Product Awareness Between Consumers and Designers – A Family Dining Table Design as Example

  • Ming-Hsuan HsiehEmail author
  • Chia-Ling Chang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9734)


Recently, consumer-oriented design has become the key for product development. However, due to a lack of effective consumer opinions by designers, leading designers and consumers have differences on product awareness. This study is based on the Cognitive Structure Model, to understand the differences between designers and consumers based on the family dining table. The purpose is to aid designers in obtaining an understanding and consensus with the consumer for their products. This research used Mind Mapping to work with Means-End Chain to perform designers’ cognitive approach followed by an implication matrix of consumer awareness survey. The results can be used to divide the designers and consumers awareness into four parts: “positive consensus”, “negative consensus”, “designer subjective perception” and “subjective perception of consumers”. Finally, there is a streamlined Hierarchical Value Map to show the product design guidelines. The family dining table design focused on the steps of product design ideas. The focus is to assist the industry to accurately grasp the designer and consumer awareness of consensus and to work out effective product development direction.


Consumer-oriented design Cognitive similarities and differences Family dining table Design guidelines 



This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China (MOST 104-2221-E-240-001).


  1. Alam, I., Perry, C.: A customer-oriented new service development process. J. Serv. Mark. 16(6), 515–534 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buzan, T.: How to Mind Map: The Ultimate Thinking Tool That Will Change Your Life. Thorsons, London (2002)Google Scholar
  3. Chang, H.C., Lai, H.H., Chang, Y.M.: Expression modes used by consumers in conveying desire for product form: a case study of a car. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 36(1), 3–10 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chiu, C.-M.: Applying means-end chain theory to eliciting system requirements and understanding users perceptual orientations. Inf. Manag. 42(3), 455–468 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chuang, M.C., Chang, C.C., Hsu, S.H.: Perceptual factors underlying user preferences toward product form of mobile phones. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 27(4), 247–258 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferran, Fd, Grunert, K.G.: French fair trade coffee buyers’ purchasing motives: an exploratory study using means-end chains analysis. Food Qual. Prefer. 18(2), 218–229 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gelb, M.J.: How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci: Seven Steps to Genius Every Day. Delacorte, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  8. Hsieh, M.-H., Huang, C.-Y., Luh, D.-B., Liu, S.-F., Ma, C.-H.: An application of implementing a cognitive structure model to obtain consensus from consumers. Int. J. Des. 7(2), 53–65 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. Kapoor, A., Kulshrestha, C.: Consumers’ perceptions: an analytical study of influence of consumer emotions and response. Direct Mark. Int. J. 3(3), 186–202 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H.C.M., Luning, P.: Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques. Food Qual. Prefer. 16(3), 181–201 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klenosky, D.B.: The “pull” of tourism destinations: a means-end investigation. J. Travel Res. 40(4), 385–395 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Souza Leão, A.L.M., Benício de Mello, S.C.: The means-end approach to understanding customer values of a on-line newspaper. Braz. Adm. Rev. 4(1), 1–20 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Academic, Boston (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Phillips, J.M., Reynolds, T.J.: A hard look at hard laddering: a comparison of studies examining the hierarchical structure of means-end theory. Qual. Mark. Res. Int. J. 12(1), 83–99 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reed, W.: Mind Mapping for Memory and Creativity. Forest, Tokyo (2005). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  16. Van Rekom, J., Wierenga, B.: Means-end Relations: Hierarchies or Networks? An inquiry into the (a) Symmetry of Means-end Relations. ERIM Report Series Research in Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  17. Veludo-de-Oliveira, T.M., Ikeda, A.A., Campomar, M.C.: Discussing laddering application by the means-end chain theory. Qual. Rep. 11(4), 626–642 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. Voss, R., Gruber, T., Szmigin, I.: Service quality in higher education: the role of student expectations. J. Bus. Res. 60(9), 949–959 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zanoli, R., Naspetti, S.: Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: a means-end approach. Br. Food J. 104(8), 643–653 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer-Aided Industrial DesignOverseas Chinese UniversityTaichungTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Department of Education Industry and Digital MediaNational Taitung UniversityTaitungTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations