TMCnet News
The Repertory Grid Technique as a Customer Insight Method [Research Technology Management](Research Technology Management Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) The repertory grid technique is an effective but little-used technique to uncover customers' hidden needs. OVERVIEW: The success of new products and services relies on meeting customer needs, but it is very difficult to identify hidden needs since customers have difficulty articulating them or do not recognize them at all. A number of methods have been applied to help identify hidden needs, including ethnography, empathic design, and lead-user innovation. In this paper, we discuss the use of the repertory grid technique (RGT), a method adopted from psychology that has been used in new product development to help uncover customers' hidden needs. Three case studies from our own work show that it can be applied effectively at different stages of the product development process, resulting in entirely new products, product improvements, and new approaches to marketing. KEYWORDS: Customer insight, New product development, Repertory grid In order to succeed in competitive markets, new products and services must "thrill and amaze" customers (Robertson 2002, 20). Achieving this "demands profound knowledge of customers and their needs" (Kärkkäinen and Ka 2001, 161). Achieving this level of insight is very difficult, in part because not all customer needs are equal. Kano and colleagues (1984) defined three levels of customer-defined attributes: basic (must-have), performance, and excitement. Must-have at- tributes are expected by customers, and their absence leads to dissatisfaction. For example, your car engine must start reliably, or you will be dissatisfied no matter what other fea- tures the car may offer. Performance attributes-for instance, increased fuel efficiency in a car-bring increasing levels of satisfaction with increasing performance. Excitement fea- tures bring unexpected benefits that surprise and delight cus- tomers, such as watching collaboration happen in real-time in a Google Document. A key point for product development teams is that customers are unlikely to express either basic or excitement attributes (King 1987). Instead, customers focus on performance attributes and "tend to mention needs that are already catered for" (van Kleef, van Trijp, and Luning 2005, 197). As a result, traditional market research tech- niques such as surveys and focus groups can lead to the de- velopment of non-differentiated "me-too" products. In such cases, "firms lose their position of industry leadership . . . because they listen too carefully to their customers" (Slater and Mohr 2006, 26). Part of the problem is that the most commonly used meth- ods for capturing the voice of the customer cannot identify the hidden needs that customers themselves may not be not aware of (Goffin et al. 2012). Customers cannot always ade- quately describe their needs and asking direct questions does not help to elicit needs customers may not have con- sciously thought of. Unable to articulate their thoughts about what they really need, respondents will instead focus on technical features or styling characteristics. To truly capture the voice of the customer, therefore, methods must go be- yond customers' superficial answers to identify the hidden needs they are not fully aware of. Identifying these hidden needs enables the development of products that will delight customers by offering excitement features they may never have imagined. There are a number of customer insight methodologies that can enable firms to identify hidden needs, including eth- nographic methods, empathic design, and means-end chains (Dahan and Hauser 2001). Another method, repertory grid technique (RGT), has received much less attention in the new product development literature, but may offer a simpler way to access hidden needs than the elaborate processes of- fered by other methods. Although it was originally devel- oped for use in clinical psychology, RGT can be used to gain deep insights into consumers' perceptions of product attri- butes (Veinand et al. 2011), making it a useful technique for new product development, for products or services and for both B2B and B2C markets. It has been used in contexts as varied as evaluating B2B customers' perceptions of industrial pump control systems (Hassenzahl and Wessler 2000) and investigating customer needs for food products, wine, and tourism (Marsden and Littler 2000a). RGT has also been found to be an effective method for capturing the voice of the customer (Goffin, Lemke, and Koners 2010; Moussaoui and Varela 2010). Our work with RGT has demonstrated that it can be successfully applied to new product development in a range of contexts, for both products and services. An Introduction to RGT RGT, developed in the 1930s by clinical psychologist George Kelly (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, and Holman 1996), is used to understand how individuals think (Goffin and Lemke 2004). RGT operates from the key assumption that individuals have a unique set of personal constructs (ways to interpret the world) that can be accurately identified (Kelly 1955). A related aspect of RGT is its interpretive position: it assumes that because peo- ple have different construct systems, they experience reality differently from each other. Fundamentally, RGT is a method that seeks to explore how individual people construct meaning. Careful data analysis methods allows its extension to collec- tions of individuals, a necessary step for NPD. In recent decades, RGT has spread to consumer research, where it is used to help respondents articulate their views on topics such as their feelings during the purchasing process and the way they think about products and services (Marsden and Littler 2000b; Veinand et al. 2011). Customers are mostly un- able to imagine the possibilities for future products or fully ar- ticulate their needs; RGT helps to identify the issues they face, the problems they have, and those important hidden needs. In spite of these advantages, RGT is still not well known or widely recognized in the context of new product develop- ment. Janssen and Dankbaar (2008) surveyed 20 different customer research techniques and their uses at various stages of product development, but they did not list RGT. Similarly, Cooper and Edgett (2008), who reviewed 18 methods for product ideation, overlooked RGT. In part, this lack of attention arises from the notion that RGT is most use- ful for developing incremental product improvements, rather than entirely new products (van Kleef, van Trijp, and Luning 2005). However, our work has demonstrated that RGT can indeed deliver radical insights that drive new product developments. The RGT Process In consumer research, RGT is deployed "to understand the individual and shared meanings that consumers attach to their consumption experiences" (Marsden and Littler 2000a, 128). It has also been used in the business-to-business arena to help understand buyer behavior. The heart of the method is the repertory grid, which is completed in a structured interview process (Figure 1). An RGT interview begins with identifying elements, the subjects of evaluation, which are the focus of the method. Elements may be provided by the project team, selected by the inter- viewee from a larger set established by the project team, or defined by the user from a specified topic area (for instance, in our example, "patient monitoring devices you have oper- ated"). The name of each element is written on a card. Dur- ing the interview, the cards are used to stimulate responses to interview questions. Next, a random set of three cards (a triad) is given to the interviewee, and the interviewee is asked to compare the ele- ments in the set in a specific way. The question that is used elicit the comparison (which is repeated throughout the in- terview) is established before the interview process by the project team and designed to suit the aim of the study. In our example study, which was focused broadly on improving the design of intensive care devices, the question was, "Please think about how two of these products are similar to and dif- ferent from the third in terms of your work in intensive care." The response to this question is often indirect; the in- terviewee will discuss what the elements are, what they do, and how they are different. The aim is to discover through questioning one impor- tant factor that distinguishes the three devices, the construct. Once the construct is clarified, a contrasting description (the counterpole) is sought. If the interviewee does not offer a counterpole spontaneously, the interviewer may ask for one, using a question such as, "If this one is easy to use, how is this other one different?" It is critical that the inter- viewer use the interviewee's own terms, without replacing what was said with what the interviewer thinks was meant or should have been said. This removes interviewer bias and allows the interviewer to discover how that individual thinks about the elements in question. Next, the interviewee is asked to rate the three elements in this initial triad against the construct. This process requires values to be assigned to the construct and counterpole; in our study, the construct "easy to use" was assigned a value of 1 and the counterpole "difficult to use" was assigned a value of 5. The interviewee is asked to assign a rating to each element in the original triad using the 5-point scale, which gives him or her experience applying the rating scale to the three ele- ments that elicited the construct. In the next step, the re- spondent is asked to rate all remaining elements-in this case, a total of six-on the same scale. Once the rating has been completed and the results re- corded, a new set of three cards is selected and the original question is repeated. The aim is to solicit a different construct and counterpole. The interview is complete when the respon- dent cannot identify any more unique constructs, which typi- cally occurs after about 10 constructs have been identified. The ratings for each element and construct are recorded in the repertory grid, a matrix made up of the elements and the constructs (Easterby-Smith 1980) . Normally, the grid should include between 6 and 10 homogeneous elements. In a new product development setting, the elements might include products or services of a similar type-for instance, as in our example, patient monitoring devices used in in- tensive care units (Table 1). Analyzing the Data A number of analysis methods can be applied to interpret the grid data (see, for example, Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, and Holman 1996; Fransella and Bannister 2003; Raja et al. 2013). One simple method determines preferred elements by calculating the average score for each construct, then averag- ing each element's construct scores together to arrive at an aggregate score for the element. If this method is to be used, the interviewer must ensure consistency in the scale used during the interview. This is accomplished by asking the in- terviewee which attribute, the construct or the counterpole, is preferred. The preferred one becomes the construct, and is assigned a score of 1. The counterpole scores 5. Preferred ele- ments will then have lower scores, and hence lower average scores. In our example, Product A has the lowest average score, indicating that this interviewee thought this was the best overall product based on the constructs identified. Calculating the average score for each construct can yield significant insights for product development teams. For ex- ample, two key constructs in our study scored quite high on average, indicating that the interviewee was not satisfied with any of the elements with regard to these attributes: staff training (4.2) and easy to clean (4.8). If these trends hold across interviewees, these scores indicate that these con- structs represent important unmet needs. In this case, this insight motivated the product development team to create a training module for its next product, which was very well received by customers and led to increased sales. Calculating the average score of elements and constructs provides a summary of a single grid. Where several RGT in- terviews are conducted, analysis becomes more difficult. In fact, group-level analysis of repertory grid data can represent a major challenge. Because the repertory grid technique was developed for individual use, it is important to retain the original constructs elicited from participants (Marsden and Littler 2000b) and "aggregation must be carried out with care" (Rogers and Ryals 2007, 605). However, researchers have developed an analysis method to combine the data from several grids and highlight the most important findings. This analysis is carried out in a number of steps (Goffin and Koners 2011): 1. First, each construct and its matching counterpole are printed onto a card, called the construct card. 2. Two researchers independently sort the construct cards into similar groups and label each group. They then dis- cuss the results, highlighting similarities and differences between their labels and groupings. 3. Next, the researchers create a set of enhanced category def- initions, noting any particular inclusions and exclusions. 4. Finally, they independently group the constructs accord- ing to the new category definitions in order to test the validity of the categorization scheme. This method provides a set of categories that summarizes the views of all interviewees, capturing the data in a much more accessible way. For instance, Goffin and Koners (2011) de- scribe an example in which 273 constructs were assigned to 26 and 32 categories in the first step (by two researchers) and then refined to 21 enhanced category definitions. For the NPD team, 21 categories are clearly easier to assimilate than 273 individual constructs. The analysis must also show which categories matter most to customers. A simple count of how many constructs are in each category (frequency) can highlight issues that are obvi- ously important. However, high frequency alone is not suf- ficiently indicative, as an issue may be talked about a lot but ultimately not very important. To address this gap, frequency can be combined with a quantitative method to determine variability, a measure of the spread of ratings for a given con- struct within a grid (Goffin and Koners 2011). An above av- erage variability score for the constituent constructs within a category indicates high importance. (Variability can be calcu- lated using various analysis packages, such as IdioGrid.) Combining frequency counts with variability measures al- lows the team to rank the categories in order of their impor- tance (Rogers and Ryals 2007). Applying RGT to New Product Development We have used RGT successfully in several NPD projects; three case studies illustrate the use of the technique in both con- sumer and business markets, as well as in both small busi- nesses and large corporations. The cases we have chosen highlight the use of the technique to develop not only new products, but also new services. Case Study 1: Bosch Packaging Technology The Bosch Packaging Technology factory at Crailsheim (near Stuttgart, Germany) designs and builds high-tech- nology production lines for the pharmaceutical sector. In the early 2000s, senior management at Crailsheim was considering whether to develop a product for the presteril- ized syringe-filling market, which had three established competitors. The concern was that Bosch, as a late entrant into the market, would struggle to compete unless it could offer a truly differentiated product. The product develop- ment team was asked to identify unique attributes that would make a Bosch product stand out. The work began with a detailed study of the market, using ethnographic techniques such as contextual interviews (Goffin et al. 2012). Those efforts did identify some opportunities in the mar- ket. However, the NPD team knew that RGT probes deeper than direct questioning and so has the potential to uncover needs that had not previously been uncovered, either by competitors or in Bosch's ethnographic work. With this in mind, the team carried out a series of repertory grid inter- views with pharmaceutical production managers. The grid elements were established in pilot interviews conducted ahead of the RGT interviews. They consisted of the six stages of a typical filling system: 1. A conveyor belt moves tubs of presterilized syringes to a sterile area. 2. The tubs are opened mechanically. 3. Handling equipment removes the syringes from the tubs. 4. A filling station fills the syringes with liquid drugs. 5. Stoppers are applied to the syringes. 6. The syringes are wrapped in sterile packaging. Interviewees were presented with random groups of three elements with the question, "How are two of these stages similar to and different from the third?" The interviews elic- ited over 30 constructs, such as "automatic cleaning" and "critical for the process." In explaining their constructs, the interviewees described the problems they faced with existing filling systems at each stage of the production process, pro- viding critical insights. For example, the foil seal on tubs of syringes was not always fully removed in stage 2, leading to problems at later stages. The constructs confirmed much of what had emerged from the contextual interviews but, critically, also identified problems and issues that had not been identified in previous work. For example, machine size and layout and whether a machine was optimized for production and maintenance ac- cess emerged as critical issues, as did the frequent need for calibration and changeovers during production. The FXS 5100, the syringe-filling system developed by Bosch in response to this insight, has been a resounding suc- cess, even considering the high costs of its development. The system even won a design award for its ergonomics and aes- thetics. The insights gathered through RGT played a critical role in this success. For example, discussion around the con- struct "machine size and layout" revealed that existing equip- ment required access to the front, sides, and rear of the system; such filling lines required more factory space and production employees often struggled with awkward adjust- ments. Consequently, the FXS 5100 was designed so that all settings, calibration, and maintenance could be made using the glass access doors on the front of the system. In addition, based on the insights into customer needs gleaned from the constructs, the NPD team developed unique services to com- plement the FXS 5100, including enhanced documentation and production staff training. Even though it was a late en- trant into the market, the FXS 5100 has a range of features that were not available in the competitors' systems, making Bosch an instant competitor. Case Study 2: Beiersdorf Eucerin Dry Skin Beiersdorf AG is a leading German company with a long his- tory of product innovation. Founded in Hamburg in 1882, it produces a wide range of skincare products, including fa- mous brands such as Nivea. The company developed a skin cream, Eucerin Dry Skin, to treat dry skin and eczema. The efficacy of the formulation was largely due to its active ingre- dient, urea, but the perceived negative association between this compound and urine made the company reluctant to promote the product on the basis of its active ingredient. Al- though the product performed well in trials, particularly for consumers with persistent conditions, and was well received by some users, it failed to achieve the predicted sales vol- umes. The product manager decided that a better under- standing of customer perceptions was needed, even though the initial product development (which had focused on prod- uct formulation and action) was complete. Consumers with skin allergies were interviewed using RGT; the elements were skincare products, including com- petitors' products, and related personal hygiene products. It should be noted that Beiersdorf's choice of elements went beyond the specific category of skin treatment products. The RGT interviews identified a large number of constructs that extended Beiersdorf's understanding of consumers. Inter- viewees identified several factors in their choice of skincare products, such as clinical-ness (whether the product is felt to be a medicine rather than a cosmetic), irritant (the likelihood of the product causing skin reactions), confidence (the per- ception that the product is genuinely effective), and range (the different product variations available). Although the RGT process was intended to support a market repositioning exercise, the results had far-ranging im- pact. They were used to shape the marketing of the existing product, but they also led to further product development. The new marketing approach emphasized the active ingredi- ent, based on the insight that many allergy sufferers are aware that cattle urine is a common treatment for skin prob- lems in Africa; the change in marketing has led to increased sales and a competitor has recently introduced a copy-cat product called Ureacin. At the same time, the results also identified a need for additional product development. Two important constructs-confidence and range-were found to be correlated in consumers' minds. In other words, consum- ers felt more confident about products if they were part of a range of related products. To be perceived as a manufacturer of trustworthy products that consumers would adopt, Beiers- dorf needed to offer a full range of skincare products based on Eucerin; skin cream alone was not enough to build con- sumer confidence. Consequently, a range of other products, such as Eucerin suntan oil and shower gel, have been devel- oped and are now on the market. Case Study 3: Fascia Mania Home Improvements Fascia Mania is a small business based in Birmingham, Eng- land. Founded by two brothers, Andy and Clyde Scothern, it employs about 30 people who market, sell, and install home improvements. Their two main product groups are guttering and plastic fascia replacements. Fascias are wooden boards positioned where the top of the house wall meets the under- side of the roof; these normally require regular maintenance, in particular cleaning and painting; high-quality plastic re- placements look better and require less maintenance. Home improvement companies generally have a poor reputation in the United Kingdom; customers often speak of "cowboy builders," a pejorative term used to describe trades- men who perform shoddy work. (There is even a reality TV show of this name.) Fascia Mania wanted to ensure that its service offering was perceived by customers as totally trust- worthy. One of the founders heard of RGT and partnered with a university researcher to undertake the work. The re- searcher used the technique to investigate the market in combination with some simple videoing of customers de- scribing their views on fascia replacements. The elements in the repertory grid were different types of home improvements that the interviewee had had done, such as replacing a bathroom and or remodeling a kitchen. Because the company had a small budget, only a small num- ber of interviews could be conducted. However, RGT still produced constructs that yielded useful insights. First, the grids showed that homeowners perceived fascia replace- ments as a final but important step in making their homes perfect and them "house proud." This information led the company to train its sales force to approach homeowners who have already made some improvements and who might feel ready for that perfect final touch. Second, the emergence of constructs such as "trust" and "willing to recommend" reinforced the importance of reassuring customers, who were sensitive to the negative reputation of many home im- provement companies. This led to an effort that extended throughout the business, from marketing communications to customer interactions and service design. Key aspects in- cluded a focus on meeting agreed delivery times, working to schedule, and being professional-all incremental, but im- portant, product improvements. Although this effort was initially focused on marketing a service product more effectively, as with the Eucerin case, the RGT insights led to a substantial redesign of key elements of the service product. For example, it was recognized that house-proud owners were also proud of their gardens, so the fascia replacement service was enhanced to provide cover- ings to prevent damage to flower beds and lawns. This atten- tion to detail also led to an expanded product line, as Fascia Mania built such a positive market reputation that the com- pany's customers asked it to offer other types of home improvements. Discussion The companies in each of the three cases pursued RGT with different goals in mind and applied the findings from their studies in different ways (Table 2). Bosch applied its RGT re- sults to developing an entirely new product, using the find- ings to develop differentiated features to meet needs unsatisfied by existing products. Both Beiersdorf and Fascia Mania undertook RGT with an eye toward repositioning their marketing of an existing product. However, in both cases, the new understanding generated not only a major shift in marketing approach but also changes or extensions in the product lines. Claims that RGT is useful primarily for incremental prod- uct improvements arise from the assumption that the out- come of the process is essentially a list of product attributes desired by the customer. However, as our cases demonstrate, interviewees tend to think much more broadly about prod- ucts. The technique can elicit not only product attributes but also the problems customers have with a product or process, as well as their feelings and emotions about it and the con- text in which it is used. In our earlier example, the training and cleaning constructs reflect aspects of the clinician's expe- rience of using those devices that the company had not pre- viously known were important. When the technique was used to investigate the use of disposable products in operat- ing theaters, interviewees mentioned specific product attri- butes, but also discussed how well-designed products made their jobs easier and reduced stress levels. Similarly, RGT in- terviews allowed Bosch to identify a key differentiator based on interviewees' reports of problems in accessing syringe- filling machines for maintenance and calibration-a need not mentioned in previous ethnographic interviews. The Bosch case demonstrates that, given a clear goal for the study, product teams can glean actionable insights for product design from an RGT process. Here, the use of non- product elements (in this case, process phases) provided novel insights. Van Kleef, van Trijp, and Luning (2005) also recognized this possibility, suggesting that "understanding consumer problems or motivations rather than the product itself keeps all possible solutions open for consideration and avoids prematurely limiting possibilities" (184). A key to deploying RGT effectively is understanding that focusing on how customers use the product will yield different results than comparing similar products or attributes. Both ap- proaches can be useful in new product design, if they are thoughtfully deployed. It is also important to recognize that RGT can be comple- mented by other methods. For example, Bosch made addi- tional use of contextual interviews, and Beiersdorf used focus groups to further develop the RGT findings. In the Bosch case, the RGT study highlighted issues that had not emerged in contextual interviews. RGT should therefore be considered as one of several methods that can be deployed to develop customer insight. Its particular strength is in understanding customer perceptions: how customers view the product, ser- vice, process, category, or product use. Designing an effective RGT study does come with some challenges. The interview process is not technically demand- ing, but it is very different from other methods and requires careful attention to detail. Sticking to the question as written and then reflecting responses back to interviewees using the respondents' own phrases takes some practice and can feel unnatural for inexperienced interviewers. When we train people to conduct RGT interviews, many new interviewers tend to replace the respondents' understanding with their own, saying, "Oh, so you mean . . ." and then completing the sentence using their own terms. Capturing the voice of the customer in their terms is the key strength of the method, and also the key difficulty. This is a simple issue to overcome once it is understood. Running pilot interviews with an ex- perienced observer or analyzing video footage from pilot in- terviews will help interviewers to become aware of their communication patterns and make them aware of the need to reproduce the respondent's own terms during the interview. A second challenge is faced in analyzing the results. A simple analysis of a single grid can show, by average scores, which is the best product according to that interviewee and which needs are least well served by the products in that set. Aggregating the data from multiple RGT inter- views is less straightforward; Goffin and Koners (2011) of- fer one method, involving quantitative coding and qualitative variability analyses, that can glean insights from a collection of interviews. While the method is not complex, it can be time-consuming and must be executed with care. The complexity in analysis and the requirement for expertise in both administering the RGT and analyzing the results may be factors explaining its low uptake in new product development. Conclusion New products and services should seek to delight customers, a goal that requires a depth of insight that traditional market research methods do not provide. RGT provides deep insight into customer perceptions, offering an unbiased account of how they view a product or service. Although it remains little used in new product develop- ment, RGT can be highly versatile, providing insights at a number of different points in the product development and marketing process: developing next-generation prod- uct improvements, conceptualizing entirely new products, creating new marketing messages, and improving sales processes. It can highlight key product attributes from a customer perspective, find the best-performing product, and identify unmet consumer needs. When NPD teams learn to capture and use these insights effectively, RGT can lead to sales growth through meaningful product improve- ments and new products that have a real advantage in the customer's eyes. In short, RGT can allow NPD teams to understand their target customers in a new and powerful way. Customers are mostly unable to imagine the possibilities for future products or fully articulate their needs; RGT helps to identify those important hidden needs. Although the RGT process was intended as market research, the results had a more far-ranging impact. RGT can elicit not only product attributes but also the problems customers have with a product or process, as well as their feelings and emotions about it. References Cooper, R. G., and Edgett, S. 2008. Ideation for product inno- vation: What are the best methods? PDMA Visions Magazine 32(1): 12-17. Dahan, E., and Hauser, J. R. 2001. Product development: Man- aging a dispersed process. In Handbook of Marketing, ed. B. Weitz and R. Wensley, 179-222. London: Sage. Easterby-Smith, M. 1980. The design, analysis and interpreta- tion of repertory grids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 13(1): 3-24. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., and Holman, D. 1996. Using repertory grids in management. Journal of European Indus- trial Training 20(3): 3-30. Fransella, F., and Bannister, D. 2003. A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique. Chichester, England: J: Wiley & Sons. Goffin, K., and Koners, U. 2011. Tacit knowledge, lessons learnt, and new product development. Journal of Product In- novation Management 28(2): 300-318. Goffin, K., and Lemke, F. 2004. Uncovering your customer's hidden needs. European Business Forum 18(Summer): 45-47. Goffin, K., Lemke, F., and Koners, U. 2010. Identifying Hidden Needs: Creating Breakthrough Products. Basingstoke, UK: Pal- grave McMillan. Goffin, K., Varnes, C. J., van der Hoven, C., and Koners, U. 2012. Beyond the voice of the customer: Ethnographic mar- ket research. Research-Technology Management 55(4): 45-54. Hassenzahl, M., and Wessler, R. 2000. Capturing design space from a user perspective: The repertory grid technique revis- ited. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 12(3): 441-459. Janssen, K. L., and Dankbaar, B. 2008. Proactive involvement of consumers in innovation: Selecting appropriate tech- niques. International Journal of Innovation Management 12(3): 511-541. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., and Tsuji, S. 1984. Attrac- tive quality and must-be quality. The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control 14(2): 39-48. Kärkkäinen, H., and Ka, H. 2001. Ten tools for customer-driven product development in industrial companies. International Journal of Production Economics 69(2): 161-176. Kelly, G. A. 1955. A Theory of Personality. New York: W.W. Norton. King, R. 1987. Listening to the voice of the customer: Using the quality function deployment system. National Productivity Re- view 6(3): 277-281. Marsden, D., and Littler, D. 2000a. Exploring consumer prod- uct construct systems with the repertory grid technique. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 3(3): 127-144. Marsden, D., and Littler, D. 2000b. Repertory grid technique: An interpretive research framework. European Journal of Marketing 34(7): 816-834. Moussaoui, K. A., and Varela, P. 2010. Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantita- tive descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference 21(8): 1088-1099. Raja, J. Z., Bourne, D., Goffin, K., Cahkol, M., and Martinez, V. 2013. Achieving customer satisfaction through integrated products and services: An exploratory study. Journal of Prod- uct Innovation Management 30(6): 1128-1144. Robertson, J. 2002. Eureka! Why analysts should invent re- quirements. IEEE Software 19(4): 20-22. Rogers, B., and Ryals, L. 2007. Using the repertory grid to access the underlying realities in key account relation- ships. International Journal of Market Research 49(5): 595-612. Slater, S. F., and Mohr, J. J. 2006. Successful development and commercialization of technological innovation: Insights based on strategy type. Journal of Product Innovation Manage- ment 23(1): 26-33. Van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H. C. M., and Luning, P. 2005. Con- sumer research in the early stages of new product develop- ment: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Quality and Preference 16(3): 181-201. Veinand, B., Godefroy, C., Adam, C., and Delarue, J. 2011. High- light of important product characteristics for consumers: Comparison of three sensory descriptive methods performed by consumers. Food Quality and Preference 22(5): 474-485. David Baxter is a lecturer in innovation at Cranfield School of Management in the UK. His current research includes knowledge management for innova- tion, the performance implications of agile processes, ideas management, and customer insight methods, with a strong emphasis on company prac- tice. In addition to teaching MBA, Doctoral, and Masters-level courses he has presented to audiences at international conferences, company man- agement teams, and senior government personnel. He has published over 30 academic papers. [email protected] Keith Goffin is professor of innovation and new product development at Cranfield School of Management. He has extensive experience in product development from both an industrial and an academic perspective. Previ- ously, he worked for 14 years for Hewlett-Packard Medical Products, in man- agement and marketing roles. At Cranfield, he teaches in MBA and executive programs and is a visiting professor at business schools in France, Italy, Germany, and Sweden. He regularly acts as a consultant on innovation management to leading organizations and has published over 150 articles and three books. [email protected] Marek Szwejczewski is a professor of operations strategy at Cranfield School of Management. His current research interests include manufacturing strat- egy, customer hidden needs, supplier management, sustaining change initia- tives, and new product portfolio management. He has published extensively in both academic and practitioner journals, authoring numerous articles and reports on supplier management, innovation, manufacturing performance, and manufacturing strategy. As director of Cranfield's renowned Best Factory Awards, he has received significant public and private funding for his research on factory performance in the UK and has co-authored several major reports. He is director of the Global Manufacturing Roundtable at Cranfield, which works with manufacturing companies on projects to improve operational competitiveness and performance. [email protected] DOl: 1O.5437108956308X5704229 (c) 2014 Industrial Research Institute, Inc |