New Products Management - CHAPTER 6 ANALYTICAL ATTRIBUTE APPROACHES: INTRODUCTION AND PERCEPTUAL MAPPING potx

CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 6
ANALYTICAL ATTRIBUTE APPROACHES:
ANALYTICAL ATTRIBUTE APPROACHES:
INTRODUCTION AND PERCEPTUAL
INTRODUCTION AND PERCEPTUAL
MAPPING
MAPPING
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Copyright ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All right reserved.
What are Analytical Attribute
What are Analytical Attribute
Techniques?
Techniques?

Basic idea: products are made up of
attributes a future product change must
involve one or more of these attributes.

Three types of attributes: features,
functions, benefits.

Theoretical sequence:
feature
permits a
function
which provides a
benefit
.
Gap Analysis
Gap Analysis


Determinant gap map (produced from
managerial input/judgment on products)

AR perceptual gap map (based on
attribute ratings by customers)

OS perceptual map (based on overall
similarities ratings by customers)
A Determinant Gap Map
A Determinant Gap Map
Figure 6.2
1 2 3 Options X Ideal
1 2 3 Options X Ideal
1
1
2
2


.
.


.
.


.
.

.
.


.
.


.
.


.
.
15
15
Attributes
Attributes
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t

s
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
1
1
2
2
.
.
.
.
700
700
.
.
A Data Cube
A Data Cube
Figure 6.3
Rate each brand you are familiar with on each of the
following:
Disagree Agree

1. Attractive design 1 2 3 4 5
2. Stylish 1 2 3 4 5
3. Comfortable to wear 1 2 3 4 5
4. Fashionable 1 2 3 4 5
5. I feel good when I wear it 1 2 3 4 5
6. Is ideal for swimming 1 2 3 4 5
7. Looks like a designer label 1 2 3 4 5
8. Easy to swim in 1 2 3 4 5
9. In style 1 2 3 4 5
10. Great appearance 1 2 3 4 5
11. Comfortable to swim in 1 2 3 4 5
12. This is a desirable label 1 2 3 4 5
13. Gives me the look I like 1 2 3 4 5
14. I like the colors it comes in 1 2 3 4 5
15. Is functional for swimming 1 2 3 4 5
Obtaining Customer Perceptions
Obtaining Customer Perceptions
Figure 6.4
Snake Plot of Perceptions
Snake Plot of Perceptions
(Three Brands)
(Three Brands)
Aqualine
Islands
Sunflare
Attributes
Ratings
Figure 6.5
Data Reduction Using Multivariate
Data Reduction Using Multivariate

Analysis
Analysis

Factor Analysis

Reduces the original number of attributes to a
smaller number of factors, each containing a set
of attributes that “hang together”

Cluster Analysis

Reduces the original number of respondents to a
smaller number of clusters based on their
benefits sought, as revealed by their “ideal
brand”
Factor Eigenvalue Percent Variance
Explained
1 6.04 40.3
2 3.34 22.3
3 0.88 5.9
4 0.74 4.9
5 0.62 4.2
6 0.54 3.6
7 0.52 3.5
8 0.44 3.0
9 0.40 2.7
No. of Factors
Percent Variance
Explained
The Scree

Selecting the Number of Factors
Selecting the Number of Factors
Figure 6.6
Attribute Factor 1
“Fashion”
Factor 2
“Comfort”
1. Attractive design .796 .061
2. Stylish .791 .029
3. Comfortable to wear .108 .782
4. Fashionable .803 .077
5. I feel good when I wear it .039 .729
6. Is ideal for swimming .102 .833
7. Looks like a designer label .754 .059
8. Easy to swim in .093 .793
9. In style .762 .123
10. Great appearance .758 .208
11. Comfortable to swim in .043 .756
12. This is a desirable label .807 .082
13. Gives me the look I like .810 .055
14. I like the colors it comes in .800 .061
15. Is functional for swimming .106 .798
Factor Loading Matrix
Factor Loading Matrix
Figure 6.7
Attribute Factor 1
“Fashion”
Factor 2
“Comfort”
1. Attractive design 0.145 -0.022

2. Stylish 0.146 -0.030
3. Comfortable to wear -0.018 0.213
4. Fashionable 0.146 -0.017
5. I feel good when I wear it -0.028 0.201
6. Is ideal for swimming -0.021 0.227
7. Looks like a designer label 0.138 -0.020
8. Easy to swim in 0.131 0.216
9. In style -0.021 -0.003
10. Great appearance 0.146 0.021
11. Comfortable to swim in -0.029 0.208
12. This is a desirable label 0.146 -0.016
13. Gives me the look I like 0.148 -0.024
14. I like the colors it comes in 0.146 -0.022
15. Is functional for swimming -0.019 0.217
Sample calculation of factor scores: From the snake plot, the mean ratings of Aqualine on Attributes
1 through 15 are 2.15, 2.40, 3.48, …, 3.77. Multiply each of these mean ratings by the corresponding
coefficient in the factor score coefficient matrix to get Aqualine’s factor scores. For example, on
Factor 1, Aqualine’s score is (2.15 x 0.145) + (2.40 x 0.146) + (3.48 x -0.018) + … + (3.77 x -0.019)
= 2.48. Similarly, its score on Factor 2 can be calculated as 4.36. All other brands’ factor scores are
calculated the same way.
Factor Scores Matrix
Factor Scores Matrix
Figure 6.8
Aqualin
e
Islands
Splash
Molokai
Sunflare
Gap 1

Gap 2
Fashion
Comfort
The AR Perceptual Map
The AR Perceptual Map
Figure 6.9
Aqualine Islands Sunflare Molokai Splash
Aqualine X 3 9 5 7
Islands X 8 3 4
Sunflare X 5 7
Molokai X 6
Splash X
Dissimilarity Matrix
Dissimilarity Matrix
Figure 6.10
Aqualine
Islands
Splash
Molokai
Sunflare
C
o
m
f
o
r
t
F
a
s

h
i
o
n
The OS Perceptual Map
The OS Perceptual Map
Figure 6.11
AR Methods OS Methods
Input Required
Brand ratings on specific attributes Overall similarity ratings
Attributes must be pre-specified Respondent uses own judgment of similarity
Analytic Procedures Commonly Used
Factor analysis; multiple discriminant analysis Multidimensional scaling (MDS)
Graphical Output
Shows product positions on axes
Axes interpretable as underlying dimensions
(factors)
Shows product positions relative to each other
Axes obtained through follow-up analysis or must
be interpreted by the researcher
Where Used
Situations where attributes are easily articulated or
visualized
Situations where it may be difficult for the
respondent to articulate or visualize attributes
Source: Adapted from Robert J. Dolan, Managing the New Product Development Process: Cases and Notes
(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1993), p. 102.
Comparing AR and OS Methods
Comparing AR and OS Methods
Figure 6.12

Failures of Gap Analysis
Failures of Gap Analysis

Input comes from questions on how brands differ
(nuances ignored)

Brands considered as sets of attributes; totalities,
interrelationships overlooked; also creations
requiring a conceptual leap

Analysis and mapping may be history by the time
data are gathered and analyzed

Acceptance of findings by persons turned off by
mathematical calculations?