Product Awareness Between Consumers and Designers – A Family Dining Table Design as Example
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.
KeywordsConsumer-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).
- Buzan, T.: How to Mind Map: The Ultimate Thinking Tool That Will Change Your Life. Thorsons, London (2002)Google Scholar
- Gelb, M.J.: How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci: Seven Steps to Genius Every Day. Delacorte, New York (1998)Google Scholar
- 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
- Reed, W.: Mind Mapping for Memory and Creativity. Forest, Tokyo (2005). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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