Objective 1: FI and GA comparison

Figure 43 clearly shows the user as the most important stakeholder in both industries; moreover, investors, employees and investors can be considered equally important to both industries. The user is significantly more important to the GA industry compared to FI industry. Suppliers are much more important to the FI than to GA.

Figure 43: Stakeholders ranked in terms of importance to PDP.

The definitions of design given by participants from both industries included the following phrases, process/ planning, user-friendliness and product aesthetics. The vast majority of the participants viewed design as a process and/ or an act of planning. However a higher percentage of GA industry participants as compared to

0

162

the FI industry thought process/ planning is the most integral part of the definition of design.

Both industries rated usability and process/ planning, high in the added value of design to NPD processes. For the FI industry usability was at the top followed by process /planning; while for the GA industry process/ planning was at the top followed by product aesthetics.

It is evident that both industries see the user reaction as the most important measure of design effectiveness. For the FI industry the second most important measure of product success was “checking the final product against the objectives”; while for the GA industry it was product sales. The researcher’s assessment of both industries shows all measures of design effectiveness leading to product sales. Moreover, this shows that the majority of the participants were focused on pleasing the user and expected the sales to follow naturally. In support of the user-reaction being the most important measure of design effectiveness participants from both industries FI and GA consider a happy client as most important measure of product success.

Moreover, product review can be considered to be more important to FI than sales/

profit and vice versa for the GA industry.

The majority of the participants interviewed reported not documenting the PDP.

However, the majority of the participants reported documenting the product its self;

product attributes (dimensions, materials, tools used) and customer needs/ wants.

But they failed to document the knowledge, the process behind the product being what it is. As observed from the survey the PDP lacks structure in both industries.

However the little that is being done provides something to build on. Participants that reported some documentation described an abstract process being followed without the details necessary to guide someone else to replicate the process.

Figure 44 shows the accumulation of the measures of design effectiveness from both FI & GA; clearly a happy client is the most important measure of design effectiveness. Product reviews and sales/ profit can be considered equally important to determining the design effectiveness. The use of happy client in measuring design effectiveness may be viewed as having a good foundation to implement UCD activities.

163

Figure 44: Measures of design effectiveness (FI and GA).

7.4.2 Objective 2: Ascertain current understanding of user-centred design (UCD) in Botswana.

7.4.2.1 Furniture and Interior (FI) Design

Figure 45 shows a word map based on the FI design industry’s responses to questions in objective two. The larger the word/ phrase the more mentioned and the more important to the objective; therefore ‘start’, ‘user’, ‘product’, ‘customer’ and

‘design’ can be considered important to this objective.

Figure 45: Furniture and Interior design objective two word map 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Prod. Rev. Sales/ Profit Happy Client

%

Measures of Product Success

Cumulative First Choice

164

In an effort to investigate how the product development team can best communicate with the user, participants were asked to rank ways in which the user can best share ideas. Participants were given the three modes of communication (talking, drawings/

images and written) derived from the results of the survey conducted earlier. First choice findings (red columns) show a good majority (55%) of the participants from FI industry made talking their first choice effective mode of sharing ideas; followed by (27%) drawings and 18% written. The cumulative rankings (blue columns) show drawings (38%), talking (36%) and written (26%) relatively the same, see Figure 46.

Figure 46: Product development team best communication method with the user.

The cumulative analysis show drawings and talking virtually utilised in the same manner while written is considered the least effective for sharing ideas. The findings show an inclination towards talking being the most important mode of communication.

In an effort to determine the stages of the PDP where the user is involved the most, participants were asked to choose a stage (start, middle and end) of the PDP where they perform the most usability testing. The results show that the majority of participant’s first choice revealed that usability is tested more often at the start (6/11) of the PDP. The results also show the middle (3/11) and end (2/11) stages having

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Talking Drawings Written

%

Method for Customer/ User Sharing Ideas

Cumulative First Choice

165

relatively the same amount of usability testing. They were further asked how usability is measured at these different stages participants and gave the following reasons;

 Start: “It has to be functional on paper before it is made,” FI/MJ/9.

Experience, industry practices and detailed drawings help measure/ predict product usability.

 Middle: “The designer tries the product before finishing it,” FI/TK/9. The product is checked for durability and if it is well done.

 End: the company does the testing once the product is fully assembled and the dimensions confirmed. This is followed by the adjustments. “By checking whether you are using the proper measurement and confirm the cuts,”

FI/NK/9.

To find out participants attitudes towards user involvement in PDP, participants were asked whether user involvement would help or hinder creativity or innovation in PDP.

Responses from this industry are divided as to whether user involvement will help (7/10) or hinder (6/10) the NPD team. Participants that thought user incorporation will help creativity/ innovation of NPD teams gave the following reasons. The designer can easily obtain user needs and have the PDP monitored by the user for instant validation. “You are able to get user needs and the user better appreciates the products usefulness,” FI/ED/10. However, there were participants that thought user involvement will hinder the NPD team; they thought the user ends up delaying projects and inhibiting their freedom to explore. “Some delay us when they change what they want at every meeting,” FI/SI/10. “Some clients would have seen something somewhere so at times they want that piece exactly as it is,” FI/EK/10.

In addition to talking being the most preferred mode of communication, participants also thought the best way of incorporating user’s ideas into design decision making is through consultations and that includes user education. “We look at the possibilities and come up with a compromise between what the customer wants and what is possible,” FI/LO/11. “Trying to incorporate their ideas accompanied by the education on possibilities,” FI/SS/11.

Figure 47 shows an overwhelming majority (11/11) of the participant’s first choice results show that it is crucial to involve the user at the start (beginning) of the PDP.

The cumulative response also shows the majority of participants think it is crucial to

166

involve the user at the beginning of the PDP. Moreover, participants have already indicated that most of the usability testing is also done at the start of the PDP.

Reasons for involving users at the start are to help in product planning by enabling the scope of all that is necessary to build a successful product and obtaining user wants and needs. “Input of what product requirements are before the product development stage,” FI/TK/12. “Because they will be giving us some ideas on what they want to do,” FI/SI/12.

Figure 47: When to involve the user in PDP.

7.4.2.2 Graphic and Advertising (GA) Design

Figure 48 shows a word map based on the GA design industry’s responses to questions in objective two. The larger the word/ phrase the more mentioned and the more important to the objective; therefore ‘user’, ‘product’, ‘client’, ‘design’ and ‘end’

can be considered important to this objective.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Start Middle End

%

When to Involve User in PDP

Cumulative First Choice

167

Figure 48: Graphic and Advertising design objective two word map.

When participants were asked to rank ways in which user/ customer can best share ideas were given the three modes of communication (talking, drawings/ images and written) derived from the survey conducted earlier, Figure 49. The first choice findings show a good majority (67%) of participants from the GA industry selected

‘talking’ as their first choice; followed by ‘drawings’ (22%) and ‘written’ (11%). The cumulative rankings show talking remaining the highest mode of communication, with written and drawings remaining relatively equally important.

168

Figure 49: Product development team best communication method with the user.

From these two points of perspective on the data it is clear that talking is considered the most effective mode of communication between the user and the new product development team.

First choices given by participants from the GA industry reveal that usability is relatively measured equally across the PDP; (start (4/9), middle (2/9) and end (3/9).

Therefore, there is no clear majority. Participants were further asked how they measured usability at these stages of the PDP and gave the following reasons;

 Start: The majority of the usability testing is done in-house by the designers themselves. However there are instances where a random person or a client is used to test a product. “The customer has to come and tell you if they are happy”, GA/PD/9.

 Middle: This is when the customer can best understand what is being proposed, thus in a better position to give the relevant feedback.

 End: The product is tested whether it does what it was made to. “That's when the product is actually done and it is better to measure usability here compared to earlier stages”, GA/LE/9. Attention can also be paid to how people a talking about the product.

The vast majority (8/9) of the participants from GA industry thought user involvement will help the creativity/ innovation of NPD teams and the rest (2/9) thought user

169

involvement would hinder the process. Those that thought user involvement would help NPD teams; mainly mentioned the ability of the user to articulate their needs/

wants, therefore guiding the design team to make a more desirable product. “In all product development the end idea is for the user to be satisfied… If you do not know what people want then you cannot supply what they need,” GA/DC/10. Participants that thought user involvement will hinder the NPD TEAM also thought the user would delay the project and inhibit team’s creativity. “Some don't know their boundaries and sit here for hours and hours moving things around your computer and you politely assist them,” GA/TW/10. “They need to give us a chance to be creative on what we are doing… I am a designer and know what I am doing,” GA/KM/10.

The majority of participants (7/9) first choice in the GA industry believes it is crucial to involve the user at the start (beginning) of the PDP, see Figure 50. Some of the reasons given for involving the user at the beginning are that this is where product planning and context understanding is done and the team gets what the user wants.

“The brief is the most important part as it defines what the task is all about and project initiation,” GA/TW/12. “This is where you conceptualise what the user wants… including when they want the product delivered,” GA/DC/12. A reason given by a participant (1/9) for involving the user in the middle of the PDP is that this is where the end-user can better visualise the end product, thus “are in a better position to say I will move that bit change that bit,” GA/FG/12. And lastly the last participant thought involving the user at the end of the PDP was most important as it allowed the user gets to confirm that the final product is what they originally envisioned. They have “to come and confirm what I have done; my final work,”

GA/KM/12. The cumulative analysis also show that the user is almost mostly involved at the beginning of the PDP.

170

Figure 50: When to involve the user in PDP.