addressed. This, in turn, helps to figure out, if the internal defined

customer benefits are already appropriately defined or have to be adjusted because benefits

are the reasons why companies will decide for a supplier and a system. For this reason, high

importance is attached to identifying and addressing these benefits. From this, a further

research question can be developed:

“Are the current defined KeControl Flexcore customer benefits aligned with the real needs

of potential customers?”

Keba is acting in the B2B market and therefore with other companies. Within those targeted

companies there are usually several decision-makers. In connection with identifying the real

needs of customers and creating appropriate benefit messages, it is also necessary to address

the right people in those companies, which implies an additional research question:

“Which people should be reached at the typical KeControl Flexcore customer? With which

messages / promises will we reach the potential customer? Who is attracted from which

message?”

As the product awareness of KeControl FlexCore has to be increased, to enhance the

perception of customers of the company, an interesting issue is to find out which information

resources are used by potential customers to get to know the offer in the market. Out of this

subject, a fourth, interesting research question, can be derived:

“Which sources of information do KeControl Flexcore consumers use, in order to inform

themselves about new products and evaluate new suppliers?”

This master thesis emphasizes answering these questions. Moreover, it focuses on coming

up with practical recommendations for the newly launched system KeControl FlexCore for

positioning on the market and for developing a specified marketing strategy which raises

customer perception. This is the set of objectives that are of high importance and should be

ideally followed and taken into consideration during the whole process.

3

1.3. Course of action for solving the research problem

This thesis consists of a theoretical and an empirical part. Both together are necessary to

answer the derived research questions. In the beginning, it is vital to gain an insight into the

conceptual and methodological part in order to obtain an idea about the frame of reference

and coverage of this project.

The first part of the work will include the collection and analysis of a comprehensive amount

of information. A profound selection of information sources on a scientific basis is required.

This requires the reliability and validity of the sources as this affects the outcome of the project.

Secondary data will include former workshops and discussions within the company as well as

literature research. Identifying which and how much information is needed for solving the

concrete challenge of Keba, has to be cleared and will become more visible during the process.

Initially, the theoretic part describes the value-based concept with a focus on business to

business markets. The definition of the value base is part of the management and it is the

initial point when talking about the value-based marketing in business markets. In addition, the

characteristics and parts of value-based marketing will be presented. The project’s conceptual

base is built on a value-based approach. Therefore, this chapter is an essential starting point

for the work. The selected framework also requests value-oriented research questions.

The second bigger part of the conceptual framework defines customer benefits, presents them

in more detail and highlights different levels of customer benefits and how they can be

structured. This topic is connected with the first two research questions which deal with the

identification of customer benefits and evaluation of determined benefits. This chapter should

support to obtain an overview of the different levels of benefits because not only fulfilling the

economic benefit is a determinant for a successful position on the market. There are far more

decisive benefit levels which contribute to a long-term successful strategic market orientation.

In the next part, there will be an extensive examination of methods for developing a course of

action to solve the research problem finally. This covers the qualitative approach of this project.

This chapter provides a collection of three applicable methods for the concrete research

problem of Keba. Moreover, using a qualitative research method for internal data collection, is

supportive for the subsequent external data acquisition. Both, internal and external collected

data, will be used for specifying the sales arguments and the positioning of KeControl

FlexCore. The reason why a qualitative method is chosen for the first phase is that there is

more space for generating new ideas and those are necessary for creating a construct which

can be used in the subsequent section. Quantitative methods would narrow the idea collection

already at the beginning.

4

The first method analyzed is the method of developing means-end-chains. The means-end-

analysis investigates which attributes, including not only product features, can address

expected benefits and value propositions from the customer side. There are three categories

which are in connection with each other, namely attributes, the consequences or benefits and

values. Subsequently, the laddering method which aims at identifying underlying motives of

customers for buying a product or system and counts rather as a sub-method of means-end-

analysis will be discussed. This method is implemented by asking for the reason why, for

example, certain attributes are important. The method is connected with the means-end-

analysis in the sense that underlying buying motives should be revealed (Reynolds & Olson

2001). The third method selected, depicts the features-advantages-benefits-analysis which

was historically developed after the means-end-analysis. Benefits and advantages are seen

as two different matters in this model. Moreover, the model is used for deriving and for proving

identified benefits. The fourth investigated method is the situations-alternatives-features-

analysis. This one is useful in the case that potential customers do not have means-end

structures in their mind concerning a special product or system (Jolibert et al. 2012, 11-12).

There are different alternative products or services in the market that have specific features

and those should be investigated. This is a different approach to collect arguments about

Keba’s new system.

The last chapter of the theoretical framework addresses the selection of one appropriate

method. There is a necessity to critically regard all these presented methods and the way how

they would lead to a desired outcome for the research objective. Finally, there has to be a

decision for one method, which seems to be an appropriate course of action, taking into

consideration different parameters such as time, need for information, costs and other internal

and external resources.

After obtaining a theoretical framework, the empirical part of the master thesis is an essential

explication how to put the theoretical findings into practice in order to solve Keba’s research

problem and questions and to develop recommendations for actions.

The first comprehensive section of the empirical part deals with the management of customer

benefits, as it is, according to the value-based orientation of the master thesis as well as for

Keba’s research topic, a fundamental part. The first part is about identifying customer benefits

within the company. In this context, the selected method comes into the focus point. It helps

to gather first impressions about the topic and coherences. It is of high importance that a

concept is developed which creates additional value for the customer, compared to competing

companies. Through that, the customer decides for Keba and not a competitor in the optimal

case. For this reason, it is a meaningful step, to identify internal perceived customer benefits

before collecting data outside of the company. This serves for comparison purposes and,

5

moreover, for the verification of those benefits. The identification of customer benefits goes

along with the structuring of benefits. The different, potential levels of benefits which are shown

in the theoretical part of the thesis, have to be taken into consideration. Those can be used for

grouping benefit arguments, according to their content-related meaning. Those can be even

more structured by sub categories and subsequently used for data collection internally and

externally. The next subchapter deals with the analysis of these benefits, in order to process

the collected arguments, which should be then used for the next part, namely the external

identification of customer benefits (Averdung 2013).

The following part discusses the identification of customer benefits outside of the company.

For this step, the theoretical background can be used, to decide for the most appropriate form

of data collection. In this section, a quantitative research approach comes into question. The

aim of the external surveys is to gather information about important features and benefits from

a customer perspective and the evaluation and rating of already defined KeControl FlexCore

features and benefits. Furthermore, customers have problems which need to be solved

through a product (Beutin 2013). This is connected with the first derived research question

about the motives for changing a supplier and is of course investigated in the conducted

surveys. A structured procedure is used to quantify and verify the collected arguments. The

quantification of the arguments is significant in order to specify the sales arguments and

strengthening the positioning of KeControl FlexCore in a later step. Those arguments reinforce

the need for a structured quantitative research instrument.

Visiting specialized fairs is a good opportunity for data collection through face-to-face

interviews which are questionnaire supported. Face-to-face interviews are in this project more

meaningful than for example e-mail or online-surveys because it is important to collect ideas

of the potential business partners through a conversation during the interview (Jolibert et al.

2012. The interaction process can be profitable in the sense of gaining additional information

beyond the collected data in the questionnaire. This can also serve for exchanging contact

details for further conversations and even building up business relations. An additional benefit

is that not only data about own customer benefit potentials but also information about

competitors’ benefit arguments can be gathered there (Cant & van Heerden 2005). The

subchapter of verifying customer benefits is in this sense important that in the end, a customer

decides which benefits are important for him for obtaining a customer value and not the

company decides for a customer (Jolibert et al. 2012).

The challenge is to go from an inside view about how Keba defines their open system

KeControl FlexCore to the outside and transfer this correctly to potential customers. The inside

view of customer benefits from Keba’s side has to be adapted on those benefits that are

valuable for customers. It is not enough to only define benefit arguments internally and neglect

6

the outside view of customers. This perspective is also reflected in the research questions and

is part of the value based approach of the work.

In the following chapter, the internal and external collected data have to be processed. It is

meaningful to analyze them one by one, which means to regard the qualitative internal

collected data and afterwards the quantitative external gained information. Finally, those data

have to be compared, aligned and coherences between arguments should be ideally found.

This refers to research question two which deals with the alignment of customer needs. In

addition, also to the third research question, which deals with identifying which messages

attract which customers, is taken into consideration. Moreover, this chapter discusses the

quantification of the collected benefit arguments. Taking a look at the importance of individual

product characteristics and benefits is absolutely necessary for developing a practicable

marketing strategy.

The final part consists of suggestions for further action and perspectives in the future. Pointing

out recommendations for further procedure and future prospects should support the company

to establish a useful applicable marketing strategy for KeControl FlexCore and the brand Keba

itself, to reach new customers and increase customer perception.

The proposed course of action including the theoretical part and transforming it into practice

in the empirical part should constitute a realizable way to make valuable contributions to the

development of the positioning strategy of KeControl Flexcore and for this research project in

general.

7

2. Conceptual framework and methodology

2.1. Defining value in business markets

Making an appropriate definition of value and measuring value is often very challenging for

companies. Anderson and Narus (1998) defined value as a result that is obtained by for

example economic, technical or other benefits, and is contrasted with the price of the good

(Doyle 2008, 75). In literature, diverse experiments have yielded that the price of a product is

often the decisive factor (Anderson et al. 2000). Value can also be defined in the following,

similar way: The delivered value results out of two components, namely the total value that

arise from expectations about a product or service and the total costs which contains

everything from searching for a product to owning the product (Kotler 2000). This means that

the value, which is finally delivered to customers, is the difference between those two

described components (Kotler 2000). Thus, the importance of the financial components,

meaning the price and costs, were also incorporated in the empirical part.

Value-based marketing involves managing the value creation from the supplier side and

providing value to the customer side. A main aspect of this process is to control the value

influencing factors. Those determinants are customer benefits, costs and the price of the value

chain (Werani 2012, 57). The customer benefit aspect is a key value driver and is a main factor

in this project.

There is no unique definition in literature for the term „customer value“. When considering a

business related approach, the value term can be seen as a relation between a subject and

an object. However, this also means that value is neither based solely on a subjective

evaluation of an individual person nor on a purely objective point of view. The value of a certain

product or service can be more considered as the outcome of the rational reflection of the

individual. This is usually connected with set individual goals, alternative offers and

environmental influences and indicates what individuals prefer (Werani 2012, 50-51).

So the value can be seen as a measure that results out of a specific decision situation where

the individual favors a specific alternative. From an economic perspective, companies have to

consider and assess all relevant alternatives, taking into consideration the available means

and costs. This leads to the value definition: “Value = Benefits – Costs” (Werani 2012, 51).

Moreover, the value concept takes shape through the following three value principles and can

be regarded as a central idea of B2B marketing. Firstly, the value of a transaction for a supplier

should be higher than zero. Secondly, the value provided by the supplier should be higher than

8

zero and, thirdly, the value provided by supplier X has to exceed the value provided by supplier

Z (Werani 2012, 53).

The value concept is a main topic in business markets nowadays. Identifying where a value is

located from a customer’s point of view, is of high importance for businesses. The reason why

this is crucial is that satisfying customers is connected with increasing trust and loyalty and

also strengthening the market position of the company, and thus, also encouraging growth

(Ulaga & Chacour 2001, 526-538). The value concept is part of customer relationship

management, customer dialogue and the solution of customer problems (Wildemann 2003).

Gummesson (2007) added that while production of a product is creating a potential value,

using the product creates real value. As a supplier, it is of importance to keep that in mind.

Moreover, from a customer perspective, value is associated with high quality of products and

services. Customized services and a certain friendship base with the company are regarded

as important values from a customer perspective (Lindgreen & Wynstra 2005, 732).

There is an assumption that a customer has a certain problem and this problem should be

solved with the purchase of a good. A customer is usually motivated to do business with a

company where they think that this one can help solve a problem the best (Doyle 2008, 74).

According to Doyle (2008, 75), the main challenge in obtaining superior value is, to find out

how to solve the customers’ problems. Therefore, value is also created by this knowledge and

not only by the product itself.

Doyle (2008) described a differential advantage as a customer’s preference for a company

and its offer because of an observed superior value. Furthermore, it is needed to maintain

established customer relations and to obtain attractiveness for new potential customers. Day

(2006) reinforced the importance of developing individual value offers for customers as the

main source for obtaining an advantageous sustainable position in the market. The more

knowledge the company has about the customers’ requirements and value expectations, the

more the company can develop and provide value offers. Through identifying factors that are

relevant for a buying decision, clear marketing messages should be developed and individual

customers should be addressed more targeted (Averdung 2013).

Averdung (2013, 245) took a look at the categories within the value concept, compared product

and logistic sectors and defined “value-in-exchange” as the present value driver in the product

sector. Value is added by the interactors in the supply chain, which means different firms

contribute to the value creation. The purpose of adding value is too, finally, enhance the

company’s wealth. The position of the firm in the value creation process is mainly producing

the value and then transferring this value to external market actors. The role of the externals,

9

which means mainly customers, is to utilize this value or not to make use of it and thus also

diminish it, according to Averdung (2013). Considering a broader approach, the company

should also regard end customers in the value generation process (Averdung 2013).

2.2. Characteristics of value in business markets

A challenge that a company has to face is to identify the customers’ desires and the alternative

products offered in the market. The difficulty is to create a value proposition that meets the

needs of potential customers better than it is done by alternative offers in the market (Doyle

2008).

Usually, a customer observes a trade-off connected with a product of a company. Moreover,

as previously described, the heterogeneity of customers within a buying center and their

position has an impact on the value. In addition, competitors influence the value of what the

company can offer with a product or service (Ulaga & Chacour 2001). “The reputation of a

company, the geographical location and the capacity of innovation are influencing a company’s

attractiveness” as well (Lindgreen & Wynstra 2005, 732 - 748).

According to Averdung (2013, 246), value creation is the main aim of “economic activities”.

This is also about co-creation of value, as the selling company includes market insights in the

product development phase, for positioning in the market. On the other side, the buyer uses

the own knowledge to make the best buying decision. The interaction and relation between

those two parties aim at being profitable and valuable on a mutual base (Averdung 2013).

Karpen et al. (2012) highlighted the significance of the interaction between business partners

or with potential customers for creating an understanding of individual customers’ needs. In

addition, developing a sense for the customers’ sectors, products and markets is necessary.

How qualitative business connections are, depends on relationships between people, the

monetary aspect and the benefits that individuals link with the relation (Lindgreen & Wynstra,

2005). Loyal partnerships can initiate customized ideas, especially for innovations activities

but also for communication measures (Averdung 2013). Relationships can serve as a certain

kind of security and obtain a more stable situation for the own business. Partnering companies

integrate resources which leads to the mutual value exchange (Averdung 2013).

Through emphasizing on the value concept, benefits should be communicated. Those benefits

are in connection with one or multiple values that a product has inherent for a customer. The

communicated messages, should clearly present the added value for the customer. According

10

to Backhaus and Voeth (2015), this has to be explained through monetary units, which refers

back to the previously defined value definition. An implementation of the monetary value

communication should lead to a successful quantification of the product’s advantages

(Backhaus & Voeth 2015, 512).

According to Grönroos (2006), it is essential to focus on value generation from a strategic

marketing perspective. A central topic should be generating value through the own processes.

The company is also able to do so, when it supports customers in improving their knowledge

and competencies in order to utilize the advantages of the offered services and products better

(Averdung 2013). In addition, Averdung (2013) mentioned that generating value for the

customer, decides on the value of the company’s own products. Those are only valuable to

the extent that they contribute to the value generated for a customer. Therefore, it is also worth

to mention the customer’s mindset that is connected to a brand. Brands are connected with

customer perceived values. In this context, Keller (2008, 129) mentioned five aspects that

should be taken into consideration. The first aspect is about the brand awareness which refers

to the customers’ ability to recognize a specific brand and the product related to that brand.

Moreover, there is the aspect about what customers associate with a brand in the sense of

which importance certain attributes of this brand and product hold. Brand awareness is often

associated with “high quality, trust, reliability” (Kapferer 2012, 21). Finally, Keller (2008)

mentioned brand activities as a further point, which refers to the degree of searching for brand

information, the use of the brand and also telling about it. Brand management is a very broad

topic. However, it is to a certain extent part of this project, as it is about identifying customer

value expectations in order to define the benefits of the product brand KeControl FlexCore and

Keba as a company brand. Of course, the company and the product brands cannot be fully

separated from each other (Kapferer 2012).

There are internal organizational influences and external environmental influences that affect

the buying decision. Blythe and Zimmerman (2013) mentioned that decision makers are less

risk-taking, as high amounts of money in the purchase process increase the risk of a real loss

of the business. This leads to the fact that decision making becomes a longer-lasting process

(Tanner & Raimond 2012). Sometimes buyers tend to purchase from regional or national

suppliers rather than from outside of the country, which would often be the better choice in

terms of rationality.

Thus it is essential to understand, who the target customers are that need to be addressed in

the communication actions (Backhaus & Voeth 2015, 305). In this sense, the user perspective

should be taken into consideration. It is required to find out, which people of a buying center

should be integrated (Backhaus & Voeth 2015, 305). There are different actors within a buying

center such as the users, influencers, deciders, approvers, buyers, initiators and gatekeepers

11

(Doyle 2008, 77). One person can occupy several roles and there is no fixed amount of people

involved in buying centers (Kreutzer et al. 2015). For this reason, it was meaningful to keep in

mind that there are different roles that influence the buying decision of a company in diverse

ways (Doyle 2008, 77), as it had an impact on the outcomes of the conducted survey.

2.3. Customer benefits: Definition and characteristics

Benefits and values are in literature often taken as synonymous terms. However, in this work,

there is an attempt to differentiate these terms. Benefits have to be considered from a

consumer perspective and from a seller perspective and can be regarded as an extent to which

customer needs are satisfied (Beutin 2013). Of course that is a reason why companies have

to identify the company’s own benefits which can be transferred to potential customers (Beutin

2013). A customer benefit is a prerequisite for creating value for the customer. This makes the

identification of customer benefits inevitable (Beutin 2013).

Analyzing customer benefits is essential for identifying the benefit aspects that are relevant

from the customer perspective. It should not only be focused on the benefits that arise from

the product itself. This would limit the success of identifying the most important benefit

components of the company’s offer (Werani 2012, 59).

As mentioned in the previous chapter that reflects on the value concept, the value definition

consists of the benefit part reduced by costs. To understand this equation even better, it is

necessary to define the term benefits. As said, a benefit can be seen as a capability of

alternatives to satisfy the present needs and wishes. It is obvious that the alternative with the

biggest difference between benefits and costs will be favored. When assuming that the benefit

can be associated with a monetary value, then it makes sense that a favored alternative is

connected with higher benefits than costs. “The benefit can also be measured through a

monetary value” (Werani 2012, 52). Whereas, the price is the cost component from a

consumer perspective, the price constitutes the benefit component from supplier side.

Therefore, the price can be considered as the interface between the supplier-related value and

the demand-related value. This indicates that value generation for the supplier happens when

the customer accepts the value that the supplier’s offer has inherent. This becomes visible

through paying the price of the good. Customers are willing to pay a certain price that does not

exceed the benefit. Thus, the actual price that a customer is paying, presents the real benefit

of a supplier (Werani 2012, 50-54).

For the supplier-side it is vital to understand which benefits the own offer provides to the

customers. The buying decision for a product is based on the expected benefits and not the

12

real benefit as customers lack full information. This indicates that the customers’ subjective

perception of a product or service determines the buying decision. In order to have an impact

on the perception of the expected benefits, the supplier has to communicate the benefits of

the offer as good as possible (Werani 2012, 59).

Biesel (2013, 75) dealt with the topic of connecting the company’s interest with those of a

prospective customer or an actual customer. When linking both interests, the company’s

benefit, as well as the customer's benefit, should be equally optimized. The optimization from

supplier side concerns, for example, marketing-specific cost reductions, increasing the

turnover and profit, limiting the loss of customers and other indicators. Optimizing the benefits

for the customer involves, among others, the increase of the value proposition for the

customer, enhancing the excitement of customers and providing customized services (Biesel

2013). The company’s own interests and those of the customer have to be at least balanced.

This has to be clearly communicated to the outside. If the benefits for the supplier side seem

to exceed the benefits for the customer side, then there is probably no reason for the customer

to decide specifically for example for supplier X (Biesel 2013).

For this reason, customer dialogs are essential and indispensable in order to initiate selling

processes. In general, there are several questions to consider in dialogues with customers.

Those are already of high relevance in the first few dialogs and should be enquired. “How great

is the need for action?”, “What are the business goals?”, “Which objectives is the customer

following?” and “Which decision criteria are set?” (Sickel 2013, 15). In addition, the seller has

identified what the needs of the interlocutors are, how the person is involved in the decision

making process of the potential buying company and to which department the person belongs

to (Sickel 2013, 52-53). There is the economically oriented customer who is focused on

financial savings and profits. When getting into a first conversation, the person will probably

be interested in example if the seller can adapt to changing requirements in the customer’s

company and on the balance of payments. Moreover, the practically oriented customer

focuses on issues such as a reliable service, scalability and a simple usability. It is company-

depending which decision-making authority individuals have. Finally, there is the user who is

one probable initiator of thinking about change, as problems are happening in their

departments. Those should obtain information about whether the customer service can help

quickly or not, which impact the new product has on daily work and about the usability of the

product (Sickel 2013).

To sum up, these people holding various positions in the company have different levels of

influence on the decision, diverse information requests and goals (Sickel 2013). Thus, different

value expectations or benefits are present as well. A company’s solution cannot fulfill 100% of

the value expectations of all different decision influencers in a target company with

13

communicating one single benefit argument. So the needs of these individuals have to be

identified. Communicating benefits can only be successful if it is connected with the needs that

individual customers have (Beutin 2013).

This consideration also attracts interest in empirical research in section 3. The fact that there

are different decision makers is included from the beginning of the qualitative research until

the communication of the marketing messages and finally the evaluation of the implemented

marketing measures (Sickel 2013).

Of course, selling the product or service, requires demand from the customer side. A seller

has to find out which of the product features can represent a benefit for customers (Sickel

2013). If the benefits can be adapted to the demand of a customer then a connection between

the demand and the offered product can be developed. The quality is characterized by the

benefits that a product has from a customer perspective (Sickel 2013, 5). Meffert et al. (2015,

292) presented several dimensions that quality has inherent. There are functional

characteristics, the durability, reliability, equipment and compliance of norms which are

aspects of quality. Moreover, additional service-oriented quality components, such as

customer support, trustworthiness and the degree of customization, should be involved.

The benefit is also affected by transaction costs which customers have to cope with (Beutin

2013, 4-8). Thus, benefits compete with efforts (Beutin 2013, 9). Customer benefits can be

categorized in diverse ways. There are several factors that are decisive for a company’s

success. A technological leadership is not the exclusive key factor for obtaining a long-term

and sustainable position in the market (Backhaus 2003). Besides product-specific benefits,

there are relevant factors that deal rather with actions of the company. Those can be for

example the service during the whole product lifecycle, flexibility or customization. There is a

necessity that different categories of benefits are taken into consideration. For obtaining those

categories in a sufficient way, as said, the buyer and seller perspective have to be included

(Werani 2012, 88). How those are implemented in the project of Keba, is shown in the empirical

section of the thesis.

The buying process is a complex activity which requires time, due to the already mentioned

threat of monetary losses when making wrong decisions. The person or people who are in

charge of the buying decision are responsible for gathering information of suppliers, as well as

for assessing the providers. Next to that, finding out the level of satisfaction, which customers

have with their current suppliers, is relevant. This refers to the performance of their suppliers

and the bought product (Hassan et al. 2010). Hassan et al. (2010, 4) classified diverse

purchase situations. The customer company can be in need of a new product due to changing

requirements. This can result in an intensive search for information about offered alternatives.

14

Another situation could be that the customer is aware of a need for quality improvements which

would go along with the change of the current supplier. This circumstance can arise from a

dissatisfaction with the current provider. A further classification is re-buys, which are set due

to internal company requirements and adapted to changing conditions. This situation is

common for buying situations that require little information because of repeat purchases.

According to Quayle (2001), having a guaranteed, stable delivery and reducing the price have

a main impact on the decision whether to look for a new supplier or not.

The need for action reflects how crucial individual people see the undertaking. If the solution

that the selling company provides, fits to achieving one’s personal goals than this person will

probably see a greater need for action. The business goals express what individuals regard

as success factors of the investment made. The objectives of the individuals can be connected

with the project itself. Of course, there are as well drivers that motivate individuals to see a

high need for acting towards a purchase, such as gaining power or obtaining superior control

(Sickel 2013). According to Sickel (2013, 16), those personal goals that individuals want to

achieve, should not be used in the communication of benefits. Those rather serve as

background knowledge about the potential customer. As several times addressed, a seller’s

product should support the customer in solving problems. For this reason, it is also of

importance to find out the reasons for customer’s objections to the product. This ensures a

better understanding of the customer requirements and, moreover, the seller can better

accommodate the needs of the customers (Sickel 2013).

Finally, there is the question about the decision criteria, which includes aspects such as

security, functionality and much more. Those factors are of high significance and have to be

taken into consideration particularly at the beginning of the acquisition phase (Sickel 2013).

Sickel (2013, 26) developed a model which he ascribed high significance in the communication

with potential or existing customers. The model consists of orientation questions and questions

about problems, consequences and solutions. Orientation questions should serve as initial

questions, for identifying the situation in which a potential customer currently is. Subsequently,

questions about problems help to identify problems. The assumed needs should emerge from

those two question categories. Afterwards, customers can be confronted with questions about

consequences, which should direct the customers’ attention to the existing problem. This in

turn, leads to solution questions. Ideally, the respondent then expresses a concrete demand.

With this knowledge, the seller can then communicate the benefits of the own offered product

or solution (Sickel 2013). In addition to that, it is of importance for the marketing and product

management because this approach helps on the one hand, to collect new data and on the

other hand, to use the data for further marketing actions. As a result, those data can also be

used for further product development projects. Consequently, the data collected, provide

15

valuable insights for different departments in the company. As already mentioned, this is not

realizable with standardized questionnaires but it is meaningful for further dialogues when

having direct contact to potential interest groups. Possibly, the structure with orientation

questions, problem questions, questions about consequences and solutions cannot be always

followed completely. However, the approach of Sickel (2013) provides an interesting guide for

face-to-face dialogues with prospective and established clients.

To sum up this paragraph, Sickel (2013, 69) provided a graphic representation which deals

with targeting benefits.

Moreover, Sickel (2013, 69) identified the following five steps that are below illustrated:

1. Definition of the customer problem (potential or real one)

2. What are the effects of the problem?

3. Which departments are concerned?

4. Which benefit does the solution of the problem offers?

5. Discussion and strategy development with the customer

16

Human Resources

Sales Marketing Management Controlling IT

Those steps are of importance for answering a part of the research questions. In particular,

this addresses the first research question which deals with the factors that motivate customers

to change the current supplier and search for a new solution. The implemented research,

presented in the third chapter, partially involves this approach and developed questions of

Sickel (2013).

Another aspect are the so-called unique selling propositions, which makes a company’s offer

distinguishable from competing firms. In view of value-based marketing, they are not

necessarily based on desires that customers mentioned explicitly (Sickel 2013, 17). According

to Sickel (2013), those are rather fixed from company side, which means that the company

communicates own set USP’s externally. From a customer’s point of view a USP is given, if

the criteria that affect the one’s own decision are aligned with the advantages of the company’s

offer.

There is not only one correct procedure for developing benefit arguments. On the one hand,

there are those arguments that should show, how the product could help the potential

customer and on the other hand, there are arguments that present how the product should

supply real needs. There are some requirements that are necessary for the initial phase of

customer acquisition. First it has to be clear which information is needed from potential

customers, which references does the company dispose of and which benefit arguments can

Customer problem with the

currently used solution

Diverse

consequences Company

departments Different benefits

Evaluation

Figure 1: Target benefits (Sickel 2013, 69)

17

be used. Moreover, it has to be determined, how the company could support the customer’s

company and in which areas this is possible. The right conversation partners have to be found,

their goals have to be understood and the right benefit communication has to be developed.

Ensuring a direct and concise argumentation, especially at the first conversation, is considered

particularly important (Sickel 2013, 70-72). There are different strategies how the company’s

offer can be sold. It is not needed to mention all these strategies in this project.

In industrial markets with highly specialized sectors the offered solutions can be quite similar.

Thus, it is challenging to stand out from the mass. The customer has to perceive a product as

superior that it actually obtains this status. The indirect strategy is a better choice in markets

where it is very challenging to gain a superior position. The indirect strategy emphasis on the

needs of customers. The importance of customers’ needs is stressed within this work several

times. Through the indirect approach, an understanding of customers’ needs should be

achieved and connections can be then developed. Implementing this strategy, involves

collecting comprehensive information about the potential clients and the identification of real

needs of customers through face-to-face interactions. The effort of pursuing this strategy is

higher but more meaningful for both parties. The selling company can profit from getting to

know more about the problems that a customer has to deal with. This might help to eliminate

some of the competitors and, moreover, a decreasing price sensitivity of potential customers.

Furthermore, the selling company is able to obtain valuable data for developing concrete

benefit arguments that are aligned with the customer’s needs (Sickel 2013). Thus, the strategy

described from Sickel (2013) is of importance for this work as it is connected with the derived

research questions and supports in solving them.

To sum up the main aspects of value and benefit proposition in business markets, it is of high

relevance to consider the value generation from supplier and customer side simultaneously

and not solely from one side. Moreover, value should be considered as the resulting element

when comparing costs with benefits of a certain alternative. Certainly, both sides, suppliers

and customers aim at a value maximization (Werani 2012, 50-54).

2.4. Methods for identifying customer benefits

The scope of the project is limited to Keba. Nevertheless, it is necessary to follow the activities

of other companies in the market because competition never sleeps. Alternative offers should

be considered when developing marketing actions. Those include all offers that a potential

customer looks at and which influence the decision-making process. The methods that are

described in the following part, are useful for the idea generation process for new and existing

18

products. One-on-one interviews as well as group interviews offer the possibility to identify

customer requirements and also to verify whether the company can fulfill those needs with the

current products and services or not (Jolibert et al. 2012).

2.4.1. Means-end-method

Reynolds and Olson (2001) took a look at the fundamentals of the means-end-analysis. As

previously mentioned, it is assumed that customers have business-related problems which

they want to solve. Therefore, customers have to make decisions to achieve their own set

objectives and fulfill their needs (Reynolds & Olson 2001). Thus, deciding on a certain offer

happens due to a particular reason or rather a purpose (Jolibert et al. 2012, 8). Customers

concentrate on the effects of their decisions as well. If they purchase a certain good, the

outcome should be the solution to their problem and fulfill their needs. This is an outstanding

factor in the decision process when using the means-end method. A main point that

characterizes the means-end-analysis, is the focus on the ties between the attributes, the

benefits or consequences that are provided to a customer by the attributes and the values.

Through those ties a meaning can be recognized, which helps to understand the customers’

motives for the purchase. In terms of consequences, there are positive and negative ones to

distinguish. Positive consequences represent customer benefits. Therefore, in general, it can

be assumed that potential customers search for positive consequences (Reynolds & Olson

2001).

Reynolds and Olson (2001) investigated how means-end-chains can help a company and all

people within the company, to understand how a customer’s decision process is functioning.

They considered two questions that are of main interest for their research. Firstly, the question

about the main selection criteria for a specific offer among alternatives and secondly, the

reason for their superior relevance was taken into consideration. According to Reynolds and

Olson (2001), it is vital to regard a marketing related problem whose roots are customers’

choices.

Reynolds and Olson (2001) regarded four questions as essential, for making effective use of

the means-end-analysis. The first question is about identifying the people who belong to the

target group of the company which is also part of the derived research question. The second

question aims at finding out the consumption behavior of the target group. A further question

deals with the situation where target customers behave in this way and the last question

concentrates on the relevant alternative offers that influence their buying decision. It should be

investigated which are the crucial decision criteria why customers decide for a specific product

19

and not alternative offers in the market. The benefit from answering these questions lies in

gaining as much concrete information as possible, which can be useful for the means-end-

method (Reynolds & Olson 2001).

As described earlier, one of the main actions is to identify the most relevant criteria, which

motivate a potential customer to choose a certain offer and company. Moreover, there is a

necessity to involve potential customers in a situation where they are in a decision process.

The context of those situations has to be understood. This contains the lifestyle, culture and

other aspects. Moreover, the competitors’ offers have to be kept in mind as they impact the

decision of customers. Their importance can be inquired through including them in a question

in the survey. Obviously, the choice of competitors that are included in the survey also

influences the outcome (Reynolds & Olson 2001).

As also previously mentioned, Hassan et al. (2010, 2) pointed out that “the geographical

situation, the company size, the offered support, the business relationships and adaptability of

the supplier” are crucial factors on which a company’s buying decision is based on. These

factors were considered in the development of the questionnaire.

2.4.1.1. Attribute

By definition, attributes on their own do not have consequences inherent, which is of high

importance to keep in mind. There has to be a connection to customers that they become

relevant. Connecting attributes with one or more consequences happens through consumers

for example when purchasing a product (Reynolds & Olson 2001).

2.4.1.2. Benefit/Consequence

There are diverse types which are distinguishable. Consequences which become directly

visible after a purchase of a product are functional consequences. Moreover, there are

psychological consequences such as recognition which rest on a more personal level

(Reynolds & Olson 2001). Henriksson (2014, 4) defined benefits as a “result of a process”. “A

benefit does not arise spontaneously, there is always a source, and the source is located in

the product features” (Henriksson, 2014, 4).

Moreover, Henriksson (2014) mentioned that becoming aware of the benefits helps to

understand how focusing on the product differs from focusing on customers. This is an

essential point because in the end it only counts whether the prospective customers regard

20

the communicated benefits as an incentive to buy the product or service or not. How relevant

specific consequences for individuals are, is connected with set objectives and values. In

addition, Reynolds and Olson (2001) revealed that consequences are only essential to the

extent that they help customers’ reaching their goals (Reynolds & Olson 2001).

The following subchapter describes the meaning of values in more detail. Among other

aspects, the means-end-analysis should support in figuring out the ties between benefits and

values. Especially, the strongest ties should be determined, which demonstrate the most

significant benefits for potential customers (Reynolds & Olson 2001).

2.4.1.3. Terminal value

The terminal value stands for the desired end state that a customer wants to achieve with, for

example, the purchase of a product (Leão & Mello 2007). Reynolds & Olson (2011) described

them also as life goals such as security. However, as later shown in the chart, a split of values

into terminal and instrumental values is appropriate when using the means-end-approach.

Terminal values are perceived as more important for customers than instrumental values

because they refer to preferred end states. The difference will be shown in the later discussed

laddering method.

2.4.1.4. Process description

For identifying means-end-chains several aspects have to be taken into consideration. The

abstraction level of the means-end approach involves concrete and abstract attributes,

functional and socio-psychological consequences and terminal and instrumental values

(Herrmann & Huber 2013). The interrelation of these components is shown in the following

graph.

Decision making of individuals is premised on benefits which lead to reaching values such as

accomplishing specific goals (Reynolds & Olson, 2001). It can be assumed that potential

consumers consciously think about consequences about diverse alternative offers. Positive

and negative ones are included in this reflection. It is clear that people strive for the highest

amount of positive benefits when they make their decision for a specific offer. Therefore, the

means-end approach is suitable for finding out more about the determining decision-making

criteria of individuals. Choice criteria comprise benefit chains, which are split into the diverse

abstraction levels that were mentioned. After identifying those criteria, the reason for their

21

importance should be detected. Later, the collected data can be utilized for concrete marketing

activities or rather strategies (Reynolds & Olson, 2001).

The means-end-concept should ease the grasp of potential customers’ decision making. In

order to identify the reasons why customers choose one specific product, it is also reasonable

to determine positive aspects which consumers associate with a certain brand or company

(Reynolds & Olson 2001).

Know-How about the

product

Know-How about oneself

in interaction with the

product knowledge

Abstraction levels of the means-end approach

Main components

Figure 2: Means-End-Approach (Herrmann & Huber 2013, 181)

Reynolds and Olson (2001) gave a short description of the meaning of the means-end

approach. The end depicts the personal relevant aspects, such as specific goals, which were

already discussed before. The chain simply unifies attributes, consequences and/or benefits

and values to a complete whole.

The means-end-method has certain restrictions, such as the circumstance that potential

contributing influencers on decision making cannot be incorporated. Those are for instance of

emotional natures and might impact a decision. Another limitation of the means-end-concept

is that in general the collected data might not be associated with certain brands. This limits the

research, as preferences for a specific brand might not be identified (Reynolds & Olson 2001).

Features Value

expectations

Benefit

components

Terminal

values

Instrumental

values

Social/psycological

consequences

Functional

attributes

Abstract

attributes

Concrete

attributes

22

Connected with the means-end-method, the laddering technique is a practical tool for

collecting benefit and value expectations (Jolibert et al. 2012). The next subchapter provides

a deeper examination of this technique.

2.4.1.5. Laddering method

Jolibert et al. (2012, 9-11) dealt with different tools which are in connection with value creation.

The laddering technique is somehow based on the means-end-theory. The starting point of

the laddering technique is the assumption that a specific product is bought due to positive

consequences which potential customers associate with this product. This in turn leads to the

satisfaction of desired values which is an ultimate criterion whether a product will be purchased

or not. Hence, those values highly influence the consumption patterns. The significance of

values was already mentioned in the value concept (Jolibert et al. 2012).

The laddering technique targets on figuring out the cause of the importance of the connections

among “attributes and consequences”. It means that negative and positive ties have an impact

on the selection of a product or brand. For this reason, an advantage of the laddering is that it

allows a better grasp of consumers compared to a usual questionnaire (Smith & Albaum 2005).

There are different opportunities how to implement this method. However, in general laddering

works through interviews. Those can be either face-to-face or in a written form. The

respondents have to define product specific, service-related or also business-specific features

which are regarded as substantial from their own point of view. Those serve as a fundament

for the laddering method. In order that respondents are able to answer appropriately, it is

reasonable to provide an initial situation which should explain a certain circumstance such as

a buying situation. Through this action it should be ensured that the answers can be better

contrasted and it is less complex to create ties. During the interaction features can be

presented. Then a feature is taken and the interviewee is asked to tell why this feature is

essential for him. This step is carried out for all the features. It can also happen that a

respondent mentions further features, which come to his mind, in addition to thinking about

positive consequences of the individual predefined features. This procedure is carried out until

the respondent cannot identify reasons for the importance of an individual characteristic

anymore. In this case, all arguments for this single feature should preferably be identified for

this respondent. This is realized for all respondents and all features (Jolibert et al. 2012). The

following graph shows the implemented steps in the laddering process.

23

Figure 3: Laddering process (Kaciak & Cullen 2006)

24

The table below shows an example of using laddering in an interview.

Abstraction level Example

Terminal values Self-esteem

↑ ↑

Instrumental values To be perceived by others

↑ ↑

Socio psychological consequences Others consider me to be very extraordinary

↑ ↑

Functional consequences Easy to handle

↑ ↑

Abstract attributes Good quality

↑ ↑

Concrete attributes Price

Table 1: Example of a laddering procedure (Jolibert et al. 2012, 10)

In this example, the price was chosen as a concrete attribute. The price is commonly

associated with quality. With an increasing price people usually associate a good quality. Good

quality can be considered as an abstract attribute. A high quality could also be connected with

a simple handling of the product which can be defined as a functional consequence. Moreover,

superior quality can be associated with being considered as extraordinary, which depicts a

socio-psychological consequence. This can subsequently lead to being perceived by others,

which could be defined as instrumental value. Finally, self-esteem can be reached (Jolibert et

al. 2012).

25

2.4.2. FAB analysis (features, advantages, benefits)

Potential customers often do not notice the real benefit which a product can offer them, until

they are provided with a practical solution for their problem or need. A company can therefore

benefit from analyzing the own “features, advantages and benefits” (Clark 2012). A condition

is that solely benefits with a personal relevance are considered. The point is that potential

customers have individual needs and through the product, diverse benefits should be offered

(Wasson 2012). The benefit rests on concrete marketing messages and is associated with

sharpening the company’s position in the market. Thus, concrete statements should be

developable out of this method (Clark 2012).

2.4.2.1. Definition

There are three main components of this method which have to be explained.

Features

First, there are the features. Those include the characteristics of the product, service or the

business itself (Clark 2012). In general, “features are free from value, they simply depict the

characteristics” (Sickel 2013, 6). Identifying features is the least complex part of analyzing the

three components (Newman 2001).

Advantages

Secondly, there are advantages which also refer to product specific and company-specific

aspects. Advantages are a description of “what the features do” (Clark 2012). They are not

automatically customized to a single customer’s requirements (Clark 2012). The essential

point is that those are from a company’s perspective and should highlight how the supplier and

product are able to support a potential buyer (Newman 2001). The FAB model is characteristic

for the distinction of advantages and benefits. However, Newman (2001) underlined the fact

that advantages could be possible benefits. Advantages have a greater persuasion than

features, according to Newman (2001) and Sickel (2013, 7). Hewett (2009) added that

advantages could be regarded as those components that competitors do not have. In this

context, advantages are solely based on the assumed demand but not on the actual demand

(Sickel 2013, 7).

26

Benefits

Finally, there are the benefits that were already discussed in previous chapters. Those have

the purpose of linking the characteristics of a product with a solution that can be provided for

the customer. These connections make it more tangible for a customer, why buying this

specific product fits the own needs (Clark 2012). Sickel (2013) described benefits as those

which illustrate how features or advantages cover the demand of the customer. A prerequisite

is that, the actual needs from customer side and the demand can be satisfied (Sickel 2013, 9).

In addition, Newman (2001, 50) described two requirements how to transfer advantages to

benefits. On the one hand, the advantages have to be of personal relevance for potential

consumers and on the other hand, they have to be connected with the needs that customers

have. Therefore, it is about the value proposition that the benefits can supply (Hewett 2009,

230).

2.4.2.2. Process description

As mentioned above, through the FAB analysis more concrete and adapted marketing

messages should be developed. There is an instruction how to achieve this. In the beginning,

all product characteristics that are of relevance have to be collected and preferably they should

be put on a list. Then one or more advantages for every single characteristic should be

mentioned. Subsequently, it is necessary to regard it from a customer perspective. Every

identified advantage of a characteristic should be connected with a benefit. A careful and in-

depth analysis of which benefits are associated with previously defined advantages is crucial

for the process. As a final step it is necessary to regard the link in the reverse direction. This

refers to the question “how to achieve the individual benefit” which should be cleared for every

single benefit for developing targeted marketing messages (Clark 2012).

In addition to the described step-to-step guide of Clark (2012), Newman (2001, 50) also

suggested several steps for the FAB approach. Of high importance is initially the cooperation

with potential customers for identifying their requirements. Furthermore, in the company there

has to be awareness about the explored consumers’ expectations as well. Moreover, the

transformation of advantages to benefits is essential. The further point is that stated features

are focused on the product and the supplier. However, for potential customers it is crucial to

find out if the benefits, which should be gained through a feature, are really able to meet the

needs. Thus, the link of benefits and features has to be comprehensible and persuasive. A

further key action is to quantify the benefits. Potential customers will only become real

27

customers if benefits are higher than the price they have to pay, which has already been

mentioned in a previous chapter (Newman 2001).

To sum up the three components, features are less impactful than advantages. Advantages

have to be transferred into real benefits. It is problematic if potential customers regard

advantages, which are defined from a supplier’s perspective, as negative. Finally, benefits are

the most influential components. However, it is necessary to inform potential customers

carefully about the connections of features, advantages and the final benefits (Newman 2001,

50).

It appears that the means-end-analysis and the features advantages benefits analysis are

quite similar. In fact there are similarities. However, there are definition based differences

between those two options.

2.4.3. Situations-alternatives-features-analysis

The situations-alternatives-features-analysis is an appropriate way of data collection, if

potential customers are not really familiar with one specific product. Through using this method

more comprehensive data about potential customers can be gathered. The respondents are

put into a situation where they should get motivated to name usage situations, product

characteristics and alternative offers that come to their mind. There are different approaches

which can be chosen. Interviews are conducted face-to-face or within group discussions. A

possible option is that a certain initial situation is predefined and interviewees or group

participants are asked to mention offers they think of, in connection with the given situation.

Afterwards, the participants should list characteristics or rather features which they associate

with the individual offers. Moreover, the respondents should contrast these offers and features

and talk about their connection to the initial situation. Furthermore, the interviews can be

started with predefining and presenting several offers and invite interviewees to think of

possible usage situations and the characteristics of the predetermined offers as well. Of

course, this method can also be started with providing defined features and ask for possible

offers and the situation where they can be used. Which of these possible approaches is most

appropriate, is influenced by a company’s interests in the data collection. After the interviews

a content analysis has to be carried out. The answers are put into categories and those are

provided with some keywords. The analyses are in general a complex process. To find out the

ties between arguments, the distances of the categories within the transcribed interviews and

the amount of these connections is regarded (Jolibert et al. 2012, 11-12).

28

Usually, if a certain product is chosen among the available alternatives, it is due to the features

that this product has inherent. In situations where customers have to decide for a product or

service they start to contrast the features of the possible product options. However, it is a

challenging method as there is no information about the experience of customers. This is only

identifiable within direct conversations (Raghavarao et al. 2010).

2.4.4. Critical reflection on the qualitative methods and method selection

This chapter provides a closer look at the three discussed methods and their usefulness for

this project of Keba. Those methods were analyzed according to their potential of fulfilling the

necessary prerequisites, for solving the problem definition. For this, different criteria were

developed, according to the initial situation and objectives of the project as well as the derived

research questions. The added graphic further below, represents a comparison between the

three analyzed qualitative research methods which were investigated. The chapter involves a

reflection on the three previously described methods.

Criteria selection for choosing a method

Seven different criteria were derived from the literature and from the problem definition, in

order to evaluate the different methods. Finding out whether the currently defined product and

service related arguments are aligned with the real customer needs or not, requires the

identification of product advantages, benefits and value expectations. Those have to be

Figure 4: Situations-Alternatives-Features (Jolibert et al. 2012, 11-12))

29

gathered, to be able to find out how customers rate those internal predefined arguments. For

this reason they were used as criteria. For further product innovations it can also be valuable

to look for new product features that the current product perhaps does not have inherent.

Therefore, the identification of new attributes was selected as criteria for the comparison of

the methods. In order to understand how important the current features of a considered

product or service are, predefined attributes are evaluated. Moreover, to derive the relevant

decision factors it is important to identify the relations between benefits and the defined

features. In addition, it is always valuable to gather information about the competitors in the

market and, thus, the alternative offers. Finally, it is useful to gather arguments when

considering specific situations where the product or service can be used. This should ease

the process through providing a practical situation.

To sum up, the three methods were analyzed based on those initially derived research

questions:

What activates a customer to think about a new automation system/-generation? Which

factors play an important role in the decision process?”

Are the current defined KeControl Flexcore customer benefits aligned with the real needs of

potential customers?”

Which people should be reached at the typical KeControl Flexcore customer? With which

messages / promises will we reach the potential customer?

“Which sources of information do KeControl Flexcore consumers use, in order to inform

themselves about new products and evaluate new suppliers?”

Due to the emphasis of this project, there were some final limitations in the results because

not all of the initially developed research questions were integrated into the qualitative and

quantitative methods. However, this didn’t have a great impact on the final chosen and

implemented research methods.

Critical reflection on the methods based on the selected criteria

Features-advantages-benefits-analysis

Referring to the problem definition, there is a necessity to identify new features or attributes

that are product specific or connected to the company. Using the features advantages benefits

method does not target on identifying new attributes, which are of relevance for future product

30

innovations. The emphasis is rather on determining the linkage between benefits and features

(Clark 2012).

A highly important criterion that the FAB method fulfills, is the evaluation of predefined

attributes which also focuses on the second research question. A further criterion is the

identification of benefit expectations and values. The procedure of the features-advantages-

benefits analysis comprises the presentation of product features which are then connected

with potential benefits from customer side. The features-advantages benefits analysis fulfills

the fourth criterion of identifying product advantages and focuses on the advantages of one

specific product (Clark 2012).

However, it is a vague split between advantages and benefits. Advantages are, as described

before, defined from company side. Only if advantages match with customer requirements

they are converted into benefits (Clark 2012). Furthermore, it is a prerequisite for solving the

research questions, to link product features with consumer needs and expectations and vice

versa. The approach of features-advantages-benefits focuses on creating links between

features and benefits in order to identify whether features are really relevant or not and the

reason for their importance (Clark 2012). However, the method does not take alternative offers

into consideration and does not deal with specific situations where to use a given product.

Situations-alternatives-features

The situations-alternatives-features method aims at identifying new company-related and

product-specific attributes as well. The situations-alternatives-features analysis does not

specifically deal with the evaluation of predefined attributes but rather on usage situations of

specific alternative products due to their features. In addition, the approach only deals with

combining situations with alternatives and their features or in another order, depending on the

selected initial condition but not on connecting benefits with features. For example, if a usage

situation is predefined, product alternatives and the needed features are defined without a

deeper focus on which benefits specific products have. The situations-alternatives-features

method covers diverse product alternatives which are analyzed concerning individual features

and connected with special usages situations. Thus, the criteria for considering different usage

situations are fulfilled.

Means-end-analysis

The means-end-analysis does not target on finding out new attributes. However, there is

potential to identify new attributes as it is in a certain way a method for brainstorming.

31

Predefined attributes are taken into consideration with the aim of finding out the reason for

their significance. The means-end-analysis considers product features which are then

connected with potential benefits from a customer’s point of view. Means-end-chains are

based on the linkage of attributes and benefits. The method does not consider offers that are

provided by competitors. Using a concrete practical situation, makes it easier to develop

transparent means-end-chains.

The mentioned limitation of the means-end-analysis that the method is not brand related

(Reynolds & Olson 2001), is not necessarily only a disadvantage. It can also be regarded as

a chance of getting more neutral data from a customer’s perspective and requirements without

being focused on specific brands. Moreover, a main aspect is that personally relevant factors

can be identified, which goes along with finally a more targeted benefit argumentation and

effective positioning. Making use of personal interactions, and especially the concept of

“digging deeper”, supports the determination of relevant factors in the decision process for a

product which is a further advantage of the means-end-concept. Those gained insights are

profitable for the positioning strategy (Burkhardt & Göpel 2010, 12).

Selection of method

Referring to Reynolds & Olson (2001), the means-end-analysis is exactly for this research

project an appropriate method to comprehend a customer’s decision. Moreover, the

comparison and reflection on the three regarded methods above, lead to the choice of the

means-end-analysis as an appropriate method. As described in subchapter 2.4.1, Reynolds

and Olson (2001) highlighted a vital advantage of the means-end-analysis, as it helps to

identify why potential customers chose a product. It is about how individuals rate certain

selection criteria. This is of high importance for becoming aware of the consumers’

preferences, as the buying decision is significantly influenced by individual preferences for

specific companies and their products. This is a determinant factor for selecting the means-

end-analysis as it aligned with the first two research questions which were derived and

explained in chapter one. In addition, the means-end-analysis is an appropriate way for

gathering primary data. Means-end chains can support internally to think out of the box as the

interviewed employees should not only focus at the selling arguments that come to their mind

but also regard the situation from another perspective and come up with values and motives

that customers can think of.

32

Method Identification of new

attributes

Evaluation of predefined

attributes

Identifying benefit

expectations and

values

Identification of

advantages of the

product

Features-Advantages-

Benefits

Situations-Alternatives-

Features

Means-End-Analysis

• Laddering

Method Connecting attributes and benefit

expectations

Consideration of alternatives

(competitors) Usage situations

Features-Advantages-

Benefits

Situations-Alternatives-

Features

Means-End-Analysis

• Laddering

Table 2: Comparison of qualitative research methods for data collection (self-developed)

33

2.5. Approaches for structuring customer benefits

There are one-dimensional and multidimensional approaches for structuring customer

benefits. One-dimensional approaches are limited on the economic aspect such as the price.

Being the price leader is no guarantee of becoming a market leader as well. Considering

multidimensional approaches is more appropriate for this project. This involves regarding more

than one level of customer benefits (Beutin 2000). According to Beutin (2000, 30), there is no

general consensus about the different levels of benefits. Those are highly influenced by the

market sector and customers. An older approach for structuring customer benefits divides

benefits into core benefits and additional benefits which has still relevance (Beutin 2000, 30).

As also mentioned in previous chapters, there is often a focus on quality in connection with

customer benefits. Of course quality is a main aspect, when talking about the benefits, which

should be offered to customers. As already mentioned before, it is not only valuable to focus

on aspects that are product specific but also take into consideration other factors. For this

purpose, business relations should be involved as well. Especially long-term relations are of

high importance in business to business markets. Thus, quality based and relationship-related

aspects should be incorporated (Beutin 2000).

In order to get a more comprehensive view of the levels of customer benefits, several

dimensions of benefits are illustrated below (Werani 2012, 88-93).

34

Author Benefit levels

Lapierre (2000)

product: quality, customization

service: flexibility, reliability

relationship: reputation, basis of trust, loyalty

Petrick (2002).

service quality as a benefit

reputation

emotional benefit

Plinke (2000).

benefit of product bundles

benefit through increasing know-how

economic benefits e.g. cost decreases

Wildemann (2003)

quality

business relationships

short delivery time & reliability

process improvement

service

optimized products

Table 3: Different approaches for structuring customer benefits (Werani 2012; Gärtner & Riegler-Klinger 2009, 29)

Lapierre (2000, 122-134) investigated three service sectors, namely information,

communication, entertainment (ICE), finance and distribution. The study emphasizes on

industrial customers who have to evaluate value drivers. The 16 guided interviews of Lapierre

(2000) included among others an assessment of differences in customer value from a buyer

and seller perspective, the action how to offer a customer perceived value and to provide more

value, competitors’ products and the customer requirements. Moreover, partially respondents

were asked to explain the own value drivers. Results of the author’s research can be divided

into product, service and relation related value drivers. Lapierre (2000) separated the value

based drivers into benefits and sacrifice. Lapierre (2000, 125) determined “alternative

solutions”, “product quality” and “product customization” as product-specific benefits.

“Responsiveness”, “flexibility” and “technical competence” represented service-related

benefits. Identified relation related benefits are “technical competence,”, “trust” and “supplier

solidarity with customers”. As already mentioned, Lapierre (2000, 125) also considered

sacrifices, came up with the “price” as product and service related sacrifice and “time”, “effort”,

35

“energy”, and “conflict” as relationship related sacrifice and the results have shown that

customers of diverse segments evaluated most value drivers in a similar way (Lapierre, 2000,

133). Lapierre’s (2000, 134) investigations revealed insight into the perspective of customers

on the different value drivers of the “total value proposition”.

Wildemann (2003, 210-212) emphasized on the value concept in the industrial goods market.

Of importance in Wildemann’s research is the aim of identifying customer benefits but also

developing and communicating benefits. The focus should be on business relationships with

a long-term orientation, which was also emphasized by Beutin (2000). “The benefit that a

customer ascribes to the companies’ product, depends on how the quality and price is

perceived” (Wildemann (2003, 211). Economic benefits are vital in the industrial sector. The

quality aspect, which was mentioned before, refers to several different aspects. For example,

high quality can be associated with less additional costs which would arise with low-quality

products. Long-term availability, which guarantees a certain security level, represents a

potential benefit for the customer as well. Similar to Lapierre (2000), Wildemann (2003) also

mentioned the flexibility of a supplier as a further customer benefit. This is an important aspect

because of the rapid changes in the market. Besides the product itself, additional services are

potential benefits. In addition, Wildemann (2003) described the relationship as a potential

source of benefit.

The following table shows an exemplary customer benefit structuration according to

Wildemann (2003, 212).

36

complete solution

/coordination ability brand benefit

reduction of

material costs high quality material

service orientation

developing customer benefits

relationship benefits

product

optimization

secured delivery

capacity

process

optimization

flexibility (product,

service,…)

satisfy assembly

requirements short delivery

Table 4: Customer benefits in the industrial sector (Wildemann 2003, 212)

Several authors, such as Lapierre (2000), specialized on the perspective of customers and

identifying the value drivers from their point of view.

The approaches described above are just a few examples of the discussed concepts within

literature. However, those highlight the different perspectives of customer benefits and the

non-existing consensus. The company’s course of action depends on several determinants

such as the sector, the regarded product or service and the target customers. Thus, the

implemented work deviates from the surveys of the literature sources. However, those are of

relevance for obtaining an insight into the topic and especially to obtain a broader knowledge

about potential value drivers which are connected with customer benefits (Lapierre 2000).

Moreover, it is interesting to illustrate these different approaches and compare them with the

defined arguments in the following empirical part.

37

3. Empirical part: Implementation

In general, the empirical part consists of two main research methods, namely the qualitative

means-end-analysis and the quantitative external and internal conducted questionnaires.

Moreover, the results out of those interviews are discussed.

3.1. Identification of customer benefits – internal

In order to identify the relevant customer benefits internally, the means-end-analysis was

implemented. Sub-chapter 2.4.1 and sub-chapter 2.4.4 contain detailed information about the

selected method.

The main target of this internal qualitative data collection as well as the quantitative external

and internal conducted surveys was to specify the selling arguments and the positioning of

KeControl FlexCore.

Before the actual implementation of the means-end-analysis, a test approach was carried out.

Within those meetings, we gathered data about KeControl Flexcore. Those included product

and system characteristics and use and value expectations. Afterwards, the data were used

for developing a table with means-end chains. Certainly, those data are solely from an internal

perspective. However, the gathered insights should serve as a basic framework for developing

the means-end-analysis through internal interviews and the further external data collection

through potential customers.

In the implementation phase of the means-end-analysis, the previously mentioned questions

of Reynolds and Olson (2001), which should serve as a frame for the method, were partly

included. However, within the implemented analysis there was no focus on the competitors’

offers. Moreover, in the practical implementation of the means-end-analysis the specific

background of every individual respondent was rather neglected as only employees of Keba

were included and the focus was on KeControl FlexCore and Keba. Nevertheless, the

employees’ position within the company Keba was taken into consideration when selecting the

sample size for the internal interviews.

3.1.1. Internal focus groups

As mentioned above, a condition for the selection of individual employees was their know-how

of the market and KeControl FlexCore. The first step of the internal survey was to develop an

interview guide. This guide was also used as a handout for the employees.

38

The content includes the following points:

The aim of the survey

Procedure (Explanation of the means-end-analysis and the reason why it is chosen)

Example of a means-end-chain for illustration purposes

Scenario description (The respondents should put themselves into the position of a

customer)

Open questions (Taking into consideration the pre-defined means-end-chains)

Through internal interviews arguments for the means-end-table were collected. For this, we

also considered the currently defined arguments. Employees should mention arguments

without focusing on the already defined arguments for KeControl FlexCore. The internally

predefined points were taken into consideration if the interviewed employees were not able to

mention further points. Throwing in new arguments should support in stimulating the

discussion.

The predefined initial situation motivated employees to put themselves in the position of a

customer. They should imagine that they are looking for a new control system. There are

several providers in the market from whom they can choose. The aim of this was, to encourage

respondents to think out of the box and answer the questions with a broader view and not

focusing solely on KeControl FlexCore.

The internal interview included questions about the characteristics and functions that are

relevant for the purchase, as well as the benefits of these features and the reason why those

are important. A respondent should try to connect a single characteristic with as many

arguments or benefits as possible, in order to receive possible underlying motives. This was

implemented in the form of an open discussion between the employees. To make sure that all

necessary points are caught, all the answers were recorded and collected by two people and,

of course, the respondents were informed about that beforehand. Afterwards, both

documentations were matched in order to receive an aligned information base and the

interviews were transcribed.

The following part shows the structure of the internal qualitative study.

39

Internal survey at Keba for employees

Goal:

The aim is on specifying the positioning and the current defined sales arguments for KeControl

FlexCore, in order to identify the real benefit arguments from the customer side.

Procedure:

A test run of the means-end-analysis has already been implemented in order to get an

overview which features can be connected with which consequences, benefits and customer

values. With the means-end-analysis, the relation between product specific features and the

real customer preferences should be identified. The aim of this investigation is to gain an

insight into the possible motives and values of prospective customers, to figure out the drivers

for buying a specific product.

Example:

The following illustrates one example of a means-end-chain. As employees of Keba

participated in the study, they were asked to name important features. “Why”-questions were

posed in order to receive the justification for the relevance of certain features.

Description of the situation:

Imagine being in the search for a new automation system provider, due to the need for a new

control system. There are several suppliers on the market.

Which product features and functions are of high relevance when thinking about the purchase

of a new control system?

What are the most important arguments to decide on a specific system and why are those

arguments crucial?

Features Consequence Expected values

Industry 4.0

features

New features in IT

available at KEBA (e.g.

solutions for remote

maintenance, OPC UA)

A customer does

not have to build up

resources for it

Time saving

40

3.1.2. Structuring customer benefits

In order to connect the theoretical discussed approaches for structuring customer benefits with

the empirical analysis, it was meaningful to take a close look at the data of the internal

conducted interviews. In order to obtain an insight into the dimensions of customer benefits,

the internally collected data had to be assessed and structured. This included all features, key

benefits and value expectations. The goal of this structuration was to find out the origin of the

benefits.

As mentioned before, the internal conducted interviews were recorded, to catch all valuable

information. In order to consider all collected data, those transcripts were incorporated. The

next step was to compare the data. Arguments that were mentioned multiple times, were

considered as more important arguments. These arguments were kept and considered in the

structuration process. Those gained arguments had to be dismembered into attributes,

consequences and value expectations. Arguments that were similar in content were grouped.

Arguments with no direct or indirect relation to other elements were deleted in order to obtain

a clear structured table. The goal of this was to receive chains where each element is closely

connected and comprehensible. Finally, a more extended table with means-end-chains was

developed (Leão et al. 2007).

Table 5 represents an extract of the arguments mentioned in internal conducted qualitative

interviews, which were carried out based on a means-end-analysis. The internal collected

arguments comprise more statements than table 5 which are presented in the appendix.

41

Characteristics Consequences /

Benefit arguments Value expectations

scalability > performance and efficiency of the system

> performance can be scaled to a higher level in future

> no worries about unavailable performance

> long-term availability of the system

> less effort for cyclical changes of the control system

manufacturer independency

>

possible transmission from platform to platform

> no additional efforts for every control generation cycle

> saving of development efforts

> the right partner can be chosen for individual tasks

> flexibility in the selection of the provider

lived partnership > partner with similar expectations

>

future developments of the supplier/partner, which are also beneficial for the customer

> security of investments

> >

long-term product availability

> product strategy of the supplier

> strategic orientation continuity of the product line, past and future

> mutually beneficial developments of the supplier/partner

> >

support, service and system configuration

>

training of own technicians (documentation and training)

> regional trainings are possible

> trainings in the country language

> >

Table 5: Results of Keba internal qualitative interviews (own conduction)

42

For structuring the customer benefits, the processed data of the means-end-analysis were

used. With reference to the considerations in the theoretical part, Lapierre (2000) divided the

obtained results into product, service and relation related benefits, which is also applicable to

the own conducted survey results. The findings of the internally implemented means-end-

analysis also give an indication of product specific, service related and relationship aspects.

For this reason, the approach of Lapierre was used to structure internal gathered benefits.

Table 6 presents main benefit arguments, additional benefit arguments connected with the

main ones and the dimension to which they mainly refer. It is necessary to mention that not all

benefit arguments are exclusively assignable to one dimension. Especially, several gathered

benefits can be assigned to the product dimension. However, the service part also takes a

high priority when analyzing KeControl FlexCore as a product and brand. The core benefits

are highlighted in the first column. The additional mentioned arguments relate to the main

benefits and can be regarded as sub-items of the benefits. Both columns represent internal

gathered benefit arguments and are, thus, connected. The third column shows the three levels

that the identified benefits were allocated to.

43

The following structuration of customer benefits is based on the internally collected data of the

means-end-analysis.

Benefit Additional mentioned arguments Dimension

flexibility step-by-step changes to the

system product

possible transfer from one

platform to another product

easier end-customer acquisition

due to standard-it-programs product

continuity due to product strategy product

high performance scalable system product

product

customization

partial exchange of system

components product

a platform where the customer’s

system and hardware is

functioning

product

general standards are useable product

mutual profitable

developments common ideas and expectations relationship

credibility service and relationship

long-term security

and support establish trust and reliability service and relationship

well trained staff country-specific trainings service

service customization concept with worldwide spare

parts availability service

Table 6: Structuring customer benefits (results of own data collection following Lapierre's concept of structuring benefits (2000, 125))

3.1.3. Analysis of benefit potentials

Within this section the processed internal gathered results were analyzed. As it appears in

table 6 which structures the customer benefits, some elements cannot be clearly defined as

service, product or relation-related aspects but are rather in between those dimensions or

associated with multiple ones. It is difficult to separate the product and service dimension as

those cannot be split from each other in certain aspects. Thus, the structuration should serve

as a first indication and not as definite. Step-by-step changes, the transferability to another

44

platform and standard IT programs, which goes along with easier acquisition of the customer’s

customer, are product-related aspects that offer flexibility. Partial system changes, giving the

customer the opportunity to use own system functions and the hardware as well as the option

to use general standards, make the product highly customized. Those can be assigned to the

product dimension. Continuity is another important factor for customers and this is reflected in

the supplier’s product strategy. High performance is also of relevance and is obtained through

the scalability of the system. Moreover, relationship-related aspects were identified. Securing

mutual profits in the long-term through common expectations and ideas between business

partners are highly valuable aspects of the relationship dimension. In addition to that,

guaranteeing a long-term secure business between the partners is established on trust and,

thus, associated with the relationship level. Credibility and long-term support makes a reliable

impression of the supplier and is built on a relationship but also service level. Of importance is

also well-trained staff which happens through country-specific trainings and is part of the

service-related activities of the company. Another point is the customization of the service

which is gained through the supplier’s concept that allows the worldwide provision of spare

parts and gives in turn additional security.

Additionally to the arguments that were collected for developing the means-end-chains,

employees came up with further valuable statements. Those are stated in the following and

solely refer to the arguments mentioned within internal interviews.

Employees highlighted that the importance of specific product features as well as value

expectations is strongly affected by the conversation partner. There can be differences in the

answering between people from a lower business level and from the top level. Lower level

employees such as technicians tend to be more skeptic towards changing a system, as they

are the ones who have to work with it. Managers tend to have a more economical view on this

topic. Regarding the conversation with potential customers, Sickel (2013) mentioned main

aspects of sales dialogs which were discussed in the theoretical part. For this reason, the

interviewed employees of Keba where asked to name the top three arguments for starting

sales dialogues, which are mentioned in the following.

To fascinate potential customers about the idea of an open control system, is seen as a main

challenge during conversations. Naming technical features should not be the main and

exclusive argumentation basis for the interaction. If there is a necessity to impress solely with

technical system details then it will get challenging to create a purchase incentive. The better

approach is to encourage the customer, to actively think about the possibilities that the product

as an open system enables. Moreover, a potential customer should get the feeling of a possible

self-realization with the product and that a long-term equipment is possible. An important

communication point is that the system provides a platform, which supports the further use of

45

reliable sources and the integration of new sources. Moreover, it should not be focused too

much on the price as it is assumed that it is in line with the market.

As the internal conducted qualitative interviews provided enough data for developing a

structured questionnaire, the process of implementing a quantitative survey needs to be

outlined, which is executed in the following sub-chapter.

3.2. Identification of customer benefits – external

The gained data of the internal interviews were processed and a means-end-table was

developed to build up connections between the data. After this step, it was necessary to

identify the external perspective and compare it with the internal view.

As a first step for receiving this outcome, lists of features and potential benefit arguments and

value expectations were created. Those are based on the internally gathered considerations

of employees and present the most important arguments.

The employees’ insights in the market and the experience with customer interactions were

taken into consideration in building up these answer categories for two closed questions. In

total there were 15 company-related and system related characteristics defined, which is

presented in the following table 7. In general, those features are based on the pre-defined

arguments that are already communicated by Keba internally and externally.

46

Following this, table 8 represents 14 selected benefit arguments and value expectations. The

reason for the unequal number of arguments was that some benefit arguments relate to more

than one feature which resulted in an unequal amount of arguments. Some defined features

are connected with the same benefit arguments.

Company related characteristics

1 Well-known, large system manufacturer

2 References of the system manufacturer

3 Services of the manufacturer (e.g. system configuration,...)

4 Worldwide presence if technological problems occur

5 Partnership

System related characteristics

6 Easy transferability of the machine technology to a new system

7 Individual expandability of the system

8 Easy change to an alternative system (manufacturer independence)

9 SW-architecture with complete SW add-on modules

10 Long-term product availability

11 Scalability of hard- and software

12 Complete standard operating system

13 Availability of the technology

14 Price

15 Backup – options and flexible configurability

Table 7: Response options for company and system related characteristics

47

Table 8: Response options for benefit arguments

Process and logical structure of identifying customer benefits externally

Several steps had to be considered to receive the aimed outcome of conducting face-to-face

interviews with a structured questionnaire. Those are presented hereafter.

For the beginning of this project, a small sample size of potential customers was defined for

conducting the first few surveys. Initially, it was important to shortly explain the purpose of the

survey to the interview partners. Moreover, it was mentioned that there is cooperation between

Keba and the Johannes-Kepler-University. The name of the respondent and the position within

the company was queried in order to identify possible dissimilarities in the way of answering

connected to the job level. The interviewees were asked in an open question to list all features

and values that are important for the buying decision for a new system. Then respondents had

to rank those arguments according to their importance on a subjective base. For rating the

arguments, a 6-digit-scale was used. This scale ranges from very important to very

unimportant. Respondents often tend to opt for the middle way, which was the reason for

selecting a 6-digit-scale in order to ensure more differentiated answers. 1 was coded as very

important and 6 as really unimportant. Subsequently, the respondents were asked about the

Benefit arguments and value expectations

1 Reusability of current machine technology / software

2 Step-by-step changes of the system

3 Use of standard IT programs

4 Realizing uniform surfaces despite different base systems

5 Use of widespread standards / interfaces (e.g. OPC UA)

6 Independence from an automation system supplier

7 Buy-out of the software

8 Diagnose options for errors

9 Future security

10 Partnership over the whole lifecycle

11 Availability of replacement devices on-site and worldwide

12 Customized service concept

13 Training of internal employees and externals (in the national language)

14 Guaranteed delivery capacity

48

general incentive for searching a new supplier, which was inquired in an open question. It was

crucial to include open questions for collecting further arguments that respondents came up

with. Moreover, it was of particular importance for gaining insights to be able to develop precise

marketing messages with which Keba can reach their potential customers. In the next step,

the main features which are listed above in table 7, were taken into consideration. The

respondents were requested to evaluate these features on a 6-digit scale. The purpose of this

was to figure out, whether the already defined arguments are aligned with the expectations of

potential customers or not. Through this it is possible to evaluate the importance of individual

features which was carried out in a later step. In the subsequent question, the benefit

arguments and value expectations listed in table 8, had to be assessed by the interviewees.

The same scale was used for rating these arguments. The respondents were asked for

differentiated evaluations of the individual answer options, based on their individual

perspective. This should help to get clearer opinions and not only one-sided results. In the last

point it was enquired, whether respondents are currently looking for a new partnership or not

and which system they are currently using. To capture relevant side aspects, a mutual

communication and answering respondents’ upcoming questions to the topic was useful as

well.

So all in all, questions one and two served for receiving personal data about each respondent.

The open questions three and five encouraged the respondent to actively think of the main

elements that trigger a buying decision. Question four should engage respondents to rate their

individual stated arguments according to their importance. The questions six and seven were

closed questions, based on the internal results of the interviews and served for evaluating

currently defined arguments of the company, the system and potential benefits of choosing

Keba and KeControl FlexCore. Finally, the questions seven and eight were created to receive

further company information of the conversation partners to assess if there are potential

business opportunities. The whole structure of the developed questionnaire including all

questions can be found in the appendix.

To create a full understanding for the just described procedure, the connection between the

internal and external data collection will be highlighted once more in the following section.

Relation between internal and external identification of customer benefits

Through the internal data collection, characteristics and potential customer benefits were

identified, processed and structured. Those arguments were used for building up and

implementing quantitative interviews. The quantitative interviews were carried out externally

and then internally.

49

Identifying customer benefits externally without regarding the internally collected data, would

limit the scope of possible answer categories and demands a more qualitative approach for

the interviews. This led to the decision for an internal and external data collection. The two

research methods were not split from each other. The internally implemented qualitative

means-end-analysis was a prerequisite for developing targeted closed answer categories for

the external quantitative survey, which takes into consideration correlations between system

characteristics, customer benefits and values. As discussed in the theoretical framework, the

value-concept constitutes the basis of this project. Identifying product and service

characteristics, benefits and potential value expectations beforehand on an internal base, was

essential to receive value-oriented answer categories for the development of the external

questionnaire. Both sides, internal and external stated arguments had to be gathered to meet

the value based approach of this project (Ulaga & Chacour 2001). Moreover, including the

internally collected data in the development and implementation of the external data collection,

was also vital for assessing the importance of predefined internal characteristics and potential

customer benefits.

The subsequent chapter presents the decisive steps for benefiting from the internally and

externally gathered information.

3.3. Data processing of internal and external collected data

Reviewing the collected data is a key part to use the information properly, to filter the essential

points and finally develop further strategies. This chapter is built upon own developed

explanations about the process and the outcomes of the implemented research methods.

Externally 14 quantitative interviews and afterwards 7 interviews internally were conducted.

Carrying out quantitative interviews also internally was done with the intention to obtain a

comparable database, for comparing internal and external collected data. Due to the small

sample size, the data obviously have a limited validity and reliability. However, they serve as

an initial indicator towards the direction of the customer’s point of view.

3.3.1. Evaluation of benefit potentials

In general, the conducted external and internal quantitative surveys have revealed that the

individual position within a buying center has an impact on the answering of the questionnaire.

These differences already arose during the external interviews on the fair. Respondents, who

are holding a position in the technical department of the company, focus on other

50

characteristics and benefits in the choice of a new supplier and system than for example those

who are from sales department or managers.

While the collected data of the questions three and five show similarities and differences in the

external and internal perspective without providing respondents with predefined arguments,

the closed questions six and seven state the opinions of respondents towards the predefined

arguments. The limitation of the two closed questions was that company and product-related

features and benefit expectations were not evaluated completely separately from each other.

In particular this means that some arguments could not be precisely assigned to either

company characteristics, product features or benefits. However, the collected data provide a

base and this division should be considered in the future data collection more precisely.

In the next step, it is essential to consider how often single arguments were mentioned and

which importance was attached to predefined arguments by respondents. Although not all of

the collected data of the questionnaires can be literally quantified, it made sense to include all

relevant results in the following section to sustain a structure.

3.3.2. Quantification of benefit potentials

A first step was taking a look at the open questions. Similar arguments were grouped together.

Afterwards, the frequency of these mentioned arguments was considered. The more often

similar arguments appeared, the more attention or importance was attached to them. Those

are viewed in more detail and visualized in this chapter.

The analysis starts with the third question which deals with the selection criteria of a new

supplier. The results present valuable arguments that customers and sales-related employees

of Keba mention independently. Specifically, the arguments that are mentioned several times

should be kept in mind. The openness of the system, building up business relationships and

receiving support were internally and externally mentioned as key factors. In addition, external

respondents indicated the price, the scalability and the modular structure of a system as

important factors. The company internal results show that the company structure and location

as well as the reliability of the company are crucial factors. For more detailed information, the

results are presented in the following tables. Those illustrate the internal and external

mentioned arguments of the third question in the survey. The differences are visualized

through the empty rows in the table. The number of participants as well as the share as a

percentage is shown. In particular, the share illustrates how often arguments were mentioned

when considering all respondents. This indicates the importance of those statements. The

ones that are marked with grey represent multiple mentioned arguments or rather the top

arguments from internal and external perspective.

51

External survey

Number of

participants

(N=14)

Share in % Internal survey

Number of

participants

(N=7)

Share in %

serviceability / support/ partnership 11 18% support / partnership 5 14%

openess 7 11% openess 4 11%

scalability / modularity 6 10% holistic product portfolio 4 11%

price 5 8%

performance 4 6% costs/benefits 1 3%

easy connectivity 3 5%

analogue I/O 2 3%

future-proofed systems 2 5%

one control technology for all machines 1 2%

company size and stability 1 2% company structure and location 5 14%

proven manufacturer 4 11%

stability of the system -> uptime 1 2% compatibility of software versions,

stable software interfaces 2 5%

customized solutions 1 2% customizing 2 5%

strategic fit 3 8%

innovation activities 1 2% innovation activities 1 3%

Table 9: Comparison of important features when selecting a new system supplier (own data analysis of conducted survey, 1/2)

52

External survey

Number of

participants

(N=14)

Share in %

Internal survey

Number of

participants

(N=7)

Share in %

operability of the pc 1 2%

offline programmability (not directly on the machine) 1 2%

average operating time 1 2%

easy-to-use 1 2%

STL (Standard Template Library), but not C 1 2%

industry 4.0 functionalities 1 2%

security 1 2%

control of drives 1 2%

documentation 1 2%

CNC functions 1 2%

new technology - hardware 1 2%

C-programming, Windows operating system (customer requirement)

1 2%

robustness (industrial capability) 1 2%

easy programming 1 2%

servomotors, stepper motors 1 2%

diagnose options 1 2%

energy efficiency 1 2%

ergonomics 1 2%

encoder entrances 1 2%

technology / modularity 1 3%

technique / quality 1 3%

product continuity 1 3%

connectivity of existing systems 1 3%

total amount of responses 62 100% total amount of responses 37 100%

Table 10: Comparison of important features when selecting a new system supplier (own data analysis of conducted survey, 2/2)

53

The next open question that needs to be examined is the fifth question which deals with the reason

for changing the current supplier and looking for a new one.

The internal results reveal that a new technology which goes along with a new automation

generation is a main reason for searching a new system. Moreover, in connection with

technological reasons, the interviewed employees also mentioned the need for a higher

functionality and a discontinued hardware as determinant factors. The necessity of differentiation

in the market is also named as important parameter for the replacement of the current system.

Furthermore, thinking about a change of the automation system and supplier happens when there

is a current struggle for example with bottlenecks, safety deficiencies or the need to reduce costs.

According to the external perspective, the price, unfulfilled technical requirements, the need of a

new automation generation to meet new market requirements count for the most influential factors

that stimulate the search for a new supplier and automation system. Another reason is the

dissatisfaction with the current supplier which can refer to diverse areas of the business

relationship.

When comparing the internal and external side, financial means and technical requirements in

connection with a new system generation and enhanced functionality count as crucial factors for

thinking about a change of the currently used system.

In the following, the perspectives of internal and external respondents as well as the amount of

mentions of individual arguments are visualized. The table was developed with the same structure

that was used for visualizing the results of the previous open question.

.

54

External survey Number of

participants (N=14)

Share in %

Internal survey Number of

participants (N=7)

Share in %

price 3 16%

technical requirements unfulfilled or solved

unsatisfactory => higher functionality 3 16%

new technology/ differentiation

from competitors + time to market 8 33%

new machine generation 3 16% new machine generation (internally

driven) 2 8%

dissatisfaction with current suppliers 3 16% dissatisfaction with a current supplier 1 4%

market requirements 3 16%

present distress in the company e.g. security, bottlenecks, development

3 13%

political decisions (Headquarter - Japan) 1 5%

stability of the company 1 5%

safety requirements 1 5%

focus on core expertise 1 5%

cost reduction (range + IBN) 2 8%

higher functionality 2 8%

discontinued hardware 2 8%

reduction of the system price, TCO,

maintenance 1 4%

continuous life cycle 1 4%

TCO / core competence 1 4%

in-house development is not

profitable for the "Commodity" 1 4%

the total amount of responses 19 100%

total amount of responses 24 100%

Table 11: Comparison of drivers for the change of the automation system supplier (own data analysis of conducted surveys)

55

The subsequent step presents the actual quantifying of the results of the closed questions. For

this reason, it was necessary to regard different parameters. At first, several different

parameters, namely the mean value, the median and the standard deviation were calculated.

However, due to the limited sample size, the content and the way of data collection, only the

mean value and the standard deviation were selected as most appropriate ratios to use (Ellison

et al. 2009). Applying this, supports in showing the differences between the internal and

external view.

The following two tables 12 and 13 show what is also of high importance in this chapter, namely

assessing the level of importance of the internal defined arguments. Within the tables it

becomes visible that not every row contains 14 mentions. This is due to the fact that one

respondent has not evaluated all the arguments. Nevertheless, this has not a significant impact

on the outcome. This bottom-up ranking refers to the importance of the arguments from an

external perspective, which means the arguments on top of the table are considered as less

importance from potential customers’ perspective than those at the bottom. Identifying the

external perspective has higher priority, which is the reason for this structure. However, due

to the manageable number of arguments it is easy to see the most important characteristics

from an internal perspective. In both tables, the first focus should be on the left part which

represents the external rating of arguments. The right part shows the internal rating. It was

essential to conduct quantitative interviews also internally, in order to make the internal and

external obtained results comparable.

In general, it gets visible that features are rated as rather important. If we consider the external

and internal view simultaneously, the range of means lies between 1.2 and 3.7, which shows

that none of those internal collected and defined features are considered irrelevant for

respondents who participated in the survey. This is also an indicator that pre-defined

arguments are already to a certain extent adjusted to the product and company related

expectations of the respondents.

From the external perspective, a business partnership with the supplier is considered as highly

important. In addition, a long-term access to the product is also regarded as a key feature.

Next to product features, services of the supplier are viewed as essential, which includes for

example trainings for employees. Finally, respondents named the software architecture with

complete software modules as an important product feature. Taking a look at the internal point

of view, shows that respondents tend to see the long-term availability of the product as vital.

Moreover, the price is regarded as an important aspect. The customized expandability is

regarded as a crucial feature, which an automation system should possess. A fourth aspect

that is viewed as important are the references that a system manufacturer can provide.

56

Question 6: Importance of characteristics (closed question)1

Which product and system related characteristics do the respondents rate as important?

External Interviews

N=

Mean

value

Standard

deviation

Internal

Interviews

N=

Mean

value

Standard

deviation

1 Well-known, large system manufacturer 14 3,1 1,2 7 3,1 1,0

8 Easy change to an alternative system (manufacturer independence) 13 2,8 1,6 7 2,3 1,2

11 Scalability of hard- and software 13 2,6 1,5 7 2,9 0,8

6 Easy transferability of the machine technology to a new system 13 2,5 1,0 7 1,9 0,6

12 Complete standard operating system 13 2,2 1,3 7 3,3 1,2

14 Price 12 2,2 1,2 7 1,4 0,5

4 Worldwide presence if technological problems occur 14 2,1 1,5 7 2,1 0,8

2 References of the system manufacturer 14 2,1 1,2 7 1,6 0,5

13 Availability of the technology 13 2,1 1,4 6 1,8 0,7

7 Individual expandability of the system 13 1,7 0,8 7 1,6 0,7

15 Backup – options and flexible configurability 12 1,7 0,8 7 3,7 1,4

9 SW-architecture with complete SW add-on modules 13 1,6 0,8 7 2,4 0,9

3 Services of the manufacturer 14 1,4 0,6 7 2,3 1,0

10 Long-term product availability 13 1,2 0,6 7 1,3 0,5

5 Partnership 13 1,2 0,4 7 1,7 0,9

Table 12: Ranking of company and system related features (Own analysis of the survey results)

1 Two different colors are used in order to differentiate the internal and external survey results. Blue is used for the external conducted surveys and green is used for representing the internal results.

57

The same ranking counts for the following Table 13. The range of the mean values lies

between 1.1 and 4. This shows a bit higher variation than in the previous results.

Nevertheless, there are no arguments that are considered as highly unimportant according to

the respondents.

Taking a look at the benefit arguments that were rated as important from an external

perspective, shows that a reliable delivery capacity is vital. In addition, future security is

mentioned as an important aspect. Moreover, the diagnostic options for errors and the use of

widespread standards and interfaces are regarded as essential benefit arguments.

From an internal point of view, the reusability of the currently used technology or rather

software is a purchase-relevant factor. Moreover, a guaranteed delivery capability is seen as

a crucial aspect. Having a partner throughout the whole life cycle and security in the future

are essential expectations as well.

The detailed results are outlined in the following.

58

Question 7: Importance of benefit expectations (closed question)

Which benefit arguments do the respondents consider as important?

Interviews

N=

Mean

value

Standard deviation

Interviews

N=

Mean

value

Standard deviation

7 Buy-out of the software 10 3,5 1,5 6 4,0 1,3

6 Independence from an automation system supplier 14 3,1 1,5 7 2,4 0,5

13 Training of internal employees and externals (in the national language) 14 2,5 1,3 7 3,1 1,0

3 Use of standard IT programs 14 2,4 1,7 7 2,7 1,0

1 Reusability of current machine technology / software 14 2,3 1,4 7 1,1 0,3

12 Customized service concept 13 2,2 1,4 7 3,4 0,7

2 Step-by-step changes of the system 14 2,0 1,7 7 2,7 1,0

4 Realizing uniform surfaces despite different base systems 14 1,9 0,9 7 2,3 1,0

11 Availability of replacement devices on-site and worldwide 14 1,6 1,2 7 1,9 0,6

10 Partnership over the whole life cycle 14 1,4 0,7 7 1,4 0,5

5 Use of wide spread standards / interfaces. (e.g. OPC UA) 14 1,4 0,6 7 2,1 1,1

8 Diagnose options for errors 14 1,3 0,7 7 2,3 1,0

9 Future security 14 1,2 0,6 7 1,6 0,7

14 Guaranteed delivery capacity 14 1,1 0,3 7 1,4 0,5

Table 13: Ranking of benefit expectations (Own analysis of the survey results)

59

To sum that up, the results of both closed questions show similarities between the internal and

external view. However, in order to receive more reliable results, more interviews have to be

conducted.

The following section describes an appropriate method for the further data processing of the

gained results of the closed questions. It is an effective way of identifying the significant

disparities between the internal and external view, which allows to regard the findings in more

detail and present the most relevant differences.

Implementation of a T-Test for identifying significant differences

The previously presented data show the different perceptions of potential customers and within

the company. However, there is a need to make them more visible. This required an analysis,

in order to find out the significant differences between the external and internal perspective.

This was carried out through implementing a t-test, which supports in identifying the arguments

with the highest disparity (Jackson 2015). The given situation shows that there are two different

samples, where one states the results of the internal conducted interviews and the other

sample shows the external outcomes.

For the t-test it was assumed that the answers between the two samples are different, which

means that the arguments rated as important from an internal perspective will differ from those

evaluated as important from an external view. In literature there are one and two-tailed t-tests

that can be used for analyzes. If the direction cannot be defined initially then the two-tailed t-

test is appropriate. Beforehand, it was not obvious, which arguments are rated as more or less

valuable from which of the two sample sizes. For this reason, there was a need for a two-tailed

t-test (Jackson 2015). However, a prerequisite for implementing a t-test was an f-test. This

was necessary in order to compare the variances of the two samples and to be able to analyze

the t-test results. Through this f-test, the internal and external answers for each of the response

options were compared. The implementation of the f-test happened through an Excel formula.

For every single answer option of the closed questions, values above or below 0.05 were

received. Values above 0.05 mean an equality of variances and values below 0.05 show an

inequality of variances (Ellison et al. 2009).The received values were used for implementing

the t-test. As we had values where inequality of variances was assumed and values were

equality was assumed, two excel functions were necessary. One function was used for

calculating values that state a variance equality and the second function served for obtaining

values when unequal variances are assumed. Through this procedure, values for each single

answer option were obtained. Those numbers were used for identifying arguments that present

significant discrepancies between the inside view and outside perspective.

60

A significant difference describes that there is a considerable disparity between what is

considered as important feature or benefit from an internal perspective and what is regarded

as essential from externals (Jackson 2015). The results of the t test serve as reference points

where changes of the communicated messages are probably necessary and the inside view

should be better aligned with the external perspective. There are two tables in the appendix

which visualize the f and t test. The cells that are colored in yellow represent values with

significant differences.

Through these calculations, the differences of the closed questions got more visible. Before

discussing the t-test, the arguments that were rated as most important from the internal and

external view were already presented. Nevertheless, through the implementation of the t-test,

it got easier to compare the results.

In order to illustrate the results and the biggest discrepancies between the internal and external

view, two graphics, figure 5 and figure 6 were created. Those show the importance of the

defined product and company related features and benefit arguments and were ranked

according to the significance from an external perspective. Moreover, the results of the t-test

are presented in there as well and marked in both figures with a “*”.

The graphic below refers to evaluation of the system specific and company related

characteristics. Regarding the results of the enquired predefined system related and company

specific arguments indicates that external respondents attach higher importance to the

services of the supplier and the software architecture including complete additional modules

is considered as more important from the outside perspective. However, this only refers to the

results of the surveys because the company already included software modules in their benefit

communication on the web page of Keba, which implies that there is already a partially

alignment. References of a supplier are considered more essential from an internal

perspective than from outside. This could imply that those arguments do not necessarily have

to stand in the main focus of the benefits communication.

Both sides, rate the world-wide presence and reputable suppliers equally important. However,

there is are significant differences between internal and external view concerning backup

possibilities and the configurability as well as services from the provider, which were rated

more important from an external perspective.

61

Figure 5: Survey results - The importance of product related and company related characteristics (Own data analysis of conducted surveys)

62

In the previous section the benefit arguments that respondents rate as important were already

highlighted. However, it is important to regard the main discrepancies.

Both groups of respondents consider long-term partnerships as important which became also

visible in the previous discussed results of the open questions. Taking a look at the significant

differences that got visible through the t test, the reusability of the system and the diagnostic

options are showing the biggest disparities between the external and internal view. However,

the graph shows other distinctive opinions as well.

63

*)

*)

Figure 6: Survey results - The importance of benefit arguments (Own data analysis of conducted surveys)

64

After this more detailed presentation of the results it is worth to take a look at suitable

communication channels.

3.4. Implications for communication policy

Based on the present findings of this research, there are several own developed suggestions

concerning the marketing communication as well as some findings of diverse authors were

considered and discussed right after.

Taking a look at diverse communication channels, online marketing is a relatively cheap form

of communicating marketing messages (Ceyp & Scupin 2013) and can serve as good platform

for working together in different forms (Kollmann 2013).

Taking into account the aspect of reducing the company’s risk through working together with

known suppliers, Keba has to clearly communicate trustworthiness to make sure to attract

potential customers. There are companies that enjoy the status of being chosen as a supplier

because they are well known and hold a high market share. However it is possible to gain

more trust as a company that is in the process of growing and obtaining an even stronger

market position (Blythe & Zimmerman, 2013).

One good option for online communication are best practice videos. Letting a customer share

his experiences with Keba and the product and service helps to make the company itself and

the products offered more credible. It increases the credibility of the company to not only show

employees who are talking about the product but also develop testimonial videos. Also

Beilharz (2014) mentioned that videos with testimonials have a higher impact than only

presenting the internal attitude. This especially applies to industrial good markets as the

decision have great impacts. There are several conditions towards testimonials. Firstly, they

should be present in the target market. Moreover, it is important to take into consideration big

and smaller companies as testimonials, to provide reference and address both types of

customers more targeted. Additionally, it is important to give the video a face, which means to

show the reference person and place a logo of this company. For the developing these videos,

the means-end-analysis is also an appropriate method as it supported for receiving additional

information (Reynolds & Olson 2001). It is meaningful to present these videos on different

online communication channels to spread the message and of course also on offline actions

such as fair visits, it makes sense to include the video. What also matters nowadays, are

influencers who are acting on different platforms, such as blogs, industry portals, social media

groups or forms with a big community and, of course, event organizers (Beilharz 2014). As

65

presented by Blythe and Zimmerman (2013), display ads could also be an option for Keba to

raise attention.

Beilharz (2014) also mentioned the importance of finding a way how to connect the traditionally

used means of communication, such as mails, fair events, brochures, newsletters and

business cards with the own social media channels. Connecting those should support in

reaching an even broader audience (Egan 2007).

As already mentioned from Blythe and Zimmerman (2013), decision makers bear high risk

because they are in charge of making a good choice and be held accountable for wrong

decisions. For this reason, they have high requirements towards suppliers and, thus, also high

expectations concerning the marketing message that is communicated to them. Numbers and

facts shown in graphs are always of importance. Moreover, listing advantages as well as

beneficial case studies are required marketing actions (Beilharz 2014, 110). Beilharz (2014)

also stated the relevance of presenting the customer how the product will support to reach the

objectives. The customer has to recognize the advantages straightaway in order to catch his

attention and interest.

Finally, there is a need to draw conclusions from the implemented research methods and

derive potential recommendations for action.

4. Conclusion, recommendations and perspectives

It is important to note that the data in the tables are translated into English to stick to the

language requirements. The results in the original language are shown in the appendix. The

drawn conclusions are based on the own developed evaluation of the results of the

implemented research methods. Out of this, recommendations and perspectives for future

activities were drawn. In addition, crucial notes of different authors are as well indicated and

included in this discussion.

4.1. Conclusion

Taking a look at the external interviews at the two specified fairs, there was a high willingness

to participate in the interviews. However, the questionnaire was in total a bit too comprehensive

and too long because at the fairs, the communication partners only had a limited time. The

interaction process is short and therefore it has to be clearly defined which information is the

most important in order to put it in a nutshell. The results of the questionnaire originate from

66

two different fairs. After the conduction of surveys on the AMB fair and first analysis, the

questionnaire was extended by one important question namely “Which system is the company

currently using?”. This serves as an additional information acquisition in order to obtain a

picture of the market and competitors. Moreover, informative commentaries of the respondents

regarding competitors or other side aspects where noted. So two adaptions or rather

improvements of the questionnaire were done after the first round of interviews. This should

not be contradictory to the above mentioned over length of the questionnaire but those

adjustments were useful for extending the base of information spectrum. This is meant in the

sense that competitors were not included at all in the questions of the interviews which was

changed through subsequent improvements of the questionnaire.

To recap the previous sections, in the research work for Keba there was on the one hand an

investigation from the customers’ perspective and, on the other hand, the consideration of

internal employees’ opinion. The focus laid on identifying the value drivers and connected

benefits from a customer’s point of view, as the derived research questions are based on the

relevant buying factors. In the company there was an importance to identify which currently

defined messages are aligned with the actual needs of customers which made it essential to

include external and internal parties in the research work. Out of the results, the top criteria

from an internal perspective become comparable with the external perspective. It got obvious

that the inside view concerning the decisive factors for searching a new supplier is relatively

similar to what external respondents mentioned. Struggles within the company or

dissatisfaction with the current supplier were some of the indicators. Changing market

conditions and technical challenges play an essential role in the purchase decision process of

a new system. Furthermore, the desire for improving the current state of the company is seen

as important from both sides.

The emphasis in this project was on KeControl FlexCore and Keba and less on competitors.

However, during the conversation with potential customers at the fairs it turned out that several

of the respondents stated the preference of a few main competitors which have a rather solid

market position. Given this fact, brand awareness plays for such a big company for sure a role.

This implies that for Keba it makes sense to separately take a look at the brand Keba and the

single product brands, such as the brand KeControl FlexCore. It is possible that one of the

single brands is more known than the brand Keba itself. As stated in the theoretical part by

Kapferer (2012), a sharp division of the corporate and products brands is rather impossible,

which got also visible in the results. As already mentioned above, respondents didn’t clearly

differentiate between the brand KeControl FlexCore and the brand Keba. This goes along with

the fact that the respondents did not fully match the target group, which is meant in the sense

that a certain knowledge of the market is needed, in order to be able to answer the questions

67

appropriately. In fact, respondents sometimes gave contradictory answers which lead to less

reliable arguments.

The findings of Quayle (2001) which state that continuous and secure product deliveries and

price reductions are main reasons for changing of providers, are also confirmed by the own

gained research results. There it is shown that the price and a long-term product availability is

crucial when deciding for a supplier and product. Comparing the qualitative and quantitative

results does not give a clear indication of the importance of the price. The small sample size

presents rather ambiguous results concerning the price.

In addition, the described importance of having a close business relationship got also visible

in the results of qualitative and quantitative surveys. For this reason, building up a solid relation

to the customer should not be a neglected factor.

Referring to Sickel’s (2013) contributions on the identification of customer problems, the own

implemented research methods supported in identifying diverse problems as well. Moreover,

identified problems which cannot be solved with KeControl FlexCore, should find consideration

in further product developments. The drawn conclusions lead to several recommendations.

4.2. Recommendations for further procedure

The currently used arguments have to be adjusted to the results of the survey. As mentioned

in the previous survey analysis, from an external perspective, the openness, the software

architecture with complete components and widely spread standards and interfaces were

considered as important. In connection with this, customized solutions and the best-possible

differentiation are communicated on the homepage (https://www.keba.com/en/industrial-

automation/products/systems/kecontrol-flexcore/kecontrol-flexcore). Thus, the wording of

these arguments can be adjusted more precisely to the externally mentioned arguments.

Another point that is worth to mention is that internally as well as externally, the scalability and

the modularity of the system was rated as essential.

In order to receive the quintessence of the presented results, the following comparison points

out the most important arguments that were externally mentioned in the interviews and the

internally defined and communicated messages. So it shows alignments between the internal

and external view. The orange colored arguments represent connections between the internal

defined arguments and external statements whereby the wording has to be adjusted. This

implies that there those arguments are taking into account the same topic or rather features

68

but are slightly different in the tone of voice. The red colored highlight the arguments with the

equal wording defined inside and those which were mentioned by potential customers.

Comparison

Current communicated arguments (homepage)

Results of the survey (external view)

“Customized solutions

Best-possible differentiation

Optimum know-how protection

Scalable hardware and software technology modules

Cost reduction

Fit for industry 4.0

Faster time-to-market”

(http://www.keba.com/)

open questions (top factors for new supplier):

service / support / partnership

openness

scalability / modular design

price

closed question (top features):

partnership

long-term product availability

service of the supplier

SW architecture with complete SW components

closed question (top benefit arguments):

guaranteed delivery capability

future security

diagnose options for errors

use of widespread standards / interfaces

Table 14: Comparison of internal defined arguments and external collected arguments

There are several suggestions that can be derived through the gained results of the internal

and external surveys.

Currently, the company is trying to market the new KeControl FlexCore system with a lot of

messages or arguments which impacts the positioning of the system in the market. The goal

of reinforcing the brand position does not go along with using too many different messages for

promoting the system. It is meaningful to focus on less but on the most relevant one. It can be

assumed that those who are interested in Keba, know the system and the top arguments for

KeControl FlexCore.

In addition to that, within the marketing communication there is a need for a better distinction

between the company brand Keba itself and the product KeControl FlexCore considered. It is

necessary to clearly define the characteristics and potential benefits of these features for the

69

product brands and for the company brand, separately from each other. The mixing of features

also becomes visible in the previous comparison between communicated messages on the

homepage and the external collected arguments.

A further recommendation is the internal communication of the benefit arguments and the

connected features that are evaluated as important out of the surveys. This should support to

raise awareness of the most crucial features from customer perspective within the company.

If the company has know-how about the most valuable arguments from external view, then

they are able to adapt the arguments for communicating to the outside. This in turn, should

help to attract interest in the company and the product offered.

As already stated, the results of the internal and external surveys show similarities concerning

the importance of company specific and product-related features. However, to be able to verify

or reject this circumstance, one important advice is to gain a broader base of respondents

through conducting further surveys. It is not possible to extrapolate from these small sample

sizes to the whole population. There should be a clear focus of the surveys on the target

markets such as the regions and especially on market segments, to obtain unbiased and more

reliable results when conducting further interviews. Moreover it is valuable for the company to

put effort in identifying the targeted persons even more precise. Ideally, those are people who

are engaged in creating ideas for new product developments. It is beneficial to reach an

extended field of buying centre members, such as technical managers, research and

development managers or purchasing managers. It is moreover, interesting to conduct surveys

with people holding identical positions. Through that, the differences between the arguments

can be identified and it can be clarified if there are still these similarities or there will be higher

deviations between the external and internal view. This can be finally considered in developing

the benefit arguments for KeControl FlexCore and it becomes easier to make generalizable

statements.

As already mentioned, competitors should be incorporated stronger in the survey in order to

receive information about the competition in the market. A suggestion, is to identify the

strongest or most relevant competitors and develop a structure in the questionnaire that helps

to compare the strengths of Keba and KeControl FlexCore with those of the competitors. In

this context, it is valuable to use the employees’ knowledge about competitor’s products. This

information can be used for analyzing the benefit potential of the competitors’ offers in the

market. For receiving useful insights, the benefit potentials of the own product and the

competitors’ products should be implemented in customer surveys, which allows

benchmarking. This results in a comparison of the own defined benefit potentials with those of

one or more competitors’ products. Through this, additional benefit potentials can be derived

that have not been considered so far. Ideally, those should be incorporated in the structuration

70

of the defined customer benefits for the own product. When defining benefit potentials

internally it is crucial to always keep in mind the customer perspective, as customer takes the

decision whether defined benefits are regarded as value creating factors or not, is made by a

customer (Werani 2012, 95).

In addition, it is necessary to adapt the current used and communicated arguments with a

focus on the top factors from customer side and a differentiation from competitors. Using the

same arguments as competitors makes it more complex for potential customers to perceive

the distinctive characteristics. To implement this, a careful look at the wording of

communicated arguments is essential. In particular this refers to “openness” which is used in

the marketing communication. Also competitors of Keba use it for marketing their products but

the credibility is the most important aspect. The question, “which supplier is the most credible

when communicating openness?” arises. There has to be a certain confidence towards

suppliers from customer perspective, otherwise the communication of such “buzzwords” is

ineffective. Therefore, it is important to rethink the wording of those common used terms. In

addition, a catchword like “industry 4.0” should might not be brought to the fore if the effectivity

is unknown and maybe not as desired. The results have shown that external respondents

hardly talked about this term at the time frame where the interviews were conducted. However,

the market conditions are changing rapidly which also impacts the value of different features.

This is a further reason, for conducting more surveys about the system KeControl FlexCore to

obtain concrete and reliable results and to gain information about the changing benefit

expectations.

Looking at the communication part, it is necessary to find a way that presents Keba and

KeControl FlexCore externally in the most effective and targeted way as possible. Thereby,

best practice videos are surely an appropriate method for communicating the benefits of

KeControl FlexCore as well as having Keba as a reliable long-term partner.

In the beginning, four different research questions which are in relation to the problem

definition where derived. Those refer to the company Keba and their new launched system

KeControl FlexCore. After stepping into the process, the main focus of the implemented

qualitative and quantitative research methods was slightly adapted and was finally on these

three research questions:

“What activates a customer to think about a new automation system/-generation? Which

factors play an important role in the decision process?”

“Are the current defined KeControl Flexcore customer benefits aligned with the real

needs of potential customers?”

“With which messages / promises will we reach the potential customer?”

71

For this reason, future researches would support in additionally answering the following

questions:

“Which people should be reached at the typical KeControl Flexcore customer?”

“Who is attracted from which message?”

“Which sources of information do KeControl FlexCore consumers use, in order to inform

themselves about new products and evaluate new suppliers?”

4.3. Future perspectives

Through extending this research, the slightly neglected data about heterogeneity in buying

centers would also be taken into consideration in more detail. A continuing research requests

a better integration of the different decision makers in the data collection. This will enable a

more reliable information collection with diverse viewpoints. This in turn is considered in

developing precise and customized arguments for KeControl FlexCore.

After adapting the survey method, focusing on interviewing target people and a clear brand

differentiation, the circumstance of lacking information will be possibly solved. However, there

still needs to be a further approach developed which is about increasing awareness of the

company Keba. This is as well connected with the initially derived research question that deals

with the way how people inform themselves about suppliers in the market. As the question

could not be answered in this research, it should find space in the future research project. This

should provide insight into the most frequently used information channels which will be

beneficial for the corporate brand itself as well as the product brands of Keba.

Looking back to the methods described in the theoretical part, other approaches can be taken

into consideration as well. If the information needs or the strategic direction of Keba is

changing, another method, besides the means-end-analysis could be an option. There is never

only one appropriate method for collecting data. The best option to take is probably trying to

get out the best of different research methods.

Moreover, a deeper analysis on branding is probably necessary. The five aspects of brand

management mentioned by Keller (2008) are affecting the customer’s perception and finally

the buying decision. If it is possible to get aware of these aspects, a valuable insight into the

customers’ mindset could be achieved. A more intense focus on different brand aspects of the

72

brands of Keba can be meaningful to get a deeper insight into the different customer views on

these brands.

Fast changing technology, enhanced visibility, social networking and globalization are main

trends that will be shaping B2B markets. All of the trends impact each other. Social media

channels are gaining increasing importance in B2B markets. YouTube and similar channels

are gaining increasing importance also in B2B markets for product demos, for training of

employees and for sharing product ideas and company updates with stakeholders.

Organizations are required to develop new products faster (Blythe & Zimmerman 2013, 448-

451). In this context, the whole supply chain where members are connected through relations

and also their communication needs to be taken into consideration. They are part of the value

system and thus have an impact on it, which includes as well value creation.

Blythe & Zimmerman (2013, 465) mentioned value-based marketing as a future trend, which

reinforces the choice of value-based marketing as a basis concept for this project even more.

73

5. References

Online Journals:

Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1998). Business marketing: Understand what customers value.

Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 53–65.

Anderson, J. C., Thomson, J. B. L., & Wynstra, F. (2000). Combining price and value to make

purchase decisions in business markets. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(4),

307– 329.

Gummesson, E. (2007). Exit services marketing – enter service marketing. Journal of

Customer Behaviour, 6(2),113-141.

Hassan, S., Hamid, A., Muhammad, N. N., & Rahman, N. (2010). Factors affecting industrial

goods buying decision making in a manufacturing company. Journal of Marketing &

Management, 1(1), 1-20.

Kaciak, E., & Cullen, C. W. (2006). Analysis of means-end chain data in marketing research.

Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15(1), 12-20.

Karpen, I. O., Bove, L. L., & Lukas, B. A. (2012). Linking service-dominant logic and strategic

business practice: a conceptual model of a service dominant orientation. Journal of Service

Research, 15(1), 21-38.

Lapierre, J., (2000). Customer‐perceived value in industrial contexts. Journal of Business &

Industrial Marketing, 15 (2/3), 122 – 145.

Leão, A. L. M., Mello, S. C. B. (2007). The Means-End Approach to Understanding Customer

Values of a On-Line Newspaper. Brazilian Administration Review, 4(1), 1-20.

Lindgreen, A., Wynstra, F. (2005). Value in business markets: What do we know? Where are

we going?. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(79), 732 – 748.

Petrick, J. F. (2002). Development of a multi-dimensional scale for measuring the perceived

value of a service. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(2), 119-123.

Quayle, M. (2001). Purchasing in the UK and Switzerland: An Empirical Study of Sourcing

Decisions. European Business Review, 13 (1), 42-59.

Ulaga, W., & Chacour, S. (2001). Measuring customer perceived value in business markets:

A prerequisite for marketing strategy development and implementation. Industrial Marketing

Management, 30(6), 525– 540.

74

Books:

Albers S., Gassmann, O. (2005). Handbuch Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement.

Strategie – Umsetzung – Controlling. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.

Averdung A. (2013). Servicedominante Orientierung als Antezedenz kundenkomplementärer

Marketingkompetenzen. In: Erfolgreiches Management von Marketingagenturen im Wandel.

Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

Backhaus, K. (2003). Industriegütermarketing. München.

Backhaus, K., & Voeth, M. (2015). Bewährte Erkenntnisse und innovative Perspektiven.

Innovatives Marketing: Entscheidungsfelder-Management-Instrumente, 502.

Backhaus, K., Voeth, M. (2015). Handbuch Business-to-Business-Marketing. Wiesbaden:

Springer Gabler.

Bauer, H. H., Stokburger, G., Hammerschmidt, M. (2006). Marketing Performance. Messen

Analysieren – Optimieren. Gabler.

Beutin, N. (2013). Kundennutzen in industriellen Geschäftsbeziehungen. Springer-Verlag.

Beilharz, F. (2014). Social Media Marketing im B2B – Besonderheiten, Strategien, Tipps.

O'Reilly Germany.

Biesel, H. (2013). Vertriebsarbeit leicht gemacht. Springer-Verlag.

Blythe, J., Zimmerman, A. (2013). Business to business marketing management: a global

perspective. Routledge.

Broda, S. (2005). Marketing-Praxis. Ziele, Strategien, Instrumentarien. Springer Gabler.

Cant, M. C., van Heerden, C. H. (2005). Personal Selling. Juta and Company Ltd.

Ceyp, M., Scupin, J.(2013). Erfolgreiches Social Media Marketing. Konzepte, Maßnahmen und

Praxisbeispiele. Springer Gabler.

Day, G. (2006). Achieving advantage with a service dominant logic. In: The service-dominant

logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions, 85-90.

Doyle, (2008). Value based marketing: Marketing strategies for corporate growth and

shareholder value. 2nd edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Egan, J. (2007). Marketing Communications. Cengage Learning EMEA.

75

Ellison, S. L. R., Farrant, T. J., Barwick, V. (2009). Practical Statistics for the Analytical

Scientist: A Bench Guide.

Gärtner, A., Riegler-Klinger, C. (2009). Strukturierung von Kundennutzen: Ein Beitrag zur

Umsetzung eines wertorientierten Marketingansatzes in der voestalpine AG Division Stahl.

Diplomarbeit. Linz.

Grönroos, C. (2006). What can a service logic offer marketing theory. In: The service-

dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate and directions. 339-353.

Henriksson, R. (2014). What’s there in it for me?: Identifying customer benefits and utilizing

the knowledge of customer benefits in marketing and selling. Book on Demand.

Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (2013). Produktmanagement. Grundlagen – Methoden – Beispiele.

Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

Hewett, G. (2009). FCS: Advertising & Promotions L4. Pearson South Africa.

Jackson, S. L. (2015). Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach.

Cengage Learning.

Jolibert, A., Mühlbacher, H., Flores, L., Dubois, -L. (2012). Marketing Management: A value-

creation process. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kapferer, J. N. (2012). The new strategic brand management: Advanced insights and strategic

thinking. Kogan page publishers.

Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: building, measuring, and managing brand

equity. Pearson Prentice Hall.

Kollmann, T.(2013). Online-Marketing: Grundlagen der Absatzpolitik in der Net Economy.

Stuttgart:Kohlhammer Verlag.

Kotler, (2000). Marketing management: The millennium edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ7

Prentice Hall.

Kreutzer, R. T., Rumler, A., Wille-Baumkauff, B. (2015). B2B-Online-Marketing und Social

Media. Springer Gabler.

Meffert, H., Burmann, C., Kirchgeorg, M. (2015). Marketing - Grundlagen marktorientierter

Unternehmensführung. Konzepte – Instrumente – Praxisbeispiele. Gabler Verlag.

Newman, L. (2001). Proposal Guide for Business Development Professionals. Shipley

Associates.

76

Plinke, W. (2000). Grundlagen des Marktprozesses, in Kleinealtenkamp, M. /Plinke, W.

(Hrsg.): Technischer Vertrieb: Grundlagen des Business-to-Business Marketing. Berlin. 3-98.

Raghavarao, D., Wiley, J.B., Chitturi, (2010). Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Models and

Designs. CRC Press.

Reynolds, T. J., & Olson, J. C. (2001). Understanding consumer decision making: The means-

end approach to marketing and advertising strategy. Psychology Press.

Sickel, C. (2013). Verkaufsfaktor Kundennutzen. Konkreten Bedarf ermitteln, aus Kundensicht

argumentieren, maßgeschneiderte Lösungen präsentieren. Springer Verlag.

Smith, S. M., Albaum, G. S. (2005). Fundamentals of marketing research. Sage.

Wasson, D.L. (2012). How To Increase Retail Sales: And Win Against Big Box Stores.

Werani, T. (2012). Business-to-Business-Marketing: Ein wertbasierter Ansatz. Kohlhammer

W. GmbH.

Wildemann, H. (2003). Value to the customer- Das Pull prinzip im Kundenmanagement. In:

Werte schaffen. Gabler Verlag, 209-228.

Online Media

Burkhardt, A., Göpel, H. (2010). Means-End-Analysen – Deep Insights für die Entwicklung

von nutzengeprägten Markenpositionierungen.

http://www.taikn.de/TAIKN/downloads/WP_Means-End-Analysen.pdf (20.01.2017).

Clark, K. (2012). Features, Advantages, and Benefits (FAB) Statements. An Essential Tool for

Clarifying Your Marketing Message and Closing More Sales. Published at 06.10.2012, on

http://devedge-internet-marketing.com/2012/10/06/features-advantages-and-benefits-fab-

statements/ (19.01.2017).

Keba AG. Homepage. https://www.keba.com/en/home (01.08.2017).

Keba AG. KeControl FlexCore. https://www.keba.com/en/industrial-

automation/products/systems/kecontrol-flexcore/kecontrol-flexcore (01.04.2017).

Poremba, S. (2015). Why Hackers Love Companies Who Use Social Media. Published at

24.02.2015, on http://www.forbes.com/sites/sungardas/2015/02/24/why-hackers-love-

companies-who-use-social-media/#6b2fb9c64dfb (20.02.2017).

Tanner, J., Raymond, M. (2012). Marketing Principles. Published at 29.12.2012, on

http://2012books.lardbucket.org/pdfs/marketing-principles-v2.0.pdf. (25.01.2017).

77

6. Appendix

Interne Befragung bei Keba mit Angestellten

Ziel:

Die Positionierung sowie die Verkaufsargumente des KeControl FlexCore Systems sollen

noch mehr spezifiziert werden, um die tatsächlichen Nutzenargumenten aus Kundensicht zu

identifizieren.

Vorgehensweise:

Es wurde bereits eine Means-End-Analyse durchgeführt um einen Überblick zu bekommen

welche Eigenschaften mit welchen Konsequenzen bzw. Vorteilen sowie Kundenwerten in

Verbindung stehen. Die bereits gewonnen Daten nutzen wir für die Befragungen als

unterstützendes Mittel. Grundsätzlich soll mithilfe der Means-End-Analyse herausgefunden

werden, welche Produkteigenschaften dem Kunden einen Nutzen stiften. Dabei will man einen

Einblick in die Motive und Werte der Kunden, ein bestimmtes System zu beziehen,

ermöglichen.

Beispiel:

Hier sehen Sie ein Beispiel für eine Means-End-Kette. Diese wurde mit der Frage bezüglich

der Eigenschaft gestartet. Anschließend wurden Nutzenargumente abgefragt und wiederum

nach Begründungen gefragt, beispielsweise mit „Warum“ Fragen.

Eigenschaft Konsequenz Werthaltung 2. Werthaltung

Industrie 4.0

Technologien von

KEBA

neue Features im Bereich

IT (z.B. Lösungen für

Fernwartung, OPC UA)

fertig bei KEBA verfügbar

Kunde muss sich

keine Ressourcen

dafür aufbauen

spart sich Zeit

78

Situationsbeschreibung:

Stellen Sie sich vor Sie sind auf der Suche nach einem neuen Anbieter, da Sie ein neues

Steuerungssystem benötigen. Es gibt einige Anbieter im Markt für die Sie sich entscheiden

können. Nun stehen Sie vor dieser Wahl. Denken Sie deshalb nun an ein System, das

sozusagen frei in Ihrem Kopf, ohne Verbindung zu einem bestimmten Anbieter, steht.

Wenn Sie an den Kauf eines neuen Steuerungssystems denken, welche

Produkteigenschaften bzw. Funktionen sind Ihnen dabei wichtig?

Warum sind Ihnen die jeweiligen Eigenschaften wichtig?

Nennen Sie die Nutzenargumente die Sie mit den jeweiligen Eigenschaften verbinden.

Denken Sie außerdem darüber nach warum die Nutzenargumente eine Bedeutung für Sie

haben.

79

Produkteigenschaft Konsequenz

Langjährige

Produktverfügbarkeit-->

Produktstrategie des

Anbieters-->

Strategische Ausrichtung --

> Kontinuität der

Produktlinien -->

Vergangenheit + Zukunft

-->

Profit für Kunden auch

bei zukünftigen

Produktentwicklungen

von Keba

Herstellerunabhängig -->

Übertragung von

Plattform zu Plattform

möglich

-->

Gesamter Aufwand je

Steuerungsgenerations-

zyklus für Umstieg ist nicht

nötig

-->Ersparnis von

Entwicklungsaufwand -->

Für spezielle

Aufgaben kann der

jeweils richtige

Partner gesucht

werden

-->Fexibilität in der

Anbieterauswahl

Skalierbarkeit -->Leistungsfähigkeit des

Systems-->

Performance kann

zukünftig in die Höhe

skaliert werden

-->

Keine Sorgen mehr um

ausreichend

Performance-

Verfügbarkeit

-->

Langfristige

Verfügbarkeit des

Systems

-->

Weniger Aufwand bei

zyklischen Steuerungs-

Generationsumstiegen

-->

100% Verfügbarkeit,

Verlässlichkeit und

Funktionalität

-->Zunehmende

Internationalisierung

Namhafter/Größe

Hersteller

/Image/Reputation

-->Argumentation zum

Endkunden-->

Vertrauen und

Glaubwürdigkeit--> Guter Support -->

Einhalten von

Versprechen--> Verlässlichkeit

-->

Standhaftigkeit bei

Fehlern und damit

verbunden

Gewährleistungs-

ansprüchen

--> Langlebigkeit der Firma -->

Wirtschaftliche

Sicherheit für den

Kunden

--> Referenzen von Kunden -->Vertrauen für jahrelange

Kooperation

Werthaltung

80

Produkteigenschaft Konsequenz

Offenheit des

Steuerungssystems-->

Die vom Kunden über viele

Jahre hinweg entwickelte

Software/Technologie kann

im neuen Steuerungssystem

wiederverwendet werden

-->

Ersparnis der zeit- und

ressourcenaufwendig

Programmierung von

Maschinenfunktionen

-->

Abhebung vom

Wettbewerb durch

Konzentration auf neue

Maschinenfunktionen

--> Nachhaltigkeit

-->

Vollkommene

Neuentwicklung ist bei

Wechsel des

Steuerungssystems

eigentlich unmöglich.

-->

Schrittweise

Umstiegsszenarien

sind erforderlich - z.B.

zuerst Steuerung dann

HMI, etc.

-->

bewährte

Funktionen/Methoden

beibehalten, und

verbesserungswürdige

Teile austauschen

-->

Abhebung vom

Wettbewerb

(Maschinenbau

"können viele")

--> Nachhaltigkeit

-->Basissystem + Hardware

wird von Kunden gesucht-->

Plattform auf der Kunde

seine

Applikationen/Maschine

nprogramme laufen

lassen kann

-->

Kunde hat Möglichkeit

sich frei zu entwickeln;

Kunde bindet sich nicht

an KEBA System

--> Investitionssicherheit --> Nachhaltigkeit

-->

Standard-IT Programme

können vom Kunden

verwendet werden

-->

Kunden werden diese

Programme von seinen

eigenen Kunden

vorgegeben

-->

Weniger

Systemvarianten sind

erforderlich für die

Gewinnung

unterschiedlicher

Kunden nötig

-->

Flexibilität und Effizienz

bei der (End-)

Kundengewinnung des

Kunden

HW-/SW-Portierbarkeit -->

Übernahme von C-Libraries

ist wichtig (nicht möglich bei

Beckhoff und B&R)

-->

Allgemein verbreitete

Standards und Interfaces

(OPC UA, Echtzeit Ethernet

Schnittstellen, Standards IT

Welt) sind nutzbar

-->Klare Systemschnittstellen,

sauber dokumentiert-->

Einfache Integration von

eigenen/Dritt-Anbieter-

SW-Bauteilen

-->Reduktion der

Systemkomplexität-->

Keine Workarounds

nötig - konzeptionelle

Einfachheit bei der

Einbindung weitere

System-Bestandteilen

Gelebte Partnerschaft -->Partner mit ähnlichen

Vorstellungen-->

Zukünftige

Entwicklungen des

Lieferantens/Partner,

die für Kunden auch

profitabel sind

--> Investitionssicherheit --> Nachhaltigkeit

Werthaltung

81

Produkteigenschaft Konsequenz

Betreuung, Service,

Systemauslegung-->

Schulung der eigenen Techniker

(Dokumentation + Trainings)-->

Regionale Trainings sind

möglich-->

Trainings in der

Landessprache

-->

Partnerschaft vom Beginn bis

laufenden System und

Serviceeinsätzen

-->

(Vertrauen) über den

gesamten Life-Cycle

(Statusreports)

-->

Bester Support muss

glaubhaft sein -

beginnend im PreSales

und Reaktionen

-->Referenzen als

Glaubw ürdigkeitsmerkmal

weltweite Präsenz bei

technischen Problemen--> schnelle Verfügbarkeit -->

Vermeidung von

Stillstandszeiten

-->attraktives Service und

Ersatzteilmanagement-->

Vor Ort Ersatzgeräte-

Verfügbarkeit-->

Weltw eiter

Ersatzteilverfügbarkeit-->

Kundenindividuelles

Servicekonzept mit

Basiskonzepten die

modif iziert w erden können

BS Stick - Basisimage kann an

unterschiedlichen Orten liegen--> Schnelle Inbetriebnahme

--> Schnelle Diagnose am Gerät

Werthaltung

82

0 Attended fair 1 = AMB, Sep16 2 = Euroblech, Okt 16

1 What is your name?

2 What is your position in the company?

3 Which features are of high importance for you when you are looking for a new automation system supplier?

open question

4 How important are those named features (related to the 3rd question)

1... very important 6... very unimportant

5 What is the reason for searching a new supplier? open question

6 How important are the following company related and system

related characteristics?

closed question

1... very important

6... very unimportant

company related characteristics

1 Well-known, large system manufacturer

2 References of the system manufacturer

3 Services of the manufacturer – e.g. system configuration, ...

4 Worldwide presence if technological problems occur

5 Partnership

system related characteristics

6 Easy transferability of the machine technology to a new system

7 Individual expandability of the system

8 Easy change to an alternative system (manufacturer independence)

9 SW-architecture with complete SW add-on modules

10 Long-term product availability

11 Scalability of hard- and software

12 Complete standard operating system

13 Availability of the technology

14 Price

15 Backup – Möglichkeiten und die Flexibilität diese zu konfigurieren

83

7 How important are the following benefit expectations? 1... very important 6... very unimportant

1 Reusability of current machine technology / software

2 Step-by-step changes of the system

3 Use of standard IT programs

4 Realizing uniform surfaces despite different base systems

5 Use of wide spread standards / interfaces. (e.g. OPC UA)

6 Independence from an automation system supplier

7 Buy-out of the software

8 Diagnose options for errors

9 Future security

10 Partnership over the whole life cycle

11 Availability of replacement devices on-site and worldwide

12 Customized service concept

13 Training of internal employees and externals (in the national language)

14 Guaranteed delivery capacity

8 Are you currently looking for a new automation system supplier? yes / no

84

Marktstudie

KEBA AG und Johannes Kepler Universität Linz

Herr Christian Gabriel Frau Ingrid Bramerdorfer Frau Katrin Lindenbauer

KEBA AG KEBA AG Johannes Kepler Universität

Produktmanagement Market Intelligence Institut für B2B-Marketing

gbrl@keba.com bram@keba.com KatrinLindenbauer@gmx.at

KEBA Industrieautomation

Der Technologieexperte für optimierte Branchenlösungen In intensiver Partnerschaft zur besten Lösung

85

1. Dürfen wir Sie um Ihren Namen ersuchen?

2. Welche Position nehmen Sie in ihrem Unternehmen ein?

Bitte stellen Sie sich vor, Sie befinden sich mitten in einem Entscheidungsprozess,

da Sie auf der Suche nach einem neuen Steuerungssystem und -lieferanten sind.

3. Welche Eigenschaften sind Ihnen besonders wichtig, damit Sie sich für einen

Steuerungssystempartner entscheiden?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

4. Welche Bedeutung messen Sie den von Ihnen genannten Eigenschaften zu?

(Beurteilen Sie auf einer Skala von 1-6, wobei 1 sehr wichtig und 6 sehr unwichtig ist)

1

Sehr

wichtig

2 3 4 5 6

Sehr

unwichtig

1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

3 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

4 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

5 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

6 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

86

5. Was veranlasst Sie zur Suche eines neuen Steuerungssystemlieferanten?

1.

2.

3.

4.

87

6. Wie wichtig sind für Sie die folgenden unternehmens- und produktspezifischen

Eigenschaften?

(Beurteilen Sie bitte nur jene Eigenschaften die Sie in Frage 4 noch nicht genannt haben, auf einer Skala von 1-6 wobei 1

sehr wichtig und 6 sehr unwichtig ist)..

1

Sehr wichtig

2 3 4 5 6

Sehr

unwichtig

Eigenschaft bereits

genannt?

Unternehmensspezifische Eigenschaften ja nein

1 Namhafter, großer Steuerungshersteller ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

2 Referenzen des Steuerungsherstellers ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

3 Serviceleistungen des Steuerungshersteller –

z.B. Systemauslegung, Schulungen, Trainings ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

4 Weltweite Präsenz bei technischen Problemen ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

5 Partnerschaft ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Lösungsspezifische Eigenschaften ja nein

6

Einfache Portierbarkeit Ihrer

Maschinentechnologien auf das neue

Steuerungssystem (SW-Portierbarkeit)

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

7 Individuelle Erweiterbarkeit des

Steuerungssystem ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

8

Einfache Umstieg auf alternative

Steuerungssysteme

(Herstellerunabhängigkeit)

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

9 SW-Architektur mit fertigen SW-

Zusatzmodulen ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

10 Langjährige Produktverfügbarkeit ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

11 Skalierbarkeit von Hard- und Software ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

12 Vollständiges Standard-Betriebssystem ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

13 Technologieverfügbarkeit ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

14 Preis ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

15 Backup – Möglichkeiten und die Flexibilität

diese zu konfigurieren ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

88

7. Wie wichtig sind für Sie die folgenden Nutzenerwartungen und Werthaltungen?

(Beurteilen Sie bitte nur jene Argumente, die Sie in Frage 4 noch nicht genannt haben, auf einer Skala von 1-6,

wobei 1 sehr wichtig und 6 sehr unwichtig ist)

1

sehr wichtig

2 3 4 5 6

Sehr

unwichtig

Eigenschaft

bereits genannt?

ja nein

1 Weiterverwendbarkeit Ihrer bestehenden

Maschinentechnologie und Software ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

2 Schrittweise System-

Umstiegsmöglichkeiten ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

3

Verwendbarkeit von Standard-IT-

Programme, um ihren

Kundenbedürfnissen zu entsprechen

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

4 Realisierung einheitlicher Oberflächen,

trotz unterschiedlicher Basis-Systeme ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

5

Nutzung allgemein verbreiteter Standards

und Interfaces (z.B. OPC UA, Echtzeit

Ethernet Schnittstellen)

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

6 Unabhängigkeit von einem

Steuerungslieferanten ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

7 Buy-out der Software ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

8 Diagnosemöglichkeiten bei Fehlern ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

9 Zukunftssicherheit ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

10 Partnerschaft über gesamten

Lebenszyklus ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

11 Ersatzgeräteverfügbarkeit vor Ort/weltweit ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

12 Kundenindividuelles Servicekonzept ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

13 Schulung interner Mitarbeiter und von

Externen (in der Landessprache) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

14 Garantierte Lieferfähigkeit ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

89

8. Sind Sie aktuell auf der Suche nach neuen Partnerschaften mit

Steuerungsherstellern?

9. Welches Steuerungssystem setzen Sie derzeit ein?

Wir danken Ihnen für Ihre Unterstützung und die von Ihnen aufgewendete

Zeit für unsere aktuell laufende Marktstudie.

Danke!

90

DATA Analysis in Excel:

Frage 6: Welche Eigenschaften sind für die Befragten wichtig unter Nutzung der Antwortkategorien?

Reihung nach Mittelwerten

Interviews

N=

Mittelwert

Standard-

abweichung

Interviews

N=

Mittelwert

Standard-

abweichung

1 Namhafter, großer Steuerungshersteller 14 3,1 1,2 7 3,1 1,0

8 Einfacher Umstieg auf alternative Steuerungssysteme (Herstellerunabhängigkeit)

13 2,8 1,6 7 2,3 1,2

11 Skalierbarkeit von Hard- und Software 13 2,6 1,5 7 2,9 0,8

6 Einfache Portierbarkeit Maschinentechnologien auf neues Steuerungssystem

13 2,5 1,0 7 1,9 0,6

12 Vollständiges Standard-Betriebssystem 13 2,2 1,3 7 3,3 1,2

14 Preis 12 2,2 1,2 7 1,4 0,5

4 Weltweite Präsenz bei technischen Problemen 14 2,1 1,5 7 2,1 0,8

2 Referenzen Steuerungsherstellers 14 2,1 1,2 7 1,6 0,5

13 Technologieverfügbarkeit 13 2,1 1,4 6 1,8 0,7

7 Individuelle Erweiterbarkeit des Steuerungssystem 13 1,7 0,8 7 1,6 0,7

15 Backup – Möglichkeiten und flexible Konfigurierbarkeit

12 1,7 0,8 7 3,7 1,4

9 SW-Architektur mit fertigen SW-Zusatzmodulen 13 1,6 0,8 7 2,4 0,9

3 Serviceleistungen Steuerungshersteller 14 1,4 0,6 7 2,3 1,0

10 Langjährige Produktverfügbarkeit 13 1,2 0,6 7 1,3 0,5

5 Partnerschaft 13 1,2 0,4 7 1,7 0,9

91

Frage 7: Welche Nutzenargumente sind den Befragten wichtig?

Reihung nach Mittelwerten

Interviews

N=

Mittelwert

Standard-

abweichung

Interviews

N=

Mittelwert

Standard-

abweichung

7 Buy-out der Software 10 3.5 1.5 6 4.0 1.3

6 Unabhängigkeit von einem Steuerungslieferanten 14 3.1 1.5 7 2.4 0.5

13 Schulung interner Mitarbeiter und Externer

(in der Landessprache) 14 2.5 1.3 7 3.1 1.0

3 Verwendbarkeit von Standard-IT-Programme 14 2.4 1.7 7 2.7 1.0

1 Weiterverwendbarkeit bestehenden Maschinentechnologie/Software 14 2.3 1.4 7 1.1 0.3

12 Kundenindividuelles Servicekonzept 13 2.2 1.4 7 3.4 0.7

2 Schrittweise System-Umstiegsmöglichkeiten 14 2.0 1.7 7 2.7 1.0

4 Realisierung einheitlicher Oberflächen trotz unterschiedlicher Basis-Systeme 14 1.9 0.9 7 2.3 1.0

11 Ersatzgeräteverfügbarkeit vor Ort/weltweit 14 1.6 1.2 7 1.9 0.6

10 Partnerschaft über gesamten Lebenszyklus 14 1.4 0.7 7 1.4 0.5

5 Nutzung allgemein verbreiteter Standards/Interfaces

(z.B. OPC UA) 14 1.4 0.6 7 2.1 1.1

8 Diagnosemöglichkeiten bei Fehlern 14 1.3 0.7 7 2.3 1.0

9 Zukunftssicherheit 14 1.2 0.6 7 1.6 0.7

14 Garantierte Lieferfähigkeit 14 1.1 0.3 7 1.4 0.5

92

INTERN

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

5 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 4 3 2 2 3

4 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 4 2 2 1

3 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 3

2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 4

2 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 5

3 1 3 1 3 2 1 4 2 1 3 5 2 5

3 1 4 1 3 3 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 1 5

EXTERN

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

3 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 4 4 2 1

5 2 1 3

3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 2

2 2 3 4 2 4 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1

4 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 4 6 2 2

3 2 2 2 2 3 2 5 4 2 5 5 2 2 2

2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2

3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

1 3 1 6 1 2 2 6 2 1 3 3 2 4 1

5 3 1 3 1 2 2 4 1 1 3 2 3 4 1

4 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 2 4

4 6 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4

1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 3 1

4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2

2 - seitiger T Test: 2 unterschiedliche Stichproben

1. F Test (um zu überprüfen ob die Varianzen ungleich oder gleich sind ) 0.67 0.04 0.08 0.21 0.01 0.31 0.88 0.53 0.69 0.64 0.19 0.88 0.14 0.05 0.13

Wert > 0,05 (5%) dann Varianzen gleich

Wert <0.05 (5%) dann Varianzen ungleich

2. T Test

Ergebnis bei Annahme Varianzen gleich TTEST(J3:J9,J13:J26,2,2) 1 0.28 0.02 1 0.07 0.19 0.76 0.51 0.07 0.84 0.71 0.11 0.71 0.16 0

Ergebnis bei Annahme Varianzen ungleich TTEST(J3:J9,J13:J26,2,3) 1 0.17 0.07 1 0.18 0.14 0.76 0.47 0.09 0.83 0.67 0.1 0.64 0.1 0.01

Signifikanter Unterschied ja ja

Frage 6 - Systemeigenschaften

(Alle Antwortmöglichkeiten nach deren Wichtigkeit bewertet)

Frage 6 - Systemeigenschaften

(Alle Antwortmöglichkeiten nach deren Wichtigkeit bewertet)

93

INTERN

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

1 2 2 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 3 4 2

1 3 3 1 1 3 5 1 1 1 2 3 3 1

1 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 1

1 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2

1 3 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 4 2 1

2 4 5 4 3 2 6 1 3 2 1 5 3 1

1 4 2 2 4 2 4 4 1 1 1 3 5 2

EXTERN

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 4 1

1 1 3 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

4 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 1

2 3 2 3 1 3 4 1 1 1 5 5 4 1

3 3 2 3 1 3 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 1

5 4 4 4 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

1 2 6 2 1 2 6 3 1 2 1 3 1 1

2 6 6 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 4 3 1

2 6 1 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 1 5 1

5 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 4 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1

2 - seitiger T Test: 2 unterschiedliche Stichproben, unterschiede herausfinden

1. F Test (um zu überprüfen ob die Varianzen ungleich oder gleich sind ) 0 0.29 0.28 0.59 0.05 0.01 0.85 0.19 0.33 0.4 0.17 0.16 0.59 0.03

Wert > 0,05 (5%) dann Varianzen gleich

Wert <0.05 (5%) dann Varianzen ungleich

2. T Test

Ergebnis bei Annahme Varianzen gleich TTEST(K3:K9,K13:K26,2,2) 0.06 0.77 0.7 0.37 0.06 0.32 0.54 0.02 0.25 1 0.67 0.06 0.29 0.05

Ergebnis bei Annahme Varianzen ungleich TTEST(K3:K9,K13:K26,2,3) 0.01 0.74 0.65 0.4 0.15 0.19 0.53 0.06 0.31 1 0.61 0.03 0.25 0.14

Signifikanter Unterschied ja ja

Frage 7 - Nutzenerwartungen

(Alle Antwortmöglichkeiten nach deren Wichtigkeit bewertet)

Frage 7 - Nutzenerwartungen

(Alle Antwortmöglichkeiten nach deren Wichtigkeit bewertet)