Objective 4: Interview and case study selection criteria

To identify companies with a four or less week’s PDP for the next study, the respondents were asked to pick an average time spent on a typical project, see Figure 34. A vast majority of the participating companies reported their projects taking less than four weeks, followed by 4-8 weeks and lastly more than 16 weeks.

There were no similarities observed within the groups recorded in this question.

Figure 34: Average time spent on a typical project.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Less than 4 4 - 8 9 - 12 13 - 16 More than 16

Number of companies

WEEKS

142

20 participants reported running more than six products at a time, see Figure 35 studies as it provides choice for the researcher. However, having more than 6 projects may signal that a company may potentially have less time to participate in the subsequent case studies.

Figure 35: Number of projects being run at the same time.

Given the time constraints on this study, companies with less than a four week PDP and producing multiple products were identified as suitable for the case studies.

Projects with a PDP of less than four weeks allow the researcher to observe and document PDP within an acceptable time. In order to further reduce the time needed for case studies, the inclusion of a company with multiple projects running at the same time allows the researcher to document different stages of the PDP at the same time. Thus companies most likely to be selected for the Case Studies, would have an average project time of 4 weeks or less and have more than one project running at the same time.

To identify companies involved in making customised products, participants were asked to select a method by which they know which product to develop, product commission, product batch and both (Product commission & Batch production), see Figure 36. The responses to this question show a clear majority 94% (42% product commission + 52% (both: product commission & batch production)) of the companies having their products developed through product commission.

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 or more

NUmber of companies

Number of projects

143

Therefore, companies that rely on product commission for product development are considered appropriate for the following phases (interviews and case studies) of this study. These companies deal with individual orders from private individuals, thus the need to make exactly what the customer/user ordered. This higher percentage of companies making to order products highlights the need for this study; a structured approach to obtaining user needs and translating them into actual products.

 Product commission: a client telling your company what they want.

 Product batch production: company deciding which products to make.

 Both: Product commission and batch production.

Figure 36: Who initiates product development (company or individual clients)?

In order to reveal companies willing or planning any changes to the PDP; a total of 47 participants responded to this question and almost all (42) responses were optimistic about the future of their companies. The responses were further clustered into two groups; growing their businesses 25/42 and producing a better product 17/42.

 Growing their businesses

The majority of participants reported expanding and growing their businesses both nationally and internationally. “We would have ventured into the Southern African market or Africa as a whole,” TA/1/22. To achieve these

Product commission

42%

Product batch production

6%

Both: Product commission and batch production

52%

144

goals, companies looked into increasing product output and attaining capabilities to produce even bigger products. Thus, attaining bigger and more modern machinery, more employees, capabilities and financially stable. “Get government tenders, grow and have more space. Bigger machinery for easier work,” FI/16/22.

 Producing a better product

In the next five years participants expected their companies to produce better products and competing with market leaders. “Being a company that does not only design for profits, but to change people’s interaction with a product/service use design to change the world around us to make it better place to be,” G/16/22. To achieve these goals these companies are looking into improving product quality and PDP. A very small number of the respondents mentioned being environmentally friendly and being more design focussed rather than sales orientated. “We advocate for re-use of recycled materials or from sources that do not harm the environment,” FI/19/22.

6.4 Chapter Discussion

The majority of participants thought design was important to PDP as it helped meet customer needs and do the job right. This was important as it shows participants understand the importance of design to a PDP. Data failed to show which stage of the PDP design was most or less important; therefore had to be probed further in the next data collection.

The difference between the terms “user” and “customer” were blurred for most participants. It was promising to find out a slight majority (56%) of the participants, wanted to go beyond the customer to get in-touch with the end user. Other participants reported the customer being the user and that the customer and industry standards provided sufficient information. Product usability and ease of product use were mostly evaluated during the middle stage of the PDP; this evaluation was done in two phases, designer-product interaction and user-product interaction. This made sense, as this is where the product takes shape and can be tested prior to finalising the product.

145

An overwhelming majority of participants agree to the importance of incorporating the user into PDP, furthermore they believe the user can effectively share ideas with the NPD team. These were important results as they show a good foundation for UCD policy structuring. Moreover, participants reported consultations as a way of finding out what the user wants in a product. The majority of the consultations were done at the beginning and end of the PDP. It was not surprising to find out that majority of participants reported reliance on product commission for projects, as the researcher targeted companies with a potential of making custom products.

Hand delivered questionnaire, allowed more than 2/3 of each questionnaire to be answered, and a good majority of the questionnaires delivered were returned answered. Sales/ profit seem to be the most important measure of product’s success, followed equally by a happy customer and product reviews. A happy client encourages ‘word of mouth’ campaign and will give better product reviews leading to improved sales.

The majority of the companies claimed employing qualified designers, with a large number being in house; and this went against the researcher’s expectations. The question may have failed to clearly define what was meant by a “qualified designer”

thus the question had to be rephrased in the next study for clarification. Further, about half 52% of the participants reported having no links with educational institution; again the researcher expected a much higher number. As expected, offering internships was the only link between companies and the training institutions. The researcher believes just offering an internship is not sufficient and there are better ways in which the industry and educational institutions can work together for mutual benefit i.e. offering live projects to be solved by students, final year student evaluation and sharing industry experience (presentation). It was not clear whether most of the respondents thought the only relationship with an educational institution is providing internships.

The majority (60%) of the participants reported documenting the PDP. Whenever was possible upon collecting responses to questionnaires, the researcher asked if there were any hard-to-understand questions and quickly flipped through the questionnaire to check for unanswered questions. The documentation reported by

146

the participants was mainly on the product itself (dimensions and materials) not the process followed. Participants reported willingness to make changes to the PDP in order to grow their business and be able to produce a better product. Moreover, there is a relationship between producing a better product and growing their business; a better product can be a stepping stone towards growing a business. As expected the vast majority of participants reported their typical projects lasting less than four weeks; as Botswana does not have a sophisticated or complex manufacturing industry.

A small number of participants reported aspirations to improving the design of their products by improving the PDP. The majority reported willingness to; improve research, technology and acquiring qualified designers in order to improve the design of their products. The objective of the questions was to help in selecting participants that are willing to participate in further studies. Despite majority of the participants reporting doing some kind of market research, when some of the participants were probed further; it was clear that the market research was unstructured and not documented.