Case-Based Development of Consumer Preferences Using Brand Personality and Values Co-creation

  • Eric-Oluf SveeEmail author
  • Jelena Zdravkovic
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 235)


Consumers have preferences whose determination is outside the realm of economic rules and values. To be successful in current market conditions, product and service companies need to capture such preferences to provide best-fit support by their Information Systems (IS), sometimes by developing entirely new features. In our previous work, we have conceptualized a meta-model for incorporating consumer preferences into the development of IS —Consumer Preference Meta-Model (CPMM). This artifact was developed with the ability to be expanded with new kinds of consumer preferences, as well as their related concepts. Building upon that work, in this study we consider methodological usage of CPMM for the case of Asker’s Brand Personality as the primary value framework. The framework brings both the enterprise and the consumer into dialog, with this values co-creation fostering synchronicity between the information systems that are designed as an outgrowth of this process, and the desires of both the consumers and the businesses that they will support. The case example uses the Twitter feed of a major airline, whose tweets are processed using Aaker’s 5-factors and Kano’s quality framework. The results complete an instantiation of CPMM that generates a feature model reflective of both brand personality and values co-creation.


Value Consumer value Consumer preferences Brand personality Values co-creation Requirements engineering 


  1. 1.
    Aaker, J.L.: Dimensions of brand personality. J. Mark. Res. 34(3), 347–356 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aaker, J.L.: The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. J. Mark. Res. 36(1), 45–57 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giannoulis, C., Svee, E.O., Zdravkovic, J.: Capturing consumer preference in system requirements through business strategy. Int. J. Info Syst. Model. Des. (IJISMD) 4(4), 1–26 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holbrook, M.B. (ed.): Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research. Psychology Press, London (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Kambil, A., Ginsberg, A., Bloch, M: Re-inventing value propositions. Stern Working Paper IS-96–21, New York University (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess. J., Novak, W., Peterson, A.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical report No. CMU/SEI-90-TR-21. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., Tsuji, S.: Attractive quality and must-be quality. J. Japan. Soc. Qual. Control 14(2), 39–48 (1984)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kluckhohn, C.: Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: an exploration in definition and classification. In: Parsons, T., Shils, E. (eds.) Toward a General Theory of Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1951)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maslow, A.H.: A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50(4), 370 (1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nickerson, R.C., Varshney, U., Muntermann, J.: A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22(3), 336–359 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L.: Servqual. J. Retail. 64(1), 12–40 (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park, C.W., Deborah, J.M., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A.B., Lacobucci, D.: Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. J. Mark. 74(6), 1–17 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V.: The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Sánchez-Fernández, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M.Á.: The concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the research. Mark. Theor. 7(4), 427–451 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwartz, S.H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., Owens, V.: Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 32(5), 519–542 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwartz, S.H., Tamayo, A., Porto, J.B.: Basic human values: their content and structure across countries. Valores E Comportamento Nas organizações/Values Behav. Organ. 1, 21–55 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sirgy, M.J.: Self-concept in consumer behaviour: a critical review. J. Consum. Res. 9(3), 287–300 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Svee, E.-O., Zdravkovic, J., Giannoulis, C.: Consumer value-aware enterprise architecture. In: Cusumano, M.A., Iyer, B., Venkatraman, N. (eds.) ICSOB 2012. LNBIP, vol. 114, pp. 55–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Svee, E.-O., Zdravkovic, J.: extending enterprise architectures to capture consumer values: the case of TOGAF. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2015 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 215, pp. 221–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Zdravkovic, J., Svee, E.-O., Giannoulis, C.: Capturing consumer preferences as requirements for software product lines. Requir. Eng. 20(1), 71–90 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zwass, V.: Co-creation: toward a taxonomy and an integrated research perspective. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 15(1), 11–48 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm UniversityKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations