An MBA Dissertation - An Investigation Into Consumer Buying Behaviour: User-Friendliness As Success Factor in High-Tech Products

Liverpool John Moores University
An Investigation into Consumer Buying

Behaviour: User-Friendliness as Success
Factor in High-Tech Products
A study of consumer behaviours to determine the importance of usability in the
success of high-tech products
Dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master
of Business Administration at Liverpool John Moores University
Tom Jacob
MBA 2010
Page | I
Declaration
I, Tom Jacob, declare that no portion of the work referred to

in this dissertation has been submitted in support of an
application for another degree or qualification of this or any
other university or other institute of learning. Further, all the
work in this dissertation is entirely my own, unless
referenced in the text as a specific source and included in
the bibliography.
Page | II
Acknowledgements
My profound thanks to my research supervisor with whom I

had the great luxury of working: Ron Bray. In addition, I
would like to express my immense gratitude to my parents
and sisters who stood with me in the bleakest of hours and
offered words of wisdom and encouragement. To my uncle
John Mathew, I could not have done this without your
guidance, and to my grandmother Rosy Mathew, I am
grateful for your prayers in heaven.
This dissertation could not have been written without the

generous assistance of countless individuals who shared
their knowledge and expertise. To all of you, I extend my
deep appreciation.
Page | III
Abstract
Our generation, living in a technology-dominated world, makes extensive use of
electronic devices and information services to make their lives more simple and
satisfying. Intense competition in this sector had prompted the manufactures to
concentrate on adding more and more specs/features to their devices, mostly at the
expense of reduced usability.
However, technically advanced products like Sony PlayStation3 are losing market
share to spec-light competitors, while the users of prominent operating systems
like Microsoft Windows are reverting to older versions of the software. In light of
these developments, this research will analyse the consumer philosophies when
choosing hi-tech products; thereby determining the importance of user-
friendliness in the success of high-tech products.
This research uses ‘Phenomenology’ as its research philosophy, complimented by

an ‘Inductive’ research approach. The research choice is ‘Qualitative Mono-
Method’ with an ‘Open-End Survey’ used as the research strategy. Primary data -
collected using an ‘Open-End Questionnaire’- is analysed using the ‘Content
Analysis’ method. Sampling methods used are Convenience & Snowball methods.
This research takes three sets of sample products, -Nintendo Wii & Sony
PlayStation, Apple iPhone & Blackberry Curve, and Google Chrome & Microsoft
Internet Explorer to research on this subject. Participants were enquired about the
usability of the products to determine the relationship between usability and sales.
After analysing 42 participant responses, this researcher hypothesised that

usability can win over a customer, and that the customers are willing to pay a
premium for usability. It was also clear that the usability of a product could create
an emotional attachment with the brand for the users. The hypothesises where
proven using the primary and secondary data. The researcher then reviews the
academic literature in light of the findings after which a set of recommendations is
provided to the technology industry, which if properly implemented, can drive the
sales figures.
Page | IV
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 - Introduction 01
Overview of the Research Problem 02
Industry Background 03
Challenges facing the Industry 03
Current Trends 04
Research Problem 04
Rationale 05
Benefits to the Industry 05
Benefits to the Academics and the Society 05
Personal Benefits 06
Research Objectives 06
Research Questions 06
Dissertation Structure 07
Chapter 2 - Critical Literature Review 08
Concept of User-Friendliness 09
Attributes of Usability 10
Learnability 10
Memorability 11
Efficiency 11
Errors 12
Satisfaction 13
Universal Usability 13
Concept of Consumer Buying Behaviour 15
Six Stage Buying Process 15
Factors Influencing Consumer Behaviour 16
Personal Factors 17
Cultural Factors 17
Social Factors 18
Psychological Factors 19
Situational Factors 19
Types of Buying Behaviour 20
Relevant Theories and Models 22
Marshallian Theory 22
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory 23
Needs-Opportunities-Abilities Model 24
Page | V
Porter's Generic Strategies 25
The Extended Marketing Mix 26
Associated Theories and Relevant Literature 27
Recent Developments and Debates 27
Emergence of Online Stores and Internet Economy 27
Products as a Platform 28
The ‘Virtual’ Customer Behaviour 29
Service as a Product 29
Conceptual Framework 30
Chapter 3 - Research Methodology 31
Research Philosophy: Phenomenology 32
Brief on Other Philosophies 32
Justification of the Adopted Philosophy 33
Research Approach: Inductive 33
Brief on Other Approaches 34
Justification of the Adopted Approach 34
Research Strategy: Open-End Survey 35
Brief on Other Strategies 35
Justification of the Adopted Strategy 35
Research Choice: Qualitative Mono-Method 36
Brief on Other Choices 36
Justification of the Adopted Choice 37
Time Horizon: Cross-sectional 37
Brief on Other Time Horizons 37
Justification of the Adopted Time Horizon 37
Data Collection and Analysis 38
Primary Data Collection: Open-end Questionnaire 38
Brief on Other Primary Data Collection Methods 38
Justification of the Adopted Data Collection Method 38
Secondary Data 39
Data Analysis: Content Analysis 39
Sampling: Convenience, Snowball Methods 39
Justification for the Adopted Sampling Methods 40
Sampling Size 40
Sampling Criteria 40
Page | VI
Scope and Implications of the Research 40
Reliability, Credibility and Validity of the Research 41
Ethical Issues 41
Conceptual Framework Linkage 42
Chapter 4 - Findings and Results of Data 43
Questionnaire Distribution and Response 44
Primary Data 44
Reported Usage of the Selected Products 44
Demographic Characteristics of the Participants 45
Participants’ Comfortability with Hi-Tech Products 46
Responses to the Questionnaire 47
Respondent Reaction to the Usability of Their Products 52
Secondary Data 53
Sales Figures of the Shortlisted Devices 53
Retail Price of the Shortlisted Devices 56
Chapter 5 - Analysis of Data and Discussion 57
Analysis of Product Ownership Patterns 58
Demographic Trends 58
Analysis of Questionnaire Answers 58
Usability of Shortlisted Products:
Discussion about Respondents’ Perception 65
User-friendliness of Sony PlayStation 65
Analysis in Context of Academic Literature 65
User-friendliness of Nintendo Wii 66
User-friendliness of Google Chrome 67
User-friendliness of Microsoft Internet Explorer 68
User-friendliness of Blackberry Curve 69
User-friendliness of Apple iPhone 70
Analysis of Answers and Discussion:
Derived Trends and Patterns 71
Page | VII
Working Hypothesises:
In Context of the Research Questions 72
Evidences for Validating the Hypothesises 72
Evidence from Primary Data 72
Evidence from Secondary Data 73
Theory Formulation 76
Chapter 6 - Conclusion and Recommendations 77
Conclusion 78
Research Findings in the Context of Research Questions 78
Review of Academic Literature in Light of the Findings 79
Limitations of the Research 80
Recommendations 81
Suggestions for the Hi-Tech Industry 81
Scope for Future Studies 81
Chapter 6 - Personal Statement on Reflective Learning 83
Concept of Reflective Learning 84
Importance of Reflective Learning 84
Self Reflections on the Learning Experience 84
Reflections on the Content of Dissertation 85
Reflections on the Process of Working 86
Summary of Reflective Learning Experience 88
Bibliography 89
Appendixes 100
Appendix 1: A Questionnaire on
The User-friendliness of High-Tech Products 101
Appendix 2: Research Gantt Chart 108
Page | VIII
List of Figures
No. Name of the Figure Page
Figure 01 Learning Curves 10
Figure 02 Factors Influencing Customer Behaviours 17
Figure 03 Types Of Buying Behaviours 20
Figure 04 Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs 23
Figure 05 Needs-Opportunities-Abilities (NOA) Model 24
Figure 06 Porter's Generic Strategies 25
Figure 07 Online Buying Process Acts As A Sieve 28
Figure 08 The Research Onion 31
Figure 09 Research Choices 36
Figure 10 Reported Usage Of The Selected Products 44
Figure 11 Age Characteristics Of The Participants 45
Figure 12 Participants By Gender 46
Figure 13 Averages Of Comfortability With
Technology By Different Age Groups 47
Figure 14 Influencing Factors When Participants
Originally Brought The Products 48
Figure 15 What Is More Important? Usability Or Features? 49
Figure 16 Should Manufactures Focus More On
Usability Or Better Features? 50
Figure 17 How do the Usability Features
Of The Owned Products Improve Life? 51
Figure 18 Worldwide Sales Of Wii 53
Figure 19 Worldwide Sales Of PlayStation 53
Figure 20 Market Share Of Internet Explorer 54
Figure 21 Market Share Of Chrome 54
Figure 22 Worldwide Sales Of iPhone 55
Figure 23 Worldwide Smart-Phone Market Share 2008-09 56
Figure 24 Difference Between Genders
In Their Perception About Usability 62
Figure 25 Participants’ Willingness to Pay a premium
For better Usability 63
Figure 26 Growth Rate of Smart-Phones in 2008-09 74
Figure 27 iPhone Sales - Annual Moving Average 75
Figure 28 Kolb’s Learning Cycle 83
Figure 29 Research Gantt Chart 108
Page | IX
Chapter: 1
Introduction
_______________________________________________
This chapter acts as an introduction to the dissertation by explaining the research

problem and its significance in the real world. A brief background of the industry
is given, followed by the rationale for selecting this topic. This chapter will also
provide the research objectives and questions and will detail the dissertation
structure.
1
“Complexity is the problem; Ease of use is the solution; Productivity
is the impact” (John Falk Kelley 1983)
Overview of the Research Problem

Living in a world dominated by technology, we use a range of electronic devices
and gadgetry everyday to make our life easier, enjoyable, simple and more
satisfying. Our generation have mobile phones, instant messaging and social
network services to stay in touch with the loved ones; portable media players keep
them stress-free while game consoles entertain them. Today’s businesspersons
carry tablet computers, which enables them to trade on the go. Technology, they
say, is bringing the world -and its people- together.
Still, these days our lives are more complicated than ever. Every new device or
new versions of existing gadgets guarantee to be the easiest ever, but complicate
things even more. Developers strive to add new features in to their products every
day. Latest mobile phones have evolved beyond being phones into life-style
devices full of content and applications. Modern mobile phones integrate cameras
and satellite navigation systems, making it more convenient. However, these
advances come at a cost; with primary purposes like cellular reception, voice
clarity and battery life having suffered.
Services like blogs and social networking sites have empowered our society by
giving our people a stage to make their voices heard. However, at the same time,
citizens are increasingly concerned about privacy issues and identity theft. New
versions of operating systems are so resource demanding and buggy that users are
reverting to older versions.
Add all this to the fact that most of these devices and services do not interact with
each other; one will understand the plight of the public. Technology was supposed
to liberate us. Instead, it has enslaved us. It has to be said, promises of efficiency
and simplicity have not been kept.
2
Where does this leave the technology industry? Is the industry trying to
incorporate highly complex features in to their products that consumers do not
actually need or use? Can new and better features alone attract customers? Will a
possibly basic product that is more easy-to-use persuade an end user? Is it latest
functionality over usability?
Industry Background
One of the fastest growing sectors of our time, technology industry -companies
that design, manufacture, and distribute electronic devices, software and
information services- is unique do to its high investment in research and
development. Due to this focus on research, it is also a highly evolving industry.
Public interest in this relatively young industry -its origins in the invention of
integrated circuits in 1950s- is exceptionally high, largely due to the brisk pace of
communication and technological development witnessed in the last two decades
and the way it has changed our lives (msu.edu 2009).
Global leaders in the sector are Apple, AMD, Canon, Dell, Google, HP, Hitachi,
IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Nintendo, Nokia, Oracle, Palm, Samsung, Sony and
Toshiba. It is noted that most of these companies have tried and failed to grow out
of their core sub-sectors. Examples are Microsoft and Dell, who tried -not with
much success- to develop online and mobile phone businesses respectively.
Challenges facing the Industry

In spite of the fast growth rate, Hi-Tech industry is facing numerous challenges.
Technology companies are increasingly vulnerable to tough competition and
privacy laws, with the situation made complex by the varied interpretations of
these laws by different countries. Many of the industry leaders are currently under
investigation or previously have been heavily fined. Examples are Microsoft and
Intel, who were fined by the European Union for anti-trust practices (bbc.co.uk
2009). Critics have also questioned the ethical consciousness of the companies
that have access to the private data of millions around the world, who then use this
data for targeted advertising (Brennan & Johnson 2004). The British national
3
daily newspaper ‘The Guardian’ (2009) while reporting that facebook.com is
experiencing a mass exodus due to its recently changed privacy policy highlighted
this ethical concern. Digital piracy is another problem faced by the industry, with
some estimates calculating annual global losses of $20-22 billion (usitc.gov 2009)
in potential income due to copyright infringements.
Current Trends
In yesteryears, customers had little choice in the market, as there were only a
handful of players. Traditionally, new features are the primary selling point in this
sector. This has changed drastically in the last five years. As the industry matured
-with more sub-sectors, competitors and products coming in to the market-,
industry leaders started losing customers to new and upcoming companies, which
then prompted the developers and marketers to focus on new selling points like
user-friendliness to attract or retain customers. This paradigm shift is the basis of
my research.
Research Problem
The purpose of this research is to analyse the consumer philosophies when
choosing technological products. What does the consumer look for when he/she
buys a Hi-Tech product? Latest features or usability? Can the usability of products
influence buying decisions? If so, how significant is this factor to consumers?
I am taking three set of sample products, Nintendo Wii and Sony PlayStation from
gaming sector, Apple iPhone and Blackberry Curve from smart-phone sector and
Google Chrome and Microsoft Internet Explorer from web browsers to research
on this subject. In every set, one is a market leading company or product and the
other one a new pretender who focuses on being more user-friendly. How are
these products fairing in the market? Will the consumer choose a user-friendly
product in favour of the more sophisticated one? What makes a consumer go for a
product? Is it the easy-to-use ‘user interface’? Alternatively, is it the new features?
Perhaps a shorter learning curve? What do the consumers value more? Usability
or latest functionality?
4
Rationale
The rationale for selecting three pair of products instead of one is many. Firstly, as
my research is industry centred rather than product specific, use of three separate
set of products will not broaden the scope of my research. Instead, I will benefit
from a bigger pool of data that can be obtained, which is the second reason for
using three pair of products. I have been very careful while choosing the products.
By choosing products that public uses in everyday life, rather than a niche gadget,
I am confident of getting high quality data aplenty. This will in turn, bring out
clearer patterns and trends that can be used to form an inductive hypothesis.
Benefits to the Industry

This research will help the developers to better understand the needs of the
consumer. The study will bring out the different priorities within different
segments of the market, which will help in marketing communications. How can
the industry align their strategic capabilities and core competences to better suit
the needs of the consumer? This research will help them to better direct their
energies towards developing systems that have an optimal blend of features and
user-friendliness.
Benefits to the Academics and the Society

Even though a wealth of literature is available on the subjects like Usability and
Consumer Buying Behaviour with many theories explaining the different aspects
of them, not much has be written on what -if any- effect user-friendliness has on
customers and their purchasing choices. Although closing this knowledge gap will
be well over the scope of this dissertation, this research aim -at the least- to draw
attention to the latest trends and developments in the subject. How will the current
economic climate, a great-unknown quantity, influence the customer perceptions
on user-friendliness? Is there a relationship between geodemographics of the
customers and their perception about usability? Academics and the society in
general will benefit from the answers provided by this dissertation.
5
Personal Benefits
As a tech savvy person, I am most frustrated by the unfriendly nature of today’s
technological devices, software and services that seems to make our life overly
complicated. It would definitely make my day more stress-free and easy if my
gadgets were less complicated and easy to use. This will also be a unique
opportunity to study consumer buying behaviours, which will aid me in my career
as a marketing professional. Additionally, as a future manager, this researcher will
be expected to show the determination and expertise to effectively manage
businesses and projects. This research will demonstrate the authors’ ability to
recognize and solve day-to-day business problems while meeting tough budgeting
and time requirements.
Research Objectives
In accordance to the research problem and rationale detailed above, this research
aims to:
1. Analyse the consumer philosophies when selecting and buying Hi-

Tech products for personal use.
2. Find if user-friendliness of a product can influence buying decisions.

If so, quantify the significance of this factor to the consumer.
3. Find if customers associate user-friendliness with ‘added value’.
Research Questions
1. Will a possibly basic (feature-wise) product that is more user-
friendly win an end user?
2. If that is the case, then how important is this usability factor to a

potential buyer? Will he/she pay a premium for it?
3. Is User-friendliness a strong brand building/busting point?
6
Dissertation Structure
Chapter One – Introduction
Chapter Two – Critical Literature Review
Chapter Three – Research Methodology
Chapter Four – Findings and Results of Data
Chapter Five – Analysis of Data and Discussion
Chapter Six – Conclusion and Recommendations
Chapter Seven – Personal Statement on Reflective Learning
7
Chapter: 2
Critical Literature Review
_______________________________________________
This chapter attempts a critical review of the academic literature relevant to this
research. This review is important in two ways; primarily, it ensures a thorough
understanding of topic area, and secondly, the researcher can compare and
contrast related concepts, theories and debates. The first few sections of this
chapter explain the concept, attributes and factors of user-friendliness and
customer buying behaviour. This is followed by a review of the relevant theories
and models and an analysis of related debates and recent developments in the
industry. The chapter is concluded by a conceptual framework linking the
literature and the research.
8
Concept of User-Friendliness
User-friendliness is defined by dictionary.cambridge.org (2009) as “easy to use or
understand”, where as International Standards Organization describe it as the
“effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users can achieve
specified goals in particular environment” (Karwowski 2001). International
Standards Organization elaborates on the concept by explaining that user-
friendliness is indeed a measurable value; most accurately calculated by studying
how easily an individual can use a tool to achieve its intended goal.
Hooks & Ferry (2001) notice that ‘user-friendly’ is a particularly troublesome

word, arguing that a product developer who is comfortable with the technology is
guaranteed to have a different threshold for ‘user-friendly’ than the end customer.
The argument is that a technological product can be made only with a ‘certain
kind’ of customer in mind, and a customer who is not of that ‘certain kind’ will
struggle to adapt, no matter how user-friendly a tool is. Hooks & Ferry further this
argument by stating that developers rarely experience the ‘real world
environment’ where their products will eventually be used; which of course
further complicates their idea of user-friendliness.
Jane Carey (1995) hypothesize that user-friendliness is linked to the productivity

of the system. She identified various factors like “flexibility, task orientation, ease
of use, efficiency, fault tolerance, predictability, and ease of learning” which will
improve the user-friendliness of a system. This leads to the logic that user-
friendliness can be calculated by the effectiveness and efficiency of the system.
This validates ISO’s stand that user-friendliness is a measurable value.
Effectiveness and efficiency can be measured. However, satisfaction -which is

difficult to quantitatively measure- might be seen as the most important aspect of
usability for products whose use is voluntary (Karwowski 2001). This becomes
important when we look at the fact that most of the ‘virtual’ products like web-
based e-mail and cloud computing are free with providers turning to ‘after sales
satisfaction’ as a competitive advantage with which they can capture and retain
customers.
9
Attributes of Usability
Jakob Nielsen (1993), a usability consultant argues that user-friendliness is not a
one-dimensional property, but a combination of various factors. He identified five
attributes of usability, which are 1) Learnability, 2) Memorability, 3) Efficiency,
4) Errors and 5) Satisfaction. Nielsen pointed out that user-friendliness can be
systematically analysed and measured by defining it in terms of these more clear-
cut and quantifiable components.
Learnability
Learnability or ‘ease of learning’ (Carey 1995) is perhaps the most important

usability attribute; in the sense that most people judges the user-friendliness of a
new system or tool in a matter of hours. Figure 1 show the “ease of learning”
experience of a novice user, whereby the user is quickly acquainted to the system.
Jane Carey acknowledges that the initial ease of learning is the easiest of the
usability characteristics to quantify. Hammond, Gross & Wesson (2002) finds that
most users start using a system before completely learning it i.e. people tend to
10
explore and learn as they use the new system. This is particularly true in the case
of users who do not receive formal training before using a new device. Dumas &
Redish (1999) explains that most users will try to be productive with their time -
inevitably spending less time learning the system-, which will lead to an
exploratory learning of the new device.
Memorability
This exploratory learning style requires the system to have a high level of
memorability, which Nielsen identifies as the second attribute of user-friendliness.
Jane Carey (1995) describes memorability using the terms ‘predictability’ and
‘ease of use’. According to Nielsen, new systems must be designed so that an end
user can easily remember how to utilize the system. This particularly applies in
the case of a novice user who finds it easier to follow simple and precise steps that
can get them the desired results. This type of users will try to execute commands
or gestures (like ‘right-clicking’ to access a menu) they learned elsewhere in the
system in other parts of the system.
Henry Simpson (1984) suggest that a program or system should be consistent in

the user interface i.e. functions in different areas of the system or device should
interact with the user in an expected way. Computer science professor Ben
Shneiderman (1987) supports this by arguing that developers should strive for
consistency, as it will greatly reduce the learning curve. For example, a gesture
like ‘double-click’ should accomplish the same task in any window or level of the
program. This consistency in the UI will lead the user to be more familiar and
confident with the system (Dumas & Redish 1999).
Efficiency
Once users have gone through the initial stages of familiarising with the device,
and are comfortable with the system, they expect the system to increase their
productivity. Dumas & Redish note that users associate usability with
productivity. This means that users have an eye on the time it takes to get things
done and the number of steps they go through to accomplish a task. Jane Carey
describes this as the ‘efficiency’ factor.
11
Green & Jordan (1999) argues that sustainable usability can only be achieved
when a device is efficient enough to save its users time and effort. Wickens et al.
(2004) finds that customers choose an Apple iPod rather than a competitor’s
media player due to this ‘efficiency’ in playing media files. In other words, an
iPod serves its users not only by playing high quality media, but also by saving
them time and effort through its innovative, intuitive and minimalist UI.
Shneiderman (2000) theorize that efficiency becomes the most important factor if
the device is to be used frequently in day-to-day life (e.g.: mobile phones and
personal digital assistants).
Errors
An error can be defined as an instruction that is not recognised by the system
either due to inadequate user inputs or due to a system failure. Nielsen categorises
errors into simple (errors which have little effect other that some delay in
operational time) and catastrophic (errors which are missed by the user;
consequently destroying hardware & data or making defective products). As no
system can possibly be made fully error proof, efforts should be made to make the
user aware of the errors as and when they occur.
In most scenarios, this task is accomplished by displaying error messages which

inform the user about the errors (even potential ones) and advice them on possible
solutions. These messages have dual purpose. First, they give early warnings that
may prevent the escalation of the situation in to a catastrophic one. Secondly, they
give vital information that can prove invaluable if technical assistance is needed.
Cougias et al. (2003) stresses the importance of contingency planning when

dealing with errors, warning that backup schedules should be strictly followed.
They recommend recovery procedures to be built into every system so that users
can recover from a serious error without data loss or external help. Tony Steidler-
Dennison (2009) identifies Mac OSX Snow Leopard’s automated backup and
recovery tools (“robust, outstanding and easy to configure”) as a major user-
friendly feature when compared with the limited tools available in Microsoft
Windows 7.
12
Satisfaction
Satisfaction is an attribute of usability whereby the device strikes a chord with the
user. This becomes significant when device is employed on a discretionary basis
like personal computing. Carroll & Thomas (1988) believes that when the users
are after an enriching experience rather than productivity, satisfaction becomes the
most important aspect of usability. This rationale holds true in the case of
‘Mozilla Firefox’ browser whose residential market share is much higher than the
corporate one (marketingcharts.com 2009). This shows that the people who use
‘Internet Explorer’ at office switch to Firefox when they are at home.
Karwowski (2001) suggests that satisfaction is linked with human psychology i.e.
no manufacturer can ever fully guarantee product satisfaction. Kurtz (2008)
maintains that marketing is vital to user-satisfaction. He argues that a well-
marketed product, which has a ‘feel good factor’ to it, is guaranteed to generate
user-satisfaction.
Agreeing partially, Parasuraman et al. (2009) writes that clever integrated

marketing communications can influence human psychology and thereby the
perceived satisfaction levels, but only if the basic product is better than average.
According to them, Apple Inc. makes use of intelligent marketing to promote the
idea that their products are very user friendly, particularly the recent ‘I am a Mac’
series of advertisements that can lead the Mac users in to thinking that they are
using a very user-friendly system.
Universal Usability
Prof. Ben Shneiderman (2000) introduced the concept of universal usability,
which takes in to account the diversity of user population and user needs, rather
than the ‘average user’. Ben Shneiderman has always rejected the notion of
designing a product with an ‘average user’ in mind. He suggests that -considering
the fact that no two users are the same- there are no ‘average users’ but only
‘unique users’.
13
Even though many critics decry as practically impossible, Shneiderman insists
that with more consumer participation, good design practices, and methodical
testing, universal usability can be achieved. An earlier work (Shneiderman 1987)
argues that developers should strive for consistency, as it will greatly reduce the
learning curve.
Jonathan Lazar (2007) explains the elements of universal usability, which are 1)
User & Technology diversity and 2) Closing the ‘knowledge gap’. Technology
diversity consists of different hardware (e.g.: servers, workstations, portables and
mobiles), OS platforms and standards. User diversity includes the user’s age,
income, special needs, culture and expertise. If there is a gap between ‘what the
user knows’ and ‘what the user need to know’ then there is a ‘knowledge gap’
(Shneiderman 2000). This gap can be filled with the efficient use of help menus,
practice sections and tutorials.
Sarah Horton (2005) proposed a set of universal usability guidelines in her work
‘Access by Design: A Guide to Universal Usability for Web Designers’ which
includes simplicity of design, build quality (user controls, flexibility, fallbacks
etc) and use of open standards. She recommends that every system should
incorporate certain levels of flexibility and personalization options that the users
can modify to make the system their own.
The concept of universal usability is particularly relevant when we consider

modern mobile operating systems like Google Android that advertise themselves
as ‘extremely customizable’. Mozilla Foundation who develops the Mozilla
Firefox, -the second most popular browser in the world in terms of usage and the
largest gainer of market share in the last three years (netapplications.com 2010)-
have always maintained that the browser’s innovative customization options have
helped it to differentiate itself from the more established competitors in the
market. Kenneth Feldt (2007) thinks of this capability -the ever-growing library of
browser extensions that enhance the functionality of the browser in some way - as
a core competency, as no other internet browser has effectively replicated this
functionality.
14
Concept of Consumer Buying Behaviour
‘Consumer buying behaviour’ is defined by businessdictionary.com (2009) as a
process “by which individuals search for, select, purchase, use, and dispose of
goods and services, in satisfaction of their needs and wants”. Knowing what -and
what not- a consumer needs, what he purchases and how it is used is important
when it comes to delivering successful products to the market. By understanding
the customer needs, businesses can be proactive while developing new products
and services (Egan 2007). However, this is perhaps the most challenging of tasks
as, in practice at least, every customer is unique and has his own set of reasons for
buying a particular product.
The earliest literature on customer buying behaviour is perhaps by Fan Li -also

known as Tao Zhu Gong- of ancient China who predated Aristotle by a couple of
centuries. His book, known in English as ‘Golden Rules of Business Success’,
speaks about the importance of understanding the current & predicting the future
consumer trends and educating customers, thereby influencing their purchasing
decisions (Hui Xu 1998).
Six Stage Buying Process

A customer passes through six stages while buying a product (Vashisht 2005).
According to this model, for a customer to buy a product, he must first be aware
of a need. This need can be anything from ‘being hungry’ to a desire to ‘look
good’. Neal & Quester (2006) observed that this need could be externally
stimulated either by marketing communications or by seeing the product in use.
When a customer is aware of his need he then, mostly subconsciously, decides on

how much effort he should put into satisfy this need. This decision depends on
how important (socially, economically & psychologically) the product is to him.
For example, a short stature woman will be highly involved in buying her shoes,
as it is psychologically important to her.
15
The third stage is the information search, the intensity of which depends on the
involvement level. In a high involvement purchase, customer will seek guidance
from friends & family, marketers and public sources like magazines. He will also
tryout (e.g.: test-drive a car) the product if possible. By then, a customer will have
a shortlist from which he will buy the product.
In the fourth stage, the shortlisted products will be evaluated against each other
and the needs. According to Wilson & Gilligan (2005), in this stage customers
will evaluate each product as a bundle of attributes with varying abilities. Neal et
al. (2004) notice that factors like brands can weigh-in in this evaluation. By the
end of this stage, the customer would have decided on a particular product to buy.
The fifth stage is the purchase decision whereby the customer buys the product. It
is noted (Vashisht 2005) that unexpected situational factors might change the
decision of the customer in this stage. For example, if a product the customer
planned to buy is out of stock, he might be forced to buy a different one. Mullin &
Cummins (2008) hypothesize that Sales Promotions can effectively influence
purchase decisions at this stage.
The final stage is the post purchase behaviour whereby the customer experience
different levels of satisfaction while using the product. Recently, this stage has
gained prominence; as modern customers, who have greater choice than ever
before, might not come back for the product if he/she is not satisfied. It is noted
that detailed instruction manuals and after-sales support can increase customer
satisfaction (Adcock et al. 2001). A notable example is Apple Inc.’s personal
training program called ‘One to One’ for their new customers (apple.com 2010).
Factors Influencing Consumer Behaviour

Various texts classify the many factors influencing customer behaviour in
different ways. Examples are Inner & Outer factors by J Koudelka (1997) and
classification in to Personal, Sociocultural & Psychological factors by Bob Perry
(2009). Rama Moahana Rao (2007) identifies several influences, which he
categorises in to Internal, External and Marketing factors. According to Mowen &
16
Minor (2009), there are five factors -1) Personal, 2) Social, 3) Cultural, 4)
Psychological and 5) Situational Influences- which influence customer buying
behaviour. This classification is also endorsed by Berkman & Gilson (1986),
Gilligan & Wilson (2009) and Kotler et al. (2008). Vashisht (2005) is of the
opinion that situational forces can be an important factor that influences customer
behaviour (Figure 2).
Personal Factors
Matin Khan (2007) suggests that an individual’s unique characteristics like Age &
‘Life-Cycle Stage’, Education, Profession, Financial Situation, Character & Self-
concept and Life-Style will influence his/her customer behaviour. Matin Khan
further explains that an individual’s physical factors like weight, height and health
will also reflect in his buying choices. Kotler et al. (2008) finds that these factors
are highly linked with psychological factors while Vashisht (2005) acknowledges
that the strategists use these factors for market segmentation.
Cultural Factors
Bob Perry (2009) is of the opinion that cultural factors -a set of attitudes,
perceptions, values and practices- has the most important influence on customer
buying choices as it is the primary cause of an individual’s wants and behaviour.
Cultural factor can be subdivided in to three -main culture, sub culture and social
class- factors.
17
The main culture -dominated by a person’s social culture and education- shape the
base of an individual’s choices, views and behaviour patterns. This is then
influenced by sub cultures like religious views, geographical area, life experiences
and situations. Sub cultures like organizational and geographical cultures can be a
huge influence in the making of behavioural patterns (Gilligan & Wilson 2009).
They also note that these subcultures play a critical role in creating different
market segments.
Social Class refers to the tier of the social structure to which a consumer belongs.
Social Class is the sum of a set of variables like occupation, income, legacy and
education. Berkman & Gilson (1986) predicts that members of the same social
class will exhibit identical behavioural patterns. Berkman & Gilson also notes that
it is possible, in long term, to move between social classes as the customer’s
profession, financial situation and social status changes. They hypothesize that
this change will also be reflected in the customers buying habits.
Social Factors
Social factors refer to the influence exerted by a string of relationships, roles and
personal status. Any social relationship -from a closed family circle to an open
secondary membership groups like professional societies- can influence the
behaviour of an individual. Other groups like Aspirational and Dissociative
groups will also influence a customer’s buying choices. Hoyer & Macinnis (2009)
suggests that influence of social groups will vary at different stages of a person’s
life cycle & product life cycle as well as in the case of different products.
Social factors are particularly important in the modern ‘socially-connected’ world

as customers are increasingly consulting reference groups like online friends and
review groups before committing to a new product. In extreme cases, people
choose a product not essentially due to it being the best in the market, but due to it
being used by the majority in their social group (Wellman & Haythornthwaite
2002). This explains the success of orkut.com in India and Brazil where is it the
most widely used social networking site, while elsewhere in the world it is
considered as mediocre when compared to facebook.com.
18
Psychological Factors
An umbrella term used to represent factors like motivation, perception, learning,
needs, beliefs and attitudes; Psychological factors is the most challenging of the
five to examine properly. Daniel Funk (2008) believes that motivation is the most
important of these factors. He explains that sufficiently intensified biogenic and
psychogenic needs -individually or combined- creates motivation. Motivation has
been a subject of many a research and subsequently the literature on it is quite
extensive. Prominent authors like Maslow, Marshal, Herzberg, Alderfer Vroom,
Freud and Veblen have written on the subject. How a person perceives a given
situation, -what he takes in- determines much of his behaviour. Kurtz et al. (2009)
writes that this perception depends much on what people actually want to perceive
as well as the actual stimuli. Perceptions are shaped by a person’s learning,
experience, beliefs & attitudes (Herzberg 1987). External stimulus like
advertisements can also have an effect on perception.
Situational Factors
Foxall et al. (1998) is of the opinion that Situational factors account for 20-45
percent of customer buying behaviours. Situations consist of five characteristics,
which are physical environment, social surrounds, temporal perspectives, task
definitions and antecedent states. Physical environment include all material
influences like weather, location and lighting. Influences like persons and their
roles, interactions and crowds come under social surroundings. Temporal
perspective refers to time constraints and seasonal pressures (Runyon & Stewart
1987). An example is a Christmas shopping which differs from summer shopping.
Task definition is described by the role an individual is playing at any given

moment. This role will force the individual to make certain choices. This will
explain the different buying decisions made by the same individual when buying a
lunch for his family versus a formal power lunch. When a momentary mood or
condition clouds a customer’s evaluation, that antecedent state will influence him
into making certain purchasing choices. This will explain an expensive gift to a
valentine by an otherwise close-fisted boyfriend.
19
Types of Buying Behaviour
Buying Behaviour is classified in to four (Assael 1987), depending on the extent
of involvement and the type, value & complexity of the product the customer
intends to purchase. They are Habitual, Dissonance-reducing, Variety-seeking and
Complex buying behaviours (Figure 3).
These behaviours -which take shape in the second stage of buying process- will
outline the customer’s buying process and dictate the influences exerted by
external factors. For example, while buying a toothbrush, the customer might not
evaluate many competitive products nor will he cater the opinion of social groups.
This will lead to a quick purchasing decision. The same customer will spend
considerable time evaluating different choices and will get advice from his social
groups while buying a television or a car.
Customers exhibit a habitual buying behaviour when the personal involvement

and the difference between competitive products are negligible. While buying salt
or coffee, the customer has little to no involvement in the purchase, as he is
20
buying a low-cost product that is essentially the same irrespective of the brand.
According to Kotler et al. (2008), customers who show habitual buying behaviour
reach for the same brand every time; more due to habit than the brand loyalty.
This type of purchase is characterised by a fast purchase and low price. Examples
are most food products, beverages and auto-fuel.
Variety-seeking buying behaviour is the mostly the same as habitual buying

behaviour, the difference being the customer decide on a different brand every
time. This is not a sign of customer involvement, but of his variety-seeking
mindset or boredom. Adcock et al. (2001) clarifies that the customer chooses a
new brand not due to the dissatisfaction for the original brand; but to satisfy his
own craving to try out new things. Examples are confessionary, fast food and
breakfast cereals.
Dissonance-reducing buying behaviour takes place when a highly involved

customer who is purchasing an expensive and risky product, sees negligible
difference between the many products in the market. While buying a diamond
ring, a customer will be highly involved due to the cost and risk of the purchase,
but will find little product differentiation between the brands. This type of
behaviour is characterised by a relatively fast purchase and the customer
experiencing a post-purchase dissonance (Kotler et al. 2008), primarily due to the
reasoning that the other brands are as good as the purchased or possibly better.
Wilson & Gilligan (2005) finds that the price acts as an influential factor in this
type of behaviour. This is due to the little perceived difference between the
different brands.
The last type of buying behaviour is called complex buying behaviour. Here, a
highly involved customer who is in the market for an expensive product faces a
marketplace full of brands with significant differences. This inevitably means that
the customer has to put an effort and learn about the product category. An
example is a customer who is shopping around for a new personal computer. This
customer will go through a lengthy ‘Information Search’ stage and ‘Evaluation of
Alternatives’ stage (Assael 1987). It is noted (Baker 2003) that social groups will
strongly influence the purchasing decision as the customer will court the opinion
21
of his peers. Baker also suggests that a strong brand or a well-planned integrated
marketing communications will influence the customer in this stage more than the
actual quality of the products. This is because the customer will associate a good
brand with quality and better after sales support.
Relevant Theories and Models

The complexity of consumer buying behaviour is perhaps best reflected in the
wealth of disciplines that offer theories explaining it. Fields like economics,
marketing studies, environmental studies, philosophy, psychology, psychiatry,
political science, anthropology, sociology and ethical studies offer theories
explaining the motives of consumption (OECD 2002, p. 61). This also explains
the wealth of literature available on the subject.
Academics of various disciplines -from economics and politics to psychology-

have tried to explain what prompts the customer to purchase a particular product,
with authors like Freud, a professor of medicine and Karl Marx, a political
economist writing on the subject.
Marshallian Theory
According to Cooper & Channon (1998), economists were the first professional
group to offer a theory on buying behaviour. Alfred Marshall -in his seminal work
‘Principles of Economics’- attempted to derive the consumers’ equilibrium in to a
one-commodity framework. Marshallian Theory holds that buying decisions are a
result of rational and conscious economic calculations (Aréna & Quéré 2003). The
theory assumes that customers are always logical in nature and is fully aware of
the market. The Marshallian Theory also assumed that the utility functions are
independent of each other.
The main criticism of this theory is that the cardinal measurement of utility is
unrealistic. It does not take in to account other stimuli (e.g.: marketing and social
factors) that affect consumer buying behaviours (Aréna & Quéré 2003). The
assumption that the consumer is fully aware of the market and has complete
mobility is also unrealistic. Another weakness of Marshallian theory is its inability
22
to adequately explain the ideas of substitutes and complements. As my research
strives to understand the benefits of usability factor and its influence on customer
buying behaviour, I am actually trying to contradict this theory.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Another influential theory in this subject is Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Needs, which envisions a pyramid-shaped arrangement of human needs (Figure
4). In his paper titled ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’ published in the
Psychological Review, Maslow categorises human needs in to Physiological,
Safety, Love & Belonging, Esteem and Self-Actualization (Maslow 1943).
Maslow hypothesized that these needs form a hierarchy where by an individual
can pursue higher-level needs only after satisfying the more fundamental needs.
Marketers use this theory to better understand the consumer needs and to define
market segments.
In relation to my study, this theory brings up some interesting questions about the
needs of a customer who buys a technological product like a music player or a
game console. Can usability of a product affect the need? Alternatively, is
usability itself a need, possibly of a higher hierarchy? This research will attempt
to answer these questions.
23
Maslow’s theory has its share of critics who argue that it is not practical to
categorize ever-changing needs of a changing society (Hadkins 2009). Wahba &
Bridgewell (1976) in their study about the theory found little evidence of a
definite hierarchy of needs in their subjects. Manfred Max-Neef (1991), a Chilean
economist disagreed with the hierarchical nature of Maslow’s theory and
developed his own ontological and non-hierarchical list that included factors like
freedom and leisure.
Needs-Opportunities-Abilities Model
Another useful framework is the Needs-Opportunities-Abilities (NOA) Model
(OECD 2002, pp. 66-68), which hypothesises that the buy products for what the
product can do to add to the quality of life. This theory suggests that buying
behaviour is a correlation of motivation -needs & opportunities- and behavioural
control -opportunities & abilities- (Gatersleben & Vlek 1998). The theory is
unique in the scene that that it takes in to account both the macro (society) and
micro (individual) level needs. As seen in Figure 5; comfort and pleasure, factors
influencing ‘needs’ will directly relate to the user-friendly issue.
24
As motivation and behavioural control are opposing factors, it will be worthwhile
to compare both and study the tradeoffs between the two. This will in turn help
me to study the relationship between usability (motivation) and price (behavioural
control).
Porter's Generic Strategies

Michael Porter (1998) describes a framework by which businesses can better
position themselves in a market and sustain their competitive advantage by
leveraging their strengths. Porter suggests two ways of achieving market
leadership, which are lowest cost of operation and product uniqueness. This result
in three generic strategies, which are 1) cost leadership, 2) differentiation and 3)
focus (divided into cost focus and differentiation focus); depending on the chosen
scope of the market (Figure 6).
Cost Leadership is achieved by maximising the efficiency, scale and size of the
business. Gavin Reid (1993) identifies factors like product standardisation, use of
technology, and large-scale production as the characteristics of this approach.
Differentiation strategy makes use of unique and innovative products to capture
25
the market. Companies with good research & development teams and a reputation
for quality can use this strategy vey effectively (Stahl & Grigsby 1997). Apple
Inc. utilises this strategy in all of their product lines. Focus strategy concentrates
on a narrow segment by employing a firm’s unique expertise and specialised
products. The idea is to serve a small segment better by using all the recourses of
the company and thereby create a loyal following. Rolls-Royce and Ferrari are
successful examples.
Critics have always questioned the rigidness, lack of specificity and limiting
nature of Generic strategies (Cliff Bowman 2008). New concepts like ‘Creating
New Market Space’ (Kim & Mauborgne 2005) contradict Porter's theory.
The Extended Marketing Mix
Booms & Bitner (1981) expanded the Marketing Mix by adding three more Ps -
People, Process and Physical Evidence- to the primary 4Ps -Product, Price, Place
and Promotion-. They argue that this extended model is more relevant in the
service industry dominated modern world.
People refer to all the individuals who are involved -directly or indirectly- in
delivery and add value to the product or service. These include the management,
after-sales technicians and the customer himself. Process is defined as the manner
by which a product or service is delivered. Consumer perception of efficiency,
adaptability and quality of the service depends on the process. An example is
McDonald’s Restaurants’ meal preparation process -transparent and quick-, which
reassures the customer about the quality of the product and the service. Physical
evidence refers to the delivery environment of the service. This includes both
tangible -appearance, buildings, documents- and the intangible - perception,
experience, satisfaction- environments (Ennew & Waite 2007).
My research will try to understand the effects of the extended marketing mix on
usability. How does the additional Ps affect the user-friendliness of a product?
Place, one of the original marketing-mix has evolved due to the emergence of
online stores and Internet banking in the last decade. How does this influence the
usability of a product or service?
26
Associated Theories and Relevant Literature
In addition to the theories discussed above, models like ‘variables that make life
worth living’ (Hareide 1994), ‘conditions for human development and existence’
by Allardt (1994), and ‘18 terminal values & 18 instrumental values’ by Rokeach
(1979) tries to explain consumer behaviours.
Apart from these theories, there are a many books written on the subject, looking
at buying behaviours and usability from different viewpoints and depths.
Prominent authors who have written on this subject include Roy Wells Hill,
Johannes Du Plessis, Richard J Varey, Malcolm McDonald, Patricia Parrott and
Mika Hannula. ‘Explaining Buyer Behaviour: Central Concepts and Philosophy
of Science Issues’ by John O’Shaughnessy offers a simplistic view of buying
behaviour where as ‘The Marketing Book‎’ by Michael John Baker explains the
same from a marketing point of view. ‘Understanding the Consumer’ by Isabelle
Szmigin chooses to challenge the existing functionally driven marketing thinking
towards the customer.
Recent Developments and Debates

The rapid growth of information and communication technologies in the past
decade has had a profound impact on our society. Internet is enabling the modern
customer to make informed buying decisions. The prominence of online stores
like amazon.com, instant success of services like twitter.com and emergence of
innovative business models like ad-supported Google model are increasingly
questioning the relevance of ‘20th century’ customer theories (Pollard 2005).
Emergence of Online Stores and Internet Economy

Various online retailers in U.K. have generated sales amounting to £4.1 billion in
February 2010, a 13% increase in like-to-like sales when compared to £3.6 billion
sales in February 2009 (internetretailing.net 2010). This phenomenal growth rate,
in the middle of the worst recession of over 80 years, shows the growing
importance of the internet economy and online stores in today’s market.
27
This development raises some questions about the importance of various factors
in Marketing Mix. Promotion, for example, now needs to take in account the
effects of the influences of social networks (Telegraph 2010). Price faces pressure
from the increased choice afforded to the customer by the internet. The
Marshallian assumption of an all-aware customer is now truer than ever.
User-friendliness of prominent virtual stores is questioned by a study by usability

consultants UIE (guuui.com 2003) that showed that only 34% of the purchase-
ready customers could achieve their objectives (Figure 7). The study also notes
that astonishing 11% of the customers experienced after-sales problems. This
research will try to find the reasons of such a high drop rate.
Products as a Platform
‘Product as a platform’ is another trend that is making a comeback in the industry.
Companies, increasingly worried about losing the customer, are trying to tie them
to products that are increasingly acting as platforms.
Pioneers of this approach were Microsoft Corporation who makes sure that their
market leading products like Microsoft Office, Microsoft SQL Server and Internet
Explorer worked only on the Windows OS, thereby forcing the customers to
continue using the platform (Lessig 2001). Today, Apple Inc. and Google Inc. are
28
using this approach with great effect to promote their mobile businesses. Both
Apple iPhone and Google Android are promoted as platforms, which can deliver
entertainment and productivity on the go (Faas 2009). The prospect of getting
tied-up to a particular platform will have grave implications for customer choice
and usability.
The ‘Virtual’ Customer Behaviour
George Zinkhan et al. (2000) identified a change of behaviour in people when

they are online, which he calls ‘Alternative Persona’. According to him, this
happens as the consumer behaviour changes in response to the technology.
George Zinkhan finds that people use the internet to reinvent themselves.
An example would be a shy person who becomes very talkative in an online chat
room. Adcock et al. (2001) finds that the customers are increasingly looking for
an experience, something more than just the product. This is evident in the airlines
industry where customers are offered chauffeur services and sky-beds. Another
example is the modern shopping centres that incorporate restaurants and cinemas.
Service as a Product
One of the key debates making big noise in this area is the issue of how better to
meet customer needs. There is a new wave of thinking that products can be
replaced by services. Latest innovations in the industry like ‘Cloud Computing’
are based on this concept (itgovernance.co.uk 2010).
It is argued that a customer do not need to own a song (even in an electronic

format), but just want to hear it anytime he wishes. Instead of owning songs in
physical form (CDs or hard disk), the customer is presented with a large catalogue
of songs which can be streamed to his hardware as and when he wishes. It is
known as a ‘service’ because of the recurring fees structure, lack of a physical
product, frequently updated product -in this case, the music catalogue and the
included support. This ‘service as a product’ initiative might have far reaching
consequences when it comes to buying behaviours and usability as a factor that
affect buying behaviours.
29
Conceptual Framework
Research Questions Relevant Conceptual Framework
Models & Theories
Will a possibly basic Needs- NOA Model suggests that
(feature-wise) Opportunities- customers buy products for what
product that is more Abilities (NOA) the product can do to add to the
user-friendly win an Model quality of life. So, what is more
end user? important for quality of life?
Features or Usability?
Maslow’s Hierarchy Is Usability itself a need?
of Needs Possibly of a higher hierarchy
than the features?
If so, how important Marshallian Theory Marshallian Theory holds that

is usability factor to a buying decisions are a result of
potential buyer? Will rational economic calculations.
he/she pay more for Is it right?
it?
Needs- How strongly does Usability
Opportunities- affect motivation?
Abilities Model
Maslow’s Hierarchy Can Usability of a product affect
of Needs the need?
Is User-friendliness a Porter's Generic Can companies use the Usability

strong brand Strategies factor for their competitive
building/ busting The Extended advantage?
point? Marketing Mix
30
Chapter: 3
Research Methodology
_______________________________________________
This chapter describes, in detail, the methodological approach to this research.

This researcher uses the framework called Research Onion (Figure 8) developed
by Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill (2007). This chapter discusses the philosophy,
approach, strategy, choice, time horizon, sampling techniques and data collection
& analysis methods chosen by the researcher and justifies them in context of the
questions and objectives of the study. The scope and the ethical issues of the
research are also discussed. The last part of the chapter links the research design
and the conceptual framework.
31
Research Philosophy: Phenomenology
Described by Husserl (1983) as the “genuine positivism”, Phenomenology is the
study of subjective experiences; to describe how things appear to the experiencing
person, especially if the ‘experience’ is sustained and penetrating (Lacey 1996).
David Woodruff Smith (2005) further explains phenomenology “as a method of
inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are
perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent
of human consciousness”. Phenomenology, distinguished by characteristics like
directedness, embodiment and worldliness (Langdridge 2006), theorises that
reality is within an individual’s personal perception; within his feelings and
intentions (Sprenkle & Piercy 2005).
Dermot Moran (2000) described phenomenology as an attempt to describe a

‘phenomena’. He clarifies that it is the appearance and the feel of the object that
holds true, at least to the consciousness of an experiencing person.
Phenomenology recognizes that an object is defined not only by its physical
attributes, but also by the way it is experienced by an individual. Prominent
authors on the subject are Heidegger, Stein, Scheler, Levinas and Ricoeur.
Brief on Other Philosophies

Saunders et al. (2009) recommends, among others, Positivism, Realism and
Interpretivism as ideal philosophies for an academic research. Positivism, a
philosophy of science holds that scientific truth can and should be proved &
verified using observable facts and data. Largely based on the ideas of the French
philosopher Auguste Comte, Positivism became a prominent research philosophy
in the early twentieth century. It is now mainly used in quantitative studies.
Interpretivism, a research philosophy used in social researches, tries to understand

the meaning humans attach with any experience (Schutt 2006). This philosophy
argues that there are factors that cannot be scientifically measured or generalized.
It is understood that Interpretivism -as a philosophy- borrows heavily from
Phenomenology (Saunders et al. 2009). Realism is a philosophical stand, which
32
hypothesises that reality, and in extension truth, has an existence outside our
minds. Quite opposite to Idealism, Realism advocates a scientific outlook to
knowledge gathering and is somewhat similar to positivism in that respect. Other
notable philosophies are Axiology, Objectivism, Subjectivism and Pragmatism.
Justification of the Adopted Philosophy

I am trying to understand the influence of user-friendliness in a customer.
Usability is a non-physical attribute, which can only be described in the process of
experiencing a device or service. This dismisses positivism and realism as useful
philosophies as they reject the notion of ‘experience’.
Consumers’ buying decisions are based on ‘what they see in the product’. It is
also noted that user-friendliness is a matter of personal perception and will differ
from person to person. While Interpretivism can be a good choice for my
research, it is noted that this philosophy has its roots in Phenomenology. It is also
criticised for adopting an empathetic stance. As my research tries to understand
how products appear to the consumer and what appeals them, Phenomenology
will be appropriate to my study. Phenomenology will also help me to quantify the
usability experience of the customer.
Research Approach: Inductive

Typically used in interpretivist qualitative research, Inductive approach begins
with a specific observation that is then developed in to a tentative hypothesis,
which is then tested (Hesse-Biber & Leavy 2005). Here, the theoretical position is
developed -induced- after the collection and analysis of data. This approach is
more useful for understanding the meanings individuals attach to events (Saunders
et al. 2007). Jary & Jary (1991) notes that “qualitative techniques relay on the
skills of the researcher as an interviewer or observer in gathering data”.
Also known as the ‘bottom-up’ approach, an inductive research involves four

stages, -1- beginning with specific observations and measures -2- from which
some patterns and regularities emerge -3- that are formulated in to rough
hypotheses that are tested -4- and in the end, come up with conclusions or theories
33
(Robson 2002). Inductive research is less formal and less structured. According to
Gratton & Jones (2004), inductive research will take more time and resources, as
theory needs to gradually emerge from the collected data. Saunders et al. (2007)
adds that this approach is more risky, as there is always a possibility of no clear
patterns or trends emerging from the data collected.
Brief on Other Approaches

The only other approach suggested by Saunders et al. (2007) is the deductive
approach. According to Reyes (2004), a deductive research is an extension of the
current literature on the subject. The researcher base his study on a hypothesis
formulated from the existing literature and will then try to gather data to prove the
hypothesis. A successful deductive study will validate the hypothesis and in
extension the existing literature on the subject. This approach is considered a safer
way of conducting a study as it guarantees a result (Gratton & Jones2004).
Justification of the Adopted Approach

According to Neil Moonie (2003), Inductive approach is normally used while
trying to understand how people observe, interact with and experience other
objects in a ‘natural setting’. This is very true in the case of my research, which is
trying to find patterns in customer buying behaviours and how an intangible
feature -usability- of devices and services affect customers.
Deductive approach will not be a good approach for this research, as I do not have
a strong hypothesis to begin with. Instead, this researcher has to collect data from
customers and then try to induce a hypothesis from the collected data.
The first step of my research is to collect information from consumers who have
brought or are planning to buy products that I have shortlisted. The data collected
will then be used to check for pattern and trends. Once such trends are identified,
it will be used to form the hypothesis. To effectively cancel out the chance of no
useful patterns emerging, I have started out with three pairs of products, which
will provide the broadest possible data set.
34
Research Strategy: Open-End Survey
Arlene Fink (2003) recommends survey as an ideal research strategy in a
qualitative research. According to him, an open-ended survey can be used in a
qualitative research to collect the much-needed primary data. Open-ended surveys
allow the participant to respond in a personal manner, thereby providing unique
primarily qualitative data. It is noted that a qualitative survey can “provide depth
and individual meaning to the questions of interest” (Gratton & Jones 2004).
Brief on Other Strategies

Saunders et al. (2009) identifies many research strategies like experiment, case
study, action research, grounded theory, ethnography and archival research while
arguing that assigning a strategy to any particular research approach is “unduly
simplistic”. They also stress that every strategy is as good as the other.
Experiment is the study of casual links between two variables. Action Research is
more participatory in nature; allowing improvement in one’s practical knowledge.
This type of research is usually done to solve practical issues in organizations.
Grounded theory tries to develop a hypothesis from the corpus of collected data
(Strauss & Corbin 1990) and later uses historical research -evaluation of data
related to past occurrences- in order to test the hypotheses (Gay 1996). One
advantage of grounded theory approach is that theory building and data collection
go hand-in-hand, which makes it almost a fail-safe strategy. Case study is an in
depth analysis of a single incident or group with a view of identifying the primary
principles. Ethnography -an inductive strategy with its roots in anthropology-
attempts to see the world through the research subjects’ eyes.
Justification of the Adopted Strategy

An open-ended survey is the most cost effective way to gather substantial
qualitative primary data in a short time period. The open-ended nature of the
survey will ensure that the researcher will obtain qualitative data. This open-
endedness of the survey will also reduce bias, as the same set of questions will be
presented to everyone, with researcher set limitations not affecting the answers.
35
The researcher could have used other qualitative strategies like Grounded theory
or ethnography, but dismissed both due to the extremely time consuming
processes involved with both strategies.
Research Choice: Qualitative Mono-Method

Referred to as research design by authors like Tashakkori & Teddlie (2003), the
research choice of this study is ‘qualitative mono-method’; a single qualitative
data collection method and related analysis procedures will be utilized. According
to Maxwell (2005), this is particularly useful when the research subject is very
complex and cannot be answered by a simple yes or no hypothesis. Maxwell also
notes that a mono method is much easier to plan and carryout.
Researcher would like to state that some quantitative data would also be collected
from the participants in the study. This will mostly be socio-demographic data,
which will aid the researcher whilst formulating hypothesises from primary data.
Brief on Other Choices

There are two other choices (Figure 9) a researcher can follow: multi-method and
mixed method (Saunders et al. 2009, p. 151). If the researcher uses more than one
data collection method, all of the same (qualitative or quantitative) technique, it is
called a multi-method. Mixed Method makes use of multiple collection methods,
regardless of it being qualitative or quantitative method.
36
Justification of the Adopted Choice
One advantage of a qualitative research is that it is not dependent on sample sizes,
with meaningful results generated from relatively small sample groups.
Disadvantages to the qualitative choice includes the fact that it cannot be precisely
replicated, meaning they cannot be peer reviewed.
Researcher chooses not to follow a multi or mixed method mainly due to time and
budget constraints. Researcher also took in to consideration, the scope of this
academic research, which does not allow an extensive study.
Time Horizon: Cross-sectional

This research is a cross-sectional study in customer behaviour; I am studying a
peculiar phenomenon in technological sector whereby new priorities like usability
is taking a predominant place. This study is a ‘snap-shot’ of the customer
behaviour of our time. Saunders et al. (2007) finds that most of the academic
studies will be using a cross-sectional technique due to the time constrains
involved.
Brief on Other Time Horizons

According to Saunders et al. (2009, p. 155) there are cross-sectional and
longitudinal time horizons. If the cross-sectional study is a ‘snap-shot’, then
longitudinal research is considered a journal of snapshots. This will need the
researcher to keep on observing the subjects over a time-period, which makes a
longitudinal study ideal for studying change and long-term development.
Justification of the Adopted Time Horizon

As I am trying to describe a phenomenon of our time, cross-sectional study will
be more suited for my study. A longitudinal study is would have been more
appropriate if I was focusing on the changing behaviours of the customers. It is
also understood that longitudinal studies take more time and resources, both of
which are luxuries for me.
37
Data Collection and Analysis
Primary Data Collection: Open-end Questionnaire
Researcher will be using an open-end questionnaire to collect the primary data.
The open-ended nature of the questionnaire will allow the participants to answer
without any outside influence or limitations (Fink 2003). An open-ended
questionnaire will allow the researcher to collect large amounts of primary data in
a short time. An open-ended questionnaire is more suited for a qualitative research
as it can bring out the personal feelings and attitudes of the participants.
In addition to the questions related to the research, the questionnaire will have
small section aimed at collecting socio-demographic data of the participants. This
is collected to aid the author to formulate a working hypothesises from the data.
Brief on Other Primary Data Collection Methods

Most researchers prefer observation of participant groups, interviews and open-
end questionnaires as the data collection method for a qualitative study (Saunders
et al. 2007). Among them, interviews and open-end questionnaires are the only
valid options if the researcher is pursuing open-ended survey as the research
strategy. Interview can be defined as data gathered from one-to-one conversations
with the participants. Marschan-Piekkari & Welch (2004) writes that interviews
can generate highly accurate qualitative data, but at the price of high cost and
restricted participation.
Justification of the Adopted Data Collection Method

The primary reason for choosing an open-ended questionnaire survey is due to it
being a quick way of collecting qualitative data when compared to personal
interviews. It is also noted that it is relatively inexpensive when compared to
interviews; particularly in context of a limited dissertation budget.
The open-endedness of the questionnaire means that most of the participants will
give spontaneous and truthful answers much like that to an interview. The non-
identifying nature of the questionnaire will be an added advantage. Participates
38
will be more comfortable and honest while answering a questionnaire as he/she
cannot be later identified. The open-ended nature of this type of survey also
reduces bias as the same questionnaire is presented to everyone, with researcher
set limitations not affecting the answers.
Secondary Data
In this qualitative research, secondary data will be used to verify the various
working hypothesises developed from the primary data. In reference of this
research, secondary data will be the sales and usage figures of the selected
products. For the benefit of validity and reliability of the research, only official
websites of product makers and respectable research sources will be consulted for
the secondary data. Online recourses like athens, emerald and mintel will also be
used to collect secondary data.
Data Analysis: Content Analysis

Defined by Markel (1998) as a systematic and meticulous analysis of recorded
message characteristics, content analysis is becoming increasingly popular among
qualitative researchers. An open-end questionnaire can be analysed for different
keywords & frequencies and can be categorised for a quantitative examination.
This researcher will be using an open analysis rather than prescriptive analysis.
Initial analysis will be made using software like NVivo 7 and Microsoft Excel.
Sampling: Convenience, Snowball Methods

This research will make use of two nonprobability-sampling techniques, which
are convenience sampling and snowball sampling. Convenience sampling makes
use of a sample of the population that is close to hand (Lohr, 1999). Snowballing
is a similar technique whereby existing participants enlist more qualified subjects
into the study. The questionnaire will be distributed in three ways. Most of the
questionnaires will be personally distributed in the campus and neighbourhood.
Secondly, the questionnaires will be emailed to the members of the researcher’s
social network. Finally, the recipients of the questionnaires will be requested to
redistribute the questionnaire if anyone of their peer groups is interested.
39
Justification for the Adopted Sampling Methods
Both techniques are chosen due to the relative ease of recruiting participants. By
using the convenience method, the researcher can approach the people he
personally knows. Another reason is that the only criterion for participation is that
the participant should have owned one of the selected products for at least a
month. This makes other characteristics of the participants relatively irrelevant;
although non-personal identifying demographic data of the participants is
collected for quantitative analysis. The limited nature of this research was also
taken in to consideration.
Sampling Size
This researcher decided that a sample size of fifty participants would be ideal for
the research. Considering that some participates will not return the completed
forms, the researcher will send out at least two hundred forms. The sample size
was limited to fifty people due to time, budget and other practical limitations like
distribution and collection of forms. However, if more of the questionnaires come
back in time, they will also be analysed.
Sampling Criteria
• Participants must own or have regularly used at least one of the shortlisted
products for a minimum period of one month. The researcher assumes that
this time-period is needed for a person to effectively understand the usability
issues of a device or a system.
• Participants should be, at the very least, the age of eighteen. This is for the
compliance of legal requirements, if any.
Scope and Implications of the Research

This research is confined to a meticulous examination of the customer perception
of usability. The researcher is trying to understand the customer and his priorities;
not the industry or the selected products. Therefore, the researcher makes no claim
to study the products -or their perceived sales-; they are just devices to understand
40
the customer better. The research will also be limited by the practicality of the
decided budget of One Thousand Pound Sterling (with 15 percent tolerance) and
the geodemographics of United Kingdom.
Reliability, Credibility and Validity of the Research

Golafshani (2003) argues that reliability of a research is related to generalisability
of the result. He also advocates the use of triangulation of the primary data. The
researcher will validate any hypothesis developed from the data collected using
secondary data. If authenticated by the secondary data, the generalisability of the
research will also be proven.
The credibility of the research will be questioned by the relatively small sample
size and proper use of data analysis techniques. According to Patton (2002),
formulation and evaluation of rival conclusions will increase the credibility of the
study. He also stresses the importance of analysing ‘negative cases’ -exceptions-
which can prove the rule.
The validity of this research can be testing with a quantitative study using the
developed theory. This can be done by collecting detailed secondary data with
which the theory can be tested. The researcher will also summit the collected
primary data and academic resources to the research guide so that it can be
independently audited.
Ethical Issues
While collecting primary data, the researcher will face many ethical issues in
relation to voluntary participation and informed consent. In order to negate this,
the researcher intents to bring out a fact file -this will be attached to every copy of
the questionnaire- (please see Appendix 1) to fully inform the prospective
participants about the procedures of the research and involved risks. Principles of
anonymity and confidentiality will be strictly adhered and no personally
identifiable data will be collected. The analysis of the data collected will be
submitted in a form that does not identify the participants.
41
While analysing the collected data, researcher should take care not to misinterpret
the data, which might lead to serious implications. Plagiarism will be effectively
negated by proper usage of Harvard-referencing system and turn-it-in service.
Conceptual Framework Linkage

Research Questions Conceptual Framework Examples of
Questionnaire Questions
Will a possibly basic NOA Model suggests that When buying a product,
(feature-wise) customers buy products for what are the factors you
product that is more what the product can do to give more importance to?
user-friendly win an add to the quality of life.
Will you sacrifice some
end user? So, what is more important
technological advances
for quality of life? Features
for better usability?
or Usability?
Is Usability itself a need? If at all, how does
Possibly of a higher Usability of a product
hierarchy than the improve your life?
features?
If so, how important Marshallian Theory holds Are you willing to pay a
is usability factor to that buying decisions are a premium for an intangible
a potential buyer? result of rational economic factor like User-
E.g.: Will he/she pay calculations. Is it right? friendliness?
more for it?
How strongly does If willing to pay more, by
Usability affect how much?
motivation?
Can Usability of a product Have you brought
affect the need? products (which are
otherwise not required)
just because it is user-
friendly?
Is User-friendliness Can companies use the Does the user-friendliness
a strong brand Usability factor for their of a particular product
building/ busting competitive advantage? affect your perception of
point? maker/competitor brands?
42
Chapter: 4
Findings and Results of Data
_______________________________________________
This chapter details the results of the data collected by the researcher during the
data collection process. The first part of this chapter gives a brief on the
distribution of the questionnaire and the response rates. The results of the primary
data are detailed in the next section. This section tries to quantify the answers to
the questionnaire as well as the different characteristics of the participants. The
chapter is concluded with a synopsis of the secondary data collected: the sales
figures, market shares and the retail price of the shortlisted products.
43
Questionnaire Distribution and Response
A total of 236 questionnaires were distributed among the sample population.
Owing to the fact that it was a lengthy open-ended questionnaire, the researcher
was expecting a low turnover rate of 20-25%. 47 (19.92%) participants responded
to the questionnaire, of which 5 (2.12%) were invalid as per the eligibility criteria.
Only 42 (17.80%) eligible participant responses were gathered; 84% of the
researcher’s initial target. For a copy of the questionnaire, please see Appendix 1.
Primary Data
Reported Usage of the Selected Products
As seen from the Figure 10, 13 (30.95%) respondents said that they own a game
console; with 9 (21.43%) of them owning a Sony PlayStation and 4 (9.52%) using
a Nintendo Wii. 13 (30.95%) participants owned one of the shortlisted smart-
phones; with 8 (19.05%) possessing an Apple iPhone and 5 (11.90%) having a
44
Blackberry Curve. While it came to web browsers, a free product, all 42
participants admitted to be using one. 34 (80.95%) respondents noted that they use
Microsoft Internet Explorer while 11 (26.19%) declared that they use Google
Chrome.
Demographic Characteristics of the Participants
This qualitative questionnaire had requested three demographic characteristics of

the participants; age, sex and the participant’s comfortability with technology. The
researcher believes that this data will become important later in the research,
especially, at the time of formulating a working hypothesis.
The age of the 42 participants varied from 19 to 66 years (Figure 11). Seventeen
(42.86%) of the participants were young adults, aged between 19 and 30. Nine
(21.43%) participants reported their age as between 30 and 40 while eleven
(26.19%) participants said that they are between 40 and 50 years old. Four
(9.52%) participants were above 50; all of them aged more than 62, eldest being
69. As seen from Figure 12, out of the 42 respondents, 24 (57%) were male and
18 (43%) were female.
45
Participants’ Comfortability with Hi-Tech Products
When asked how comfortable the participants are with technology and Hi-Tech
products, the answers varied from “very very comfortable” to “I am more than
alright; but once things go wrong, I panic” to “can get along”. Figure 13 is a
quantitative representation of these opinions, with “very very comfortable”
interpreted as 90% comfort levels and “can get along” given a 35% comfort level.
All participants below 30 stated that they were very comfortable with technology.
Most participants from 30-40 age group responded to this question with “very
comfortable” with some saying they can “only efficiently use technology products
which [they] are trained on”. On average, this group was given a score of 85% in
comfort levels.
Participants aged between 40 and 50 where comfortable with technology, but not
at the levels where quality of life is enhanced. All 4 respondents aged 60+ told the
researcher that they are “not very comfortable with latest technology, but can use
if essential” thereby qualifying for a 35% comfort level.
46
Responses to the Questionnaire
Apart from the demographic and product ownership questions, eleven questions
were asked to the participants to obtain their views about the user-friendliness of
the products they are using, their perception on how usability can add value to
products and how the usability of a product can influence their attitude towards
the maker/ competitor.
Question 1: While buying the product/s you are using, what are the factors
you gave importance to?
While analysing the answers, recurring keywords were noted and quantified
(Figure 14). 27 participants stated that user-friendliness was an influencing factor,
while 24 noted that specs of the products were an influencing factor. Platform
independence and software updates were important for 5 and 4 participants
respectively.
Brand was significant for 16 respondents while after-sales and value for money
influenced 11 and 13 participants respectively. 12 respondents looked for build
quality while another 12 said that the product was forced up on them.
47
Question 2: When you first considered buying the product/s you own, what
weightage -if any- did you give to its user-friendliness?
15 (36%) participants replied to this question saying that they gave no weightage
to user-friendliness while buying a product. One respondent wrote, “Usability is a
matter of one getting used to products. So [I was] more interested in technology
and features”. All others (27) agreed that they thought about this factor. 13
(30.95%) respondents said that it was “very important” while all others (33.33%)
noted “it makes things easier, but it’s not indispensable”.
Question 3: In your opinion, is better usability more important than the

latest functionality features of your device/software?
13 participants (30.95%) told the interviewer that specs/features of a device is

more important than its usability (Figure 15). One participant wrote, “Definitely
features; usability is [more of a] perception”. 17 participants (40.47 %) were of
the opinion that usability is more important than features with one female
48
respondent noting “because of it, I went back to [an] older version [of the
product]”. Rest of the participants (28.57%) did not have a strong opinion, with
most saying that “both are important” and “both are interconnected”.
Question 4: In relation to the current devices you use; if given a choice will
you sacrifice some technological advances for better usability?
16 (38.10%) participants replied to this question with a “yes”. 4 respondents

singled out the buggy software updates of PlayStation3, while a Blackberry user
envied “the easiness with which his colleague could browse on his iPhone”. All
other respondents (26) said that they would not change if they get a choice,
although the reasons for that varied. One participant said: “I took the time and
effort to learn the changes when I moved from IE6 to IE7. Now, I am comfortable
with IE7 and don’t want to change even if it is for the better”
Question 5: Do you think that companies should focus on usability rather

than trying to incorporate more features in to new devices?
As detailed in Figure 16, fifteen respondents (35.71%) told the researcher that
they would like the manufactures to concentrate on usability more than new and
advanced features. One respondent said that she “don’t use the GPS mapping
49
service of her Blackberry Curve as it is difficult to use it on the move”. 10
participants (23.81%) said that they want the companies to add new features. A
PlayStation3 user noted that he “brought the PS3 only because it had the added
feature of Blu-ray player”. Rest of the participants (40.47%) wanted the
manufactures to keep a balance, with one respondent noting, “One can only
improve the usability of what is there in the first place”.
Question 6: While upgrading, will superior specs/features alone influence

you? Will you buy a less advanced product with good usability?
50% of the respondents said that they would look for a product that combines both
usability and sophisticated features. This idea was best expressed by a respondent
who noted that “it is not easy to choose between new features and good usability;
[but] I would certainly not use an obsolete product just because it is more usable”.
6 respondents (14.29%) said that they would go for a user-friendly product, with a
participant saying, “It is the first and basic characteristic of technological
products”. 15 participants (35.71%) said that they would go for better features.
50
Question 7: In your opinion, -if at all- how do the usability features of your
product/s improve your life?
When asked about the improvements in the quality of life afforded by the
usability features of their products, participants used keywords like “Less Stress”,
“Better Efficiency”, “Save Time”, “Easy to Manage”, “More Satisfaction” and
“Saves Money” (Figure 17). 52% of the participants acknowledged that usability
features saved them time while 38% admitted that it made them more efficient.
Question 8: Do you think that better usability adds value to your product?
If so how?
31 participants (73.81%) agreed in principle that usability does add value to their
products while 11 disagreed. Participants who agreed noted the below advantages.
• High resale value

• Chance of repeat purchase
• Word of mouth publicity
• Less money spend on after-sales support
• Emotional attachment and feel good factor for the brand
51
Question 9: If usability does indeed add value to products, are you willing
to pay a premium for better usability? If so, how much?
In Question 8, 11 participates (26.19%) had answered that usability does not add
value to the products. Therefore, their answers were not taken in to consideration.
Of the rest 31 respondents, 6 (19.35%) said that they will pay between 10-20%
more a more usable product, with the highest being 20% (1 participant). 12
(38.71%) participants were prepared to pay a premium of up-to 10% for a more
user-friendly product. The rest 13 (41.94%) were not prepared to pay more for
usability, with one arguing, “It should be designed into a product from the time of
conception”.
Question 10: Have you brought products (which are otherwise not required)
just because it is user-friendly?
15 participants (35.71%) admitted that they have brought a product due to the
user-friendliness of the product. The rest said “no” to the question, with some
adding that they “will never buy a product just for its usability”.
Question 11: How does the user-friendliness of your products affect your
perception of maker/competitor brands?
34 participants (80.95%) are of the opinion that the perceived usability levels of a
product can affect a brand. As one of the participants put it, “[good usability
levels] makes me think that they think about their customers”. Another participant
noted that “vista was the last straw; I went over to the Mac side.” 8 participants
(19.05%) said that usability did not affect their feeling about brands.
Respondent Reaction to the Usability of Their Products
Out of the 9 participants who are using PlayStation, 4 (44.44%) said that the
console was user-friendly while all 4 participants who were using Wii said that its
usability features are very good. 8 respondents (72.73%) who were using Chrome
noted that they were attracted to the browser due to its user-friendliness. Only 10
Internet Explorer users (29.41%) said that their browser was easy to use. 3 Curve
users (60%) and 7 iPhone users (87.5%) said that their phones are user-friendly.
52
Secondary Data
Sales Figures of the Shortlisted Devices
Nintendo Wii: Introduces in the third quarter of 2006, the game console have
sold a total of 67.45 million units by the end of 2009 (Figure 18). That equals to
an average sales of 5.19 million units every quarter.
53
Sony PlayStation: This study uses the aggregate sales of PS2 and PS3 sales.
Researcher believes that this can bring out a clearer picture of the power shift in
the market. PS2 and PS3 have sold 13.5 and 23.1 million units respectively
between Jan 2008 and Dec 2009 (Figure 19). Combined, 4.88 million PlayStations
were sold a quarter over the study period. Sony has shipped 33.5 million PS3s by
the end of Q3 2009 (scei.co.jp 2010).
Microsoft Internet Explorer: IE had a market share of 74.18% in September

2008. Steady erosion meant that this market share went down to 60.65% by
March 2010. The only period IE could arrest this slump was around mid 2009.
54
Google Chrome: Released in late 2008, Chrome captured one percent of the
market share within a month; primarily due to the very strong Google brand
(tgdaily.com 2008). In December 2009, Chrome became the third most used web
browser by capturing a market share of 4.63%. From August 2008 through to
April 2010 Chrome’s market share have grown from 0.0% to 6.13%, (Figure 21)
the highest rise registered (netmarketshare.com 2010) by any web browser in that
timeframe.
Apple iPhone: Launched in June 2007, iPhone took just 74 days to go over a
million-sold mark (gizmodo.com 2007). Since then, the device has gone from
strength to strength with 8.74 million sold in Q3 2009 (Figure 22). iPhone sales
have increased every quarter since the company introduced its flagship iPhone
3GS in July 2009.
Blackberry Curve: First released in 2007, Curve is the customer-oriented phone

developed by RIM to counter the increasingly multimedia friendly competition. A
success by all means -it outsold the iPhone in US during the Q1, 2009 (cnet.com
2009)-, it helped Blackberry to retain its second place in the worldwide smart
phone market in 2009 (Figure 23).
55
Retail Price of the Shortlisted Devices
Product Price
Nintendo Wii £179.99
Sony PlayStation 3 Slim £269.99
Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 Free
Google Chrome 4 Free
Apple iPhone 3GS 16GB £539.99
Blackberry Curve 8900 £269.99
Reference: amazon.co.uk All prices are correct as of 05.04.2010
56
Chapter: 5
Analysis of Data and Discussion
_______________________________________________
This chapter tries to interpret the collected data so that trends and patterns can be
derived from it. The first section of this chapter analyse the ownership and
demographic trends. The next section discusses the primary data in detail. A list
of derived trends and patterns is provided in the next section; from which the
working hypothesises are formulated. The researcher then tries justifies these
hypothesises with primary and secondary data after which the theory is proposed.
57
Analysis of Product Ownership Patterns
Apart from the web browser, no participant claimed to have owned two products
of the same sub-category. When it came to web browsers -a free product-, most
people tent to keep two products in their computers, even though almost all of
them use their favourite browser most of the time. In other groups -consoles and
phones- some participants have used the second product occasionally, mostly
trying them out at social gatherings. Out of 34 participants who use Internet
Explorer, only 18 (52.94%) claimed to be using it as their main browser with the
rest admitting to using it occasionally, mostly as a backup.
From this usage patterns, we can understand that it is hard to retain customers in
the new ‘internet economy’, where switching cost is increasingly going down.
This adds to the pressure on the manufactures to deliver a compelling experience.
Demographic Trends
From the analysis of responses to the question about comfortability levels with hi-
tech products, it is clear that age have an inverse effect on one’s comfort levels
with technology and hi-tech products (Figure 13, Chapter 4). While everyone
below 30 was very comfortable with hi-tech products, the graph falls steadily with
the participants of older age groups becoming increasingly uncomfortable with hi-
tech products. This means that manufactures who target customers with advanced
age should put more effort to enhance the usability of their devices.
Analysis of Questionnaire Answers

Question 1: While buying the product/s you are using, what are the factors
you gave importance to?
It is clear that (Figure 14, Chapter 4) user-friendliness is a very important element

for customers with 64% of the participants checking on that aspect of the product.
However, so are the specs/features of the product with 57% participants checking
58
the specs of the product before buying it. One interesting fact is that all female
participants (18) replied that they looked in to the user-friendliness of the product.
Another finding is that Internet Explorer was used by all respondents (12) who
said that the product was forced on them. As one participant put it, “Internet
Explorer was just there”. It is also clear that a good brand can turn heads -3rd
highest in factors- with 38% admitting that they were influenced by brands.
Question 2: When you first considered buying the product/s you own, what
weightage -if any- did you give to its user-friendliness?
In the context of this research, it is important to note that 27 (64.29%) of the

participants admitted to have given the user-friendliness of the device some
weightage when buying the product. Almost one-third (30.95%) said that usability
of the product is “very important”.
A related detail is that every one of the respondents -12 participants- who uses an
iPhone and/or Chrome said that user-friendliness was given “very important”
weightage when they brought the product. This shows the importance of user-
friendliness; especially in a scenario where switching costs are negligible, as in
the case of Chrome.
Question 3: In your opinion, is better usability more important than the

latest functionality features of your device/software?
17 participants (40%) acknowledged that usability of the device is more important

than the specs. One iPhone user said, “The latest HTC HD2 is a good example.
Wonderful hardware; but the software [Windows Mobile 6.5] is so woeful that the
hardware is not used to the potential. I haven’t seen a phone that comes close [to
iPhone] in terms of total usage”. A female participant replied that she “went back
to [an] older version [of the product]” due to usability issues.
Another iPhone user commented on a thoughtful feature where by the iPhone

recognises a phone number in an email, message or a webpage. “Before, I had to
copy or write down the number somewhere; Apple has made the whole process so
simple. That is what I need, not extra memory or more megapixels”
59
No member of the surveyed female population stated that features are more
important than usability. While 10 (55.56%) women stated that usability was
more important, only 7 (29.17%) male participants agreed with them. It is also
noted that all members of 60+ age group said that usability was more important. It
is clear that female population are more concerned about usability than their male
counterparts. The age of the customers is again in the spotlight, as the 60+ age
group unanimously voted for usability.
Question 4: In relation to the current devices you use; if given a choice will
you sacrifice some technological advances for better usability?
More than a third of the participants said that they would sacrifice some
technological advances for better usability. A Chrome user noted this by saying,
“It lacks the features [like] RSS feeds or session management but [in] browsing
[Chrome] is the best”. An IE user commented on its usability by saying that he
“know that it is a bit slow but I like that fact that it doesn’t have any compatibility
issues. And because it is automatically updated by Windows, I don’t have to
worry about checking for updates”.
The fact that all 10 participants who owned a Wii and/or iPhone -both devices
were given high usability ratings by participants- responded by saying that they
won’t change any device characteristics underline the devices’ usability. Out of
the 16 participants who said “yes” to change, 12 (75%) were women. This again
underlines the importance of user-friendliness among women population.
Question 5: Do you think that companies should focus on usability rather

than trying to incorporate more features in to new devices?
More than a third of the respondents wanted the manufactures to improve the
usability before adding to the feature list. Most of these users are not using many
of the advanced features of their devices. As one PS3 user put it, “I rarely use the
Blu-ray anyway. Sony should have used their manpower to improve the game
play instead”. Another respondent do not use the GPS system of her Curve due to
usability issues. One Chrome user said that he “doesn’t need the best, just good
basics. That is why I am using Chrome. No, it doesn’t have any frills, but the
60
basics [which are] speed [and] security is done right”. This same emotion was
expressed by a Wii user who said, “All I want is to have a good time. It is not
about the best specs; but about a good enough experience”.
It is also interesting to find that 38% of the respondents are ready to settle for the
‘good enough’ rather than the ‘best’. 10 of the 15 respondents (66.67%) who said
that the manufactures should focus more on usability were women. All of the 60+
age group wanted the manufactures to do the same. Technology industry that has
traditionally relied on new features for driving the sales up can take advantage of
this new ‘good enough’ revolution by better aligning their competences.
Question 6: While upgrading, will superior specs/features alone influence

you? Will you buy a less advanced product with good usability?
The predominant thought of the participants was that both factors would be
looked into. One participant noted that “one cannot separate them; both are
important; more of a 50:50 weightage”. When added to the participants who
replied that a more user-friendly product would be chosen, 64.29% respondents
said that usability would influence their buying. This shows that the industry
cannot depend on advances specs alone to sell their products. For Hi-Tech
companies, it would be wise to invest more in usability of the products.
All the respondents who said that they would go for a more user-friendly system
were either a Wii owner or women. All the participants who owned a Wii (4)
stated that they would go for a more usable product. This again brings the ‘good
enough’ theory in to spotlight.
Question 7: In your opinion, -if at all- how do the usability features of your
product/s improve your life?
This question brought some thought-provoking responses from the participants.

More than half (52%) of the respondents noted that user-friendliness of a device
saves time. Chrome users (26.19%) influenced this; with all of them noting the
increased browsing speeds. Efficiency came second on the list with 38% noticing
an increase in productivity. Perhaps the most striking -at least in the context of
61
this research- observation is that 33% of the people relate usability with
satisfaction. That is, a third of the customers, when they look for better usability,
are expecting an experience from the device. This explains the success of Wii,
which although inferior in specs, gives a better experience -through its innovative
motion capturing game play- than the rivals.
Out of the 14 participants who gave ‘Satisfaction’ as an answer, 10 (71.42%) were

women. The only other sector dominated by women respondents is the ‘Easy to
Manage’ category where they have a representation of 63.63%. ‘Better
Efficiency’ sector consisted of 63.16% male responses. This shows the different
perceptions of both genders with women associating usability with satisfaction
and Manageability. On the other hand, men are more interested in the efficiency a
system (Figure 24).
Question 8: Do you think that better usability adds value to your product?
If so how?
Almost three-quarters (73.81%) of the respondents think that usability adds some
value to the product. 35.48% of that group associated that added value to non-
monetary values. 16.13% participants noted the emotional attachment they feel for
a user-friendly product and the brand as a whole. Related comments like ‘word of
mouth publicity’ show that a user-friendliness of a product can positively
influence the brand image. This observation is very important -in the context of
this research- as it demonstrates the constructive effect of usability on brands.
62
Other remarks like ‘repeat purchase’ and ‘less money spend on after-sales
support’ shows the monetary values of usability as well. 20 respondents
associated value with money; they mentioned ‘resale value’ and ‘money spent on
support’ as the value adding factors. 15 (75%) of that group are male participants.
This again highlights the difference between genders in their perception of
usability.
Question 9: If usability does indeed add value to products, are you willing
to pay a premium for better usability? If so, how much?
Answers of the 11 respondents (26.19%) who said that user-friendliness does not
add value to the products in the Question 8 were not taken in to deliberation.
Among the rest, 58.06% respondents were prepared to pay a premium for better
usability. Out of the 42 total participants, 18 (42.86%) are willing to pay more for
better usability. This partially explains the success of iPhone that is priced higher
than similar competitive products -often with better specs-, but offers better user
experience.
63
Out of 14 woman participants who agreed to the value added nature of usability,
11 (78.57%) were prepared to pay for better usability, while only 7 male
participants (41.17%) were ready to pay a premium for a more user-friendly
product. 2 respondents also considered usability as a luxury.
Question 10: Have you brought products (which are otherwise not required)
just because it is user-friendly?
It is interesting to note that more than a third (35.71%) of the participants has
brought a product due to its usability. This figure is influenced by the Chrome
users who defected from the default browser of the OS due to usability issues. All
15 participants who said that they have brought a product due to its usability were
using Chrome and/or iPhone. Out of them, 9 participants (60%) were of the
‘below 30’ age group.
8 participants (53.33%) who said “yes” to this question were Chrome users. This
shows the importance of usability in today’s internet economy. As most of these
products are free, usability becomes vital. The significance of usability is evident
from the fact that Google promotes its browser as “streamlined, clean and simple”
and “designed for efficiency and ease of use” (google.co.uk 2010).
Question 11: How does the user-friendliness of your products affect your
perception of maker/competitor brands?
Four out of five participants agreed that the usability levels of a product could
have an effect on their perception of the brand. 7 participants (16.67%) said that
they have changed brand loyalties due to a usability issue. Another 4 are thinking
of changing the current brand on the next upgrade cycle.
This supports the opinion -expressed in response to Question 8- that the product’s
usability can encourage an emotional attachment with the brand; thereby creating
a halo effect. This explains the increased sales of Mac computers in 2009 while
PC sales dropped by 6.7%. In a similar case, the usability issues of Windows
Vista damaged the Microsoft brand. This shows that companies can enhance the
brand reputation by using the usability of their products as an advantage.
64
Usability of Shortlisted Products:
Discussion about Respondents’ Perception
User-friendliness of Sony PlayStation
All participants who said that the system was user-friendly cited very different
reasons for saying so. Two participants -both using PS2- noted the compatibility
for the older PS1 games and the availability of cheap games as the usability
factors that they liked most. Another user, owner of the more modern PS3
commented on the integration of a Blu-ray Disc as his best-loved usability feature.
The fourth respondent highlighted the controller of his PS3, which he felt
“reduced the learning curve”. Users who were not impressed with the user-
friendliness of their PlayStations also cited a variety of reasons for their
displeasure. Chief among them was the “buggy software of PS3”. 4 (44.44%)
owners complained about this issue. Other complaints included the “disappointing
online gaming experience” and “non compatibility with the PS2 games”.
From the responses of participants, it is clear that the user-friendliness of

PlayStation has gone down a notch with PS3. All the participants who are still
using a PS2 (27.27%) are very happy about the usability elements of it. Only 2
(22.22%) of the PS3 users are completely happy with the system. The researcher
understand that the factors like compatibility (e.g.: with PS2 games for PS3),
continuity (e.g.: PS3 controller’s look and feel) and support structure (e.g.: online
gaming experience) will increase the usability of a system.
Analysis in Context of Academic Literature
This researcher notes that Jakob Nielsen is correct in identifying ‘Learnability’

and ‘Errors’ as usability elements; both being highlighted by respondents when
speaking about the usability of PS3. The researcher notes that the participants also
talked about extendibility -non-compatibility and disappointing online gaming in
PS3- as a usability feature. Extendibility can be added as a factor of usability and
can be significant if the latest market trend of ‘Products as a Platform’ catches on.
65
User-friendliness of Nintendo Wii
All 4 participants who are using Wii were happy with the user-friendliness of the
device. One participant highlighted the exceptional usability of the system by
stating, “Wii involves you in the game play; so much so that my mother who is 56
wants to play. It is an immersive experience”. All the Wii users commented on
this novel and innovative game play -which utilises motion sensing technology-
by saying that “it is more satisfying”. One user compared his Wii to a PS3 by
saying, “Wii is not great on specs [when compared to a PS3] but then, it gives a
better and more interactive gaming experience. My children can’t get enough [of
it]”. He also noted the ‘sociability’ of the device by commenting, “Now that we
all play it, our family spends more time together than ever before”. Another user
commented on the backward compatibility of the device as “simply great. Now I
can use all my [GameCube] Game Discs”. He also noted the availability of
reasonability priced accessories and games, which according to him “bring down
the overall cost of ownership”.
From the responses of Wii users, it is clear that the overall usability of the system
is very high. Although the specs are noticeably inferior when compared to the
competing PS3, Wii have succeeded in providing a better gaming experience. The
sales figures (Figure 18, Chapter 4) indicate that this ‘experience’ have won over
the customers. Wii outsold PS3 in all 8 quarters. Even the combined sales of PS2
and PS3 could only capture 3 of the 8 quarters. This clearly indicates that a user-
friendly system with average specs can win over the market. The -comparatively-
lower price of Wii also shows that better usability does not mean higher price.
The success of Wii shows that usability can be effectively used as part of a
differentiation strategy (Porter's Generic Strategies). In a crowded market that was
dominated by Xbox and PlayStation, Wii used the usability card to differentiate
itself. This not only helped Nintendo to sell many units, but also brought new age
groups in to the picture. With women and elderly people showing an interest in
Wii, this strategy has paid huge dividends for Nintendo.
66
User-friendliness of Google Chrome
All the Chrome users told the researcher that they were happy with the browser.
72.73% of them were attracted to the browser due to the user-friendly nature of
the browser. According to a user, this user-friendly nature starts from the time of
installation. “The whole installation was completed in under a minute. It even
imported my bookmarks”. Another user commented on the simple interface by
saying, “it doesn’t appear to exist. That is the best compliment I can give”. One
participant noted the speed of the browser and said “it is just not the browsing
speed; the boot-up speed is also the best of the class”. The security of the browser
was highlighted by a user. “I went over from Safari when I saw [that] Chrome
[was the only one] standing in the Pwn2Own hacking competition”. Other users
commented on usability features like ‘Incognito mode’ and ‘Omnibox’ as “simple
additions, but done right. They enhance the browsing”.
'The criticism of Chrome came from an unlikely source: IE users. One IE user
said that Chrome forgo many a feature in the name of simplicity. “It doesn’t have
RSS or Print preview” while another was concerned about the privacy.
General consciousness of the users is that Chrome is an improvement for the users
who desire a better browsing ‘experience’. This -need for an experience- is
becoming a recurring pattern. Chrome’s lack of frills does not hinder its adoption.
It is the highest gainer in market share in the last 18 months, which again shows
that the customer is ready to settle for the basics if it is done right. Chrome shows
that a product can capture market share by improving the usability.
It is interesting to think about the Marketing Mix in context of the emergence of

online stores and internet economy. The traditional importance of ‘Place’ is
reduced due the extensive use of search engines and product placements. Chrome
is an example with the website -place- of chrome not given great importance. It
can be argued that the ‘Place’ is nonexistent in the case of Chrome. Still, the
product is ‘selling’ well which points towards reduced effect of ‘Place’.
67
User-friendliness of Microsoft Internet Explorer
A unique case, in the sense that it is installed in most computers regardless of a

conscious decision, IE is used by 34 of the respondents, but only 18 (52.94%) of
them use it as their main browser. This shows that one of two participants are
dissatisfied with the product so much so that they are willing to invest time and
effort to find a new browser. These participants use IE as a fallback browser, a
backup if everything else fails.
Some users did find IE easy to use. One user argued that the familiarity of the
browser makes it user-friendly. “There is no learning curve and that makes me
more productive”. Another user said “I know [all the] keyboard shortcuts [and
the] menu system”. A different user commented on the compatibility of IE by
saying that other browsers “doesn’t work on all sites which makes it difficult to
commit”. The main problems identified by the participants are the lack of speed -
52% of the participants associated usability with speed-, and security -less stress
and manageability-. These issues can be traced directly to usability perceptions of
the users (Figure 17, Chapter 4).
The fallback status of IE shows that it is indeed a reliable browser; but when it
comes to providing a ‘browsing experience’, it falls short of the competitors. It is
clear that the browser has some usability elements like ‘compatibility’ and
‘familiarity’. In spite of this, IE is losing market share, which shows the
importance of the ‘satisfaction’ element of usability which is not provided by IE.
Users of IE have brought about striking revelations on how customers view the
usability factor as a need. It seems as if there are two levels of usability; one level
is ‘need of achievement’ while another plain is ‘need of satisfaction’. This can be
directly traced to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory, which envisions a layered
arrangement of needs. ‘Need of achievement’ can be related to ‘Esteem’ and
‘Satisfaction’ can be classed as a ‘Self-actualization’ need. This can explain the
fall back status assigned to IE by many users.
68
User-friendliness of Blackberry Curve
All the 5 participants who were using a Blackberry Curve admitted that they are
using it a as a ‘productivity tool’. 3 users said that the phone was provided by
their employer. One user noted that his blackberry enabled him “to be more
efficient”. All 5 users said that the device made them more efficient at work. One
user hailed the clever use of key board shortcuts on the device; saying “the ability
to type ‘@’ by hitting the spacebar might not look much, but on a small device
like a mobile, things like that becomes very important”. Another user noted that
the trackball of the device makes it very easy to browse on the phone. “The fact
that the trackball mimics a mouse makes the use of blackberry a pleasure”. The
main criticism of the Blackberry is that it is “too work oriented”. One iPhone user
said, “[with] Blackberry it is all about work, outside it is pretty much just another
phone”. This highlights the changing attitude of the modern customer who wants
the device to adapt to different roles. Where as in yesteryears they were prepared
to buy a second device for the multimedia needs, today’s customers are looking
for “jack of all trades” as one user put it. Another user complained about the lack
of extendibility of Blackberry by saying, “lack of apps is a major frustration”.
In spite of the criticisms, only 2 of 5 users will consider switching to different

phone. This shows that the Blackberry have some usability elements that the
competitors find hard to replicate. Nevertheless, it has lost the once prominent
position it had in the smart-phone market. This is due to two things; firstly,
expectations of the customers are changing rapidly and then Blackberry was slow
to react to latest usability trends like ‘content availability’.
The case of Blackberry Curve draws attention to the limitations of the Marshallian
Theory in the modern world. In accordance to the theory, Blackberries -which are
economical yet more efficient- should be a runaway success. Instead, primary and
secondary data suggest that it is actually losing market share to the competition.
Researcher’s initial impressions about this theory -in the context of this research-
have been proven right.
69
User-friendliness of Apple iPhone
87.5% of the iPhone users admitted that it is a very user-friendly device. One user
likened the experience to that of a Wii by saying, “As in Wii, it makes you feel as
if you are a part of the whole thing. It is motion sensing for Wii, touch for
iPhone”. Another user noted, “I was up and running with in no time. Somehow,
everything in iPhone comes to you logically, like ‘pinching’ to zoom. It is just not
about the simplicity; you almost do it without anyone showing you”. This shows
the excellent learnability of the device. Another user spoke about iPhone’s
efficiency; “iPhone is very efficient in the sense that I can get the job done with
the least possible interference. It is also about good interoperability. For example,
I click an address in ‘contacts’ and next thing, I am in ‘maps’ that gives me
directions”. This shows that interoperability is very important in mobile devices.
Especially when a Curve user said that, she does not use the GPS due to usability
issues. Satisfaction is another factor highlighted by iPhone users. “I am somehow
more at ease with it. It is such a rewarding experience”. Extendibility is another
factor noted by a user who said “It is truly as apple says it is: there is an app for
it”. 5 users (62.5%) noted this as a usability factor.
iPhone’s sales prove that the customers are willing to pay more for usability. It
has sold almost 9 million units in Q3:2009 in spite of being one of the most
expensive phones in the market. Another interesting trend is the growing
importance of ‘extendibility’ as a usability feature with users looking for add-ons
(apps) which can extend the usability of their devices. This can also be seen in the
case of browsers, with ‘browser extensions’ a big draw for many customers.
Shneiderman’s concept of Universal Usability is considered a practical

impossibility, but this researcher is left to wonder: can extendibility close the
‘knowledge gap’? If extendibility can be built in to every product, then customers
can pick and choose the add-ons; creating their own product, a product which is as
unique as the user. The researcher thinks that this is the real success of iPhone.
With a choice mix of apps loaded, every iPhone is as unique as its owner.
70
Analysis of Answers and Discussion:
Derived Trends and Patterns
• Age has an inverse effect on customers comfort levels with technology and
Hi-Tech products
• User-friendliness is very important for two third of the customers, with
64.29% respondents saying that usability will influence their buying
• 35.71% of the participants have brought a product which is otherwise not
needed due to its usability
• Usability is vital in a scenario where switching costs are negligible
• For 40% participants, usability is more important than the specs of the system
• Female participants were more concerned about the usability than their male
counterparts
• All the members of 60+ age group said that usability was more important
than specs/features
• More than one third of the participants said that they will sacrifice some
technological advances for better usability
• Customers associate usability with time saving, efficiency, satisfaction and
manageability, in that order
• Lack of satisfaction factor can negate all other usability elements
• Increasingly, customers are expecting an ‘experience’ from their devices
• Female participants translate usability as satisfaction and manageability while
for male participants, usability equals better efficiency
• Three-quarters of the participants said that usability can add value to products
• User-friendliness of a product will influence the brand, including monetary
effects
• 16.67% participants have changed brand loyalties due to a usability issue
• 42.86% of the participants are willing to pay more for better usability
• Compatibility can create a perception of usability
• Extendibility and the availability of content have become more important
than ever
71
Working Hypothesises:
In Context of the Research Questions
Based on the collected data, the patterns & trends derived from it and in context of
the research objectives and questions, the researcher proposes the following
hypothesises.
1. User-friendliness of a product can effectively negate the superior specs of

a competitor product and win over the customer
2. Customers do associate user friendliness with ‘added value’ and are
willing to pay a premium for it
3. For the users, usability of a product can create an emotional attachment
with the brand
Evidences for Validating the Hypothesises

Evidence from Primary Data
H 1: User-friendliness of a product can effectively negate the superior specs

of a competitor product and win over the customer
• 64.29% of the participants give the user-friendliness of a device some

weightage when buying a product.
• 30.95% of the participants note that the usability of the product is ‘very
important’.
• 17 (40%) participants acknowledged that the usability of a device is more
important than the specs.
• A third of the participants are willing to sacrifice some technological
advances for better usability.
• One third of the respondents wanted the manufactures to improve the
usability of devices before adding to the feature list.
• 35.71% participants have brought a product just because it is more user-
friendly.
72
H 2: Customers do associate user friendliness with ‘added value’ and are
• 73.81% of the respondents think that usability adds some value to the
product, with 35.48% of that group associating the ‘added value’ to non-
monetary values.
• Participants acknowledged the visible effects of usability like Efficiency,
Time saving and Manageability.
• Participants also noted the monetary values like the high resale value and
the savings on after-sales support.
• 18 respondents (42.86%) are willing to pay a premium for better usability.
• 35.71% the participants have brought a product just because it is more
user-friendly, showing that they are willing to pay for usability.
H 3: For the users, usability of a product can create an emotional

attachment with the brand
• 34 participants (80.95%) said that the usability levels of a product could

affect the brand, with many noting that the usability of a product can
create an emotional attachment and feel good factor for the brand.
• Economic benefits for the brand include the chance of repeat customers
and free publicity through word of mouth.
• 7 participants (16.67%) said that they have changed brand loyalties due to
a usability issue.
Evidence from Secondary Data
H 1: User-friendliness of a product can effectively negate the superior specs

of a competitor product and win over the customer
• Wii have outsold the PlayStations -a superior brand with better specs and a
market leader at the time- for all but 3 quarters since the start of 2008.
Total lifetime sales of the Wii (67.45 million at the end of Q3 2009) are
more than double the sales of Sony’s flagship console PS3 (33.5 million at
the end of Q3 2009).
73
• Google Chrome have captured a sizable market share (6.13% as of Mar
2010) and have become the third most used web browser in the world in
spite of its reputation as a ‘tiny, no-frills’ browser.
• iPhone registered its best quarterly sales (8.74 million) in the last quarter
of 2009. This comes at a time when the market is increasingly littered with
smart-phones that have better specs. It is also noted that the iPhone OS
lacks many advanced features like multi-tasking and ability to handle flash
videos when compared to other mobile OSs (bbc.co.uk 2009).
H 2: Customers do associate user friendliness with ‘added value’ and are

• Apple iPhone is priced at £539.99, which is double the price of a

Blackberry Curve that is retailed at £269.99. In spite of this, iPhone’s year
on year growth rate in 2008/09 is 82.9% (Figure 26). This is a phenomenal
rate when compared to the 46.6% growth rate of Blackberries and the
16.2% industry average in the same time-period (Figure 23, Chapter 4).
The annual moving average of iPhone sales are also very healthy (Figure
27).
74
• Google Chrome users are forced to pay a premium -in terms of the time
and effort used for finding the product, downloading and installing- when
pitted against default browser of their systems. In spite of that Chrome’s
market share have grown from 0.0% to 6.13% (Figure 21, Chapter 4), the
highest rise registered by any web browser in that timeframe.
H 3: For the users, usability of a product can create an emotional

attachment with the brand
• Google Chrome’s quick rise through the ranks was strongly aided by the
brand image of Google. Google’s primary product, the Google Search is
known for its simple and user-friendly webpage design, with Marissa
Mayer Google's director of consumer web products insisting that ‘less is
more’ (fastcompany.com 2005). This usability experience has prompted
many customers to try Chrome.
• A study conducted by mediapost.com (2010) found that 48.7% of the
450000 customers who purchased an Apple iPad in the first week of
availability owned an Apple iPhone or iPod Touch. That means, around
220000 customers purchased a radically new product just because of the
user-friendliness of their iPhone and iPod Touch. This shows that usability
can indeed create an emotional attachment for the brand in the minds of
the customers.
75
Theory Formulation
This research has gathered enough evidence to suggest that the proposed
hypothesises is valid. Based on the collected data and validated hypothesises, the
researcher note down the following theory.
User-friendliness adds tangible and intangible value to a hi-

tech product, thereby generating better sales and an
emotional attachment for the brand. It can also act as a
counter balance to the superior specs of a competing product
76
Chapter: 6
Conclusion and Recommendations
_______________________________________________
This chapter acts as a conclusion to the research by drawing a cohesive summary

of the research findings. The first part of this chapter brings together the findings
in the context of the original research questions. The next section is a brief review
of the academic literature in light of the findings. The researcher then explains the
limitations of the study, which is followed by a set of recommendations for the
Hi-Tech industry in light of the findings. The last section suggests some topics
that might be of interest to future researchers.
77
Conclusion
With this dissertation, the researcher aspired to determine the importance of
usability in the success of high-tech products. In order to attain this aim, the
researcher had put forward three research questions in the introductory chapter.
These questions became the very foundation of the research. The literature review
explored the academic background while the questionnaire -an extension and
expansion of the research questions in itself- collected the primary data from 42
participants. Hypothesises were derived from the answers; which were later
substantiated using the primary and secondary data. After analysing all these
findings, the research now believes that he has successfully answered the research
questions.
Research Findings in the Context of Research Questions

Question 1: Will a possibly basic (feature-wise) product that is more user-
friendly win an end user?
Researcher reached the conclusion that the customers are willing to relinquish the
latest features for better usability. The primary data suggests that 64.29%
respondents weigh-up the usability of a hi-tech product while buying; with 40%
participants acknowledging that usability is more important than the specs. One
third of the participants are willing to forgo some technical advances for better
usability, with 35.71% participants having brought a product just because it is
more user-friendly. When looking at the secondary data it is clear that the Wii,
Chrome and iPhone have managed to capture market share from industry leaders
like PlayStation, Internet Explorer and Blackberry Curve.
Question 2: How important is the usability factor to a potential buyer? Will

he/she pay a premium for it?
It is clear from the primary data that the customers associate usability with ‘added
value’; with 73.81% respondents thinking that usability add some value to the
product. Monetary value includes high resale value and the savings on after-sales
support while intangible effects like Time saving and manageability were also
78
mentioned. 42.86% participants are willing to pay a premium for better usability.
This also reflects in the secondary data with iPhone, a more expensive phone
selling on par with the market leader Blackberry. Even though a free product, the
users of Google Chrome -the highest gainer of market share in the last two years-
have to spend time and effort in terms of finding the product, downloading and
installing. This shows that the customers are willing to spend money, time and
effort for better usability.
Question 3: Is User-friendliness a strong brand building/busting point?
This research shows that the usability levels of a product can create an emotional
attachment with the brand for the customers with 80.95% participants noting that
the usability levels of a product can affect the brand perceptions. Benefits for the
brand include the chance of repeat customers and free publicity through word of
mouth. Secondary data suggests that Apple brand have gained a loyal following
due to the user-friendly nature of iPhone. Chrome’s customer acceptance was
strongly aided by the brand image of Google.
Review of Academic Literature in Light of the Findings

• The researcher finds that the factors of usability as identified by Jakob
Nielsen are accurate, but would add one more to it: Extendibility.
• Usability can fit in to the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, starting in ‘Esteem’ level
by helping achievement, with some elements like satisfaction classed as a ‘Self-
actualization’ need.
• Marshallian Theory that holds that buying decisions are a result of rational
economic calculations is irrelevant in today’s world. It is found that the
customers do consider intangible elements like satisfaction while making
buying decisions.
• Concerning the Needs-Opportunities-Abilities model, this research finds that
usability can create motivation by influencing needs.
• Looking at Porter's generic strategies, it is noted that usability can be used as
part of a differentiation strategy; as successfully implemented by Apple Inc.
79
• With the emergence of online stores and internet economy, importance of the
‘Place’ in ‘Extended Marketing Mix’ has been reduced. This is because a
simple search can find comparable products in an online marketplace.
• Shneiderman’s Universal Usability concept can indeed be practical in the real
world. Extendibility of products like iPhone and Chrome can be effectively
used to close the ‘knowledge gap’.
Limitations of the Research

This researcher wishes to state that this is a dissertation research; hence was
completed with strict time, monetary and other resource constrains. Consequently,
the following limitations should be taken into account while considering the
research and findings.
• Word Limitation: This dissertation has a 20000 (±10%) word limit, which
restricted the researcher from reviewing much of the literature available on
the subject. Researcher was also forced to shorten the analysis of primary data
due to this limitation.
• Time Constrains: This research was concluded within one academic semester.
This timeframe gave the researcher limited time to gather the primary data,
which prompted him to go for an open-ended questionnaire rather than much
more theoretically accepted personal interviews or peer groups observations.
It is also noted that better analysis would have been possible with more time.
A Gantt chart is provided (Appendix 2) for the details.
• Limited Participation: The research conclusions are based on the responses of
42 participants who had returned the completed questionnaires. Therefore,
this researcher makes no claim for the results being a true representation of
the British population.
• Human Error: This research, being a qualitative one, relies on the research
and analytic skills of the researcher as much as on the quality of data
gathered. The researcher acknowledges his limited expertise and experience
in the research area. It is also noted that this is the first time the researcher is
undertaking a research of this scope. All this can affect the quality of the data
analysis, and therefore reduces the significance of the findings.
80
Recommendations
Suggestions for the Hi-Tech Industry
This research proves that modern customers do factor in the usability of a hi-tech
product while making buying decisions. In light of the research findings, this
researcher would like to make the following recommendations to the
manufactures of the Hi-Tech products.
• While conceiving a new product, make an effort to improve the usability side
of it. Market research in to how the product is used in the real world will give
valuable information about the usability expectations of the customers. This
can bring in more sales and in extension, brand loyalty as in the case of Apple
Inc.
• While adding more specs/features in to the product, make sure that usability
is not compromised. It is better not to have a feature than making the whole
device harder to use. An example is the feature filled PlaySation3 losing
ground to the spec-light Wii.
• Extendibility, compatibility and availability of content can create a perception
that the product is user-friendly. Examples are iPhone (availability of content
through iTunes), Chrome (extendibility though browser extensions) and Wii
(compatibility through the ability to play older game titles) which all have
done well in the market.
• Customers are willing to pay a premium for better usability, as demonstrated
by Apple Inc. This can potentially lead to better profits; all that is needed is a
better ‘project conceive and design team’.
Scope for Future Studies

The primary data collected by the researcher have brought out many interesting
trends and patterns. Due to the research limitations discussed earlier in the
chapter, this researcher could not follow up on all of them. However, the
researcher is happy to highlight a few of them that might interest the academics.
81
• Large Scale Research on the Same Topic: This research, although constrained
in many ways, have found that user-friendliness of a Hi-Tech product do
influence customer buying choices. In light of the gravity of the findings, this
researcher would like to propose a large-scale study on the same subject.
• Effect of Age on Usability: This research has found that age has an inverse
effect on customer’s comfort levels with technology and hi-tech products.
The industry and customers would stand to benefit if a study is conducted to
establish the relationships between usability and age.
• Extendibility and Universal Usability: This researcher notes the relationship
between Extendibility and Universal Usability, which he believes is
significant enough to warrant an academic study.
• Gender and Usability: One of the constant trends brought out by the analysis
of participant responses was that women found usability more important than
men did. It is also noted that men and women has different perceptions about
usability. This will be an intriguing research topic for a sociologist.
82
Chapter: 7
Personal Statement
On Reflective Learning
_______________________________________________
This chapter reflects on what the researcher have learned while going through the
process of writing this dissertation. The researcher employs a technique called
reflective learning as explained in Kolb’s Learning Cycle (Figure 28) so that he
can learn from his own experiences. The first part of this chapter explains the
concept of reflective learning, which is then followed by the researcher’s
reflections on the learning experience. He reflects both on the content and the
process of doing the dissertation, with points like learning targets and future
applications of the learning explained.
83
“Tell me, and I will forget. Show me, and I may remember.
Involve me, and I will understand” (Confucius 450 BC)
Concept of Reflective Learning

Reflective Learning is a learning technique whereby a previous experience is
reflected on by an individual so that he/she can learn from the experience (David
Kolb 1984). Reflective Learning, -if made a routine- can develop an individual
not only as a student but also as a human-being, as it forced him/her to learn from
his/her own life. According to David Kolb, an individual goes through four stages
of learning which are 1) Having an experience 2) Reflecting on that experience 3)
Learning from the experience and 4) Try out the new learning.
Importance of Reflective Learning

Reflection can assist in developing a critical and analytical mind, which will help
an individual to assess himself against his own values and the values of the
society. It can also assist by
• Putting you in control of your own personal growth
• Identifying your shortcomings and giving you personal targets
• Making you more self aware; and by extension a confident person
Self Reflections on the Learning Experience

Now that I am at the last stage of a long journey -a quest which had its own fair
share of highs and lows- I think that this is a good time to look back; to take stock
of the progress I have made, both as an academic and a human being. I will be
reflecting on the dissertation content and the process of writing the dissertation;
on how I was encouraged by the highs and spurred by the lows. Also reflected on
are my learning targets, my quest for achieving those targets and how I can apply
what I have learned in my future workplace and life.
84
Reflections on the Content of Dissertation
Appraisal of Learning: This researcher chose the dissertation topic because of
the personal experience of usability problems while handling Hi-Tech devices.
This meant that the researcher -with no background in the topic- had to work extra
hard to gain knowledge about the literature.
At the start of the dissertation, researcher had set himself a personal target of
gaining theoretical knowledge about usability. This Researcher is happy to state
that he has achieved his original learning target, which can be seen from the
detailed nature of the ‘Literature Review’ Chapter. The way the researcher has
commented on the academic literature in the ‘Analysis of Data and Discussion’
again proves this.
On reflection, the researcher notes that his decision to go with an unfamiliar topic
did create some problems, but ultimately returned a satisfying experience,
enabling him to gain valuable knowledge about an increasingly important
consumer issue. The researcher notes that he could not cover the wealth of the
academic literature due to the research limitations.
How Learning Occurred: Looking back, the researcher sees that the personal
learning process was quite strange. He seemed to learn more about the theories
while analysing the primary data, which sometimes forced him to go back and
review the ‘Literature review’ section. This was quite a revelation for the
researcher. The theories came to life and appeared to have a different meaning
altogether when evaluated against the primary data.
This researcher remembers an incident where be the primary data prompted him
to go back to the books for a better interpretation of ‘Universal Usability’. The
researcher first thought it was an impractical and idealistic concept; but included it
in the ‘Literature Review’ to negate the researcher prejudice. This scenario
changed when he found how ‘Extendibility’ could help achieve Universal
Usability. This prompted the researcher to revisit the ‘Literature Review’ and
rewrite the whole section about Universal Usability.
85
This showed to the researcher that theory can never be properly understood in
isolation; what it needs is quality primary data which can then give it proper
meaning. Researcher also learned that he should be open to new interpretations of
the theories and literature.
Future Application of the Learning: The theories and concepts learned while
doing this dissertation will help the researcher in two ways. Firstly, as a future
marketing professional, this researcher has gained valuable insights in to a largely
unrecognised problem like Usability. This will help the researcher to better
understand and handle his future customers.
This research have rekindled academic mind of the researcher. He started this
dissertation as his last academic work, but now is seriously thinking about
furthering his studies. One of the main reasons for this is the realisation that he
has not even scratched the surface of the literature available on the subject. When
this research stared, this researcher had a feeling that his glass was pretty much
full. Strangely, now at the end of this dissertation, the researcher realises that his
glass is not full; not even close. This can be clearly seen from two entries in to the
researcher’s personal diary given below
“This is it. The last one. After this.... Well, I think I am well equipped.
All I need is the right job” (as entered on 21.09.2009)
“Suddenly, it feels as if I have just started... Is this my last academic

work? This research has done to me what that little child had done to
the King: Yes, the King is indeed naked” (as entered on 20.04.2010)
Reflections on the Process of Working

Appraisal of Learning: When the researcher started this research, -being his first
time undertaking a research of this scale- he was sceptical about his ability to
successfully complete the research. Researcher had two targets; firstly, to learn
how collect primary data and then learn how to structure an academic report of
this scale. In the past, researcher had problems collecting primary data and was
erratic with his word-processing skills.
86
While reflecting, the researcher feels that he has done a good job in both
categories. Aware of his past problems with data collection, researcher became
very meticulous about the questionnaire. He selected two sampling techniques
(Convenience, Snowball Methods) which virtually guaranteed him enough
responses. In the past, the research had noticed the participant’s preference to
short questionnaires. Researcher made sure that his questionnaire was a short one
with only 15 questions. When it came to word processing skills, researcher took
extra time to seek help from a friend who was good at Microsoft Word. This
facilitated the learning of new shortcuts and techniques and enhanced the
productivity and efficiency of the researcher.
How Learning Occurred: The researcher realises that he became aware of his
deficiencies due to the reflective learning style. If he had not looked back to his
previous experiences, he would never have realised his inadequacies in the first
place.
The researcher remembers a meeting with his research guide; he was criticised for
lingering too much in the ‘Literature Review’ section. He was asked to “move on
and get things done”. This prompted the researcher to reflect on the research
limitations like timeframes. The research guide would be pleased to know that this
researcher learned from that incident and started working within the time
limitations for the rest of the research.
Future Application of the Learning: On reflecting on the process of doing this

dissertation, one thing the research learned was how to effectively manage time.
This can become critical at his future workplace where he will have to meet strict
deadlines to stay competitive.
Another skill the researcher will take with him is his newfound word processing
skills. The researcher is now confident that he can effectively structure long
reports using a word processor. This will become crucial in the modern workplace
where almost all the work is done on a computer. The researcher is also confident
that he has become a much better data collector. This will help the researcher in
his future researches, if he chooses to pursue higher studies.
87
Summary of Reflective Learning Experience
The researcher finds that the reflective learning technique has changed him for the
better in both -academic and personal- lives. He finds that his habit of keeping a
personal diary -a habit he started on the advice of his professor- have enabled him
to audit his academic and personal lives at regular intervals. He intends to keep on
writing a personal diary so that he can continue his reflective learning.
88
Bibliography
_______________________________________________
89
• Adcock, D., Halborg, A. & Ross, C. (2001) Marketing: Principles And
Practice, London: Pearson Education.
• Allardt, E. (1994), “Having, Loving, Being: An Alternative To The Swedish
Model Of Welfare Research” in M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (eds.), The Quality of
Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Apple.com (2010) “One To One”, http://www.apple.com/retail/onetoone/
[accessed 13 Feb 2010].
• Apple.com (2010) “Press Releases: Sales Figures”, http://www.apple.com
/pr/library/ [accessed 21 Mar 2010].
• Aréna, R. & Quéré, M. (2003), The Economics Of Alfred Marshall: Revisiting
Marshall's Legacy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Assael, H. (1987), Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, Boston, MA:
Kent Publishing Company.
• Baker, M. J. (2003), The Marketing Book, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• BBC.co.uk (2009), “Apple Unveils New iPhone Features”, http://news.bbc.co.
uk/1/hi/technology/7949557.stm [accessed 19 Sep 2009].
• BBC.co.uk (2009), “EU Slaps A Record Fine On Intel”, http://news.bbc.co.uk
/1/hi/8047546.stm [accessed 27 Dec 2009].
• Berkman, H. W. & Gilson, C. C. (1986), Consumer Behaviour: Concepts And
Strategies, Boston, MA: Kent Publishing Company.
• Booms, B. H. & Bitner, M. J. (1981), “Marketing Strategies And
Organizational Structures For Service Firms” in J. Donnelly & W. George
(eds.), Marketing of Services, Chicago: American Marketing Association.
• Bowman, C. (2008), “Generic Strategies: A Substitute For Thinking?”, 360°
The Ashridge Journal, 5(2).
• Brown, A. (2009), “Consumer Buying Behaviour”, http://www.udel.edu
/alex/chapt6.html [accessed 29 Sep 2009].
• Brennan, L. L. & Johnson, V. E. (2004), Social, Ethical And Policy
Implications Of Information Technology, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
• Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2003), Business Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
90
• Businessdictionary.com (2009), “Consumer-Buying-Behaviour”, http://
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/consumer-buying-behavior.html
[accessed 2 Sep 2009].
• Canalys Estimates (2010), “Canalys Quarterly Research Highlights”, http://
www.canalys.com/pr/2010/r2010021.html [accessed 05 Apr 2010].
• Carey, J. M. (1995), Human Factors In Information Systems: Emerging
Theoretical Bases, Bristol: Intellect Books.
• Carroll, J. W. & Thomas, J. C. (1988), “Fun”, SIGCHI Bulletin, 19(3).
• Clark, M., Wilkie, E. & Wood, R. (1998), Researching And Writing
Dissertations In Hospitality And Tourism, London: Cengage Learning EMEA.
• Cnet.com (2009), “BlackBerry Curve outsells the iPhone 3G”, http://news.
cnet.com/blackberry-curve-outsells-the-iphone-3g/ [accessed 29 Mar 2010].
• Comscore.com (2010), “December 2009 U.S. Mobile Subscriber Market
Share”, http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/2/
comScore_Reports_December_2009_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share
[accessed 29 Mar 2010].
• Coolican, H. (1999), Research Methods And Statistics In Psychology (3rd
edition), London: Hodder & Stoughton.
• Cooper, C. L. & Channon D. F. (1998), The Concise Blackwell Encyclopaedia
Of Management, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Cougias, D. J., Heiberger, E. L. & Koop, K. (2003), The Backup Book:
Disaster Recovery From Desktop To Data Centre, Boston, MA: Schaser-
Vartan Books.
• Dickens, P. (2004), Society & Nature: Changing Our Environment, Changing
Ourselves, London: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Dictionary.cambridge.org (2009), “User-Friendliness”, http://dictionary.
cambridge.org/define.asp?key=87511&dict=CALD [accessed 21 Sep 2009].
• Dumas, J. S. & Redish, J. C. (1999), A Practical Guide To Usability Testing,
Wiltshire: Cromwell Press.
• Egan, J. (2007), Marketing Communications, London: Cengage Learning
EMEA.
91
• Ennew, C. & Waite, N. (2007), Financial Services Marketing: An
International Guide To Principles And Practice, Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
• Faas, R. (2009), iPhone For Work: Increasing Productivity For Busy
Professionals, New York: Apress.
• Fastcompany.com (2005), “The Beauty Of Simplicity”, http://www.
fastcompany.com/magazine/100/beauty-of-simplicity.html [accessed 29 Mar
2010].
• Feldt, K. C. (2007), Programming Firefox, Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media.
• Fink, A. (2003), The Survey Handbook, London: SAGE Publications.
• Foxall, G. R., Goldsmith, R. E. & Brown, S. (1998), Consumer Psychology
For Marketing, London: Cengage Learning EMEA.
• Funk, D. C. (2008), Consumer Behaviour In Sport And Events: Marketing
Action, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Gatersleben, B. & Vlek, C. (1998), “Household Consumption, Quality of Life
and Environmental Impacts” in K. J. Noorman & A. J. M. Schoot-Uiterkamp
(eds.), Green Households? Domestic Consumers, Environment And
Sustainability, London: Earthscan.
• Gay, L. R. (1996), Educational Research: Competencies For Analysis And
Application (5th edition), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
• Gilligan, C., & Wilson, R. M. S. (2005), Strategic Marketing Management:
Planning, Implementation And Control, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Gilligan, C., & Wilson, R. M. S. (2009), Strategic Marketing Planning,
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Gizmodo.com (2007), “Apple Sells 1 Millionth iPhone”, http://gizmodo.com/
298050/apple-sells-1-millionth-iphone [accessed 15 Jan 2010].
• Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery Of Grounded Theory,
Chicago: Aldine.
• Golafshani, N. (2003), “Understanding Reliability And Validity In Qualitative
Research”, The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.
• Google.co.uk (2010), “Why Use Google Chrome?”, http://www.google.co.uk/
chrome/intl/en-GB/more/index.html [accessed 01 Apr 2010].
92
• Govindarajan, M. (2007), Marketing Management: Concepts, Cases,
Challenges And Trends, New Delhi: PHI Learning.
• Gratton, C. & Jones, I. (2004), Research Methods For Sport Studies, London:
Routledge.
• Green, W. S. & Jordan, P. S. (1999) Human Factors In Product Design:
Current Practice And Future Trends, Danvers, MA: CRC Press.
• Guardian.co.uk (2009), “The Facebook Backlash”, http://www.guardian.
co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/07/facebook-exodus-social-
networking [accessed 26 Dec 2009].
• Guardian.co.uk (2010), “Apple's Amazing Numbers: Where Did The iPhone
Sales Come From?”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/
apr/21/apple-financial-results-analysis [accessed 22 Apr 2010].
• Guuui.com (2003), “Supporting Customers' Decision-Making Process”,
http://www.guuui.com/issues/02_03.php [accessed 16 Feb 2010].
• Hadkins, E. (2009), “On the Variety of Human Needs: Maslow and Max-
Neef”, http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/01/06/maslow-max-neef/
[accessed 29 Dec 2009].
• Hammond, J., Gross, T. & Wesson, J. (2002) Usability: Gaining A
Competitive Edge, Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Hareide, D. (1994), “Has The Quality Of Life Improved In Western Europe?”
in M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (eds.), The Quality of Life, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
• Herzberg, F. I. (1987), “One More Time: How Do You Motivate
Employees?”, Harvard Business Review, 65(5), 109-120.
• Hooks, I. F. & Farry, K. A. (2001), Customer-Centred Products: Creating
Successful Products Through Smart Requirements Management, New York:
Amacom.
• Horton, S. (2005), Access By Design: A Guide To Universal Usability For
Web Designers, Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.
• Hoyer, W. D. & Macinnis, D. J. (2009) Consumer Behaviour, London:
Cengage Learning EMEA.
93
• Husserl, E. (1983), Ideas Pertaining To A Pure Phenomenology And To A
Phenomenological Philosophy, The Hague: Nijhoff.
• Internetretailing.net (2010), “Internet shopping grew 13% in February”,
http://www.internetretailing.net/2010/03/internet-shopping-grew-up-13-in-
february/ [accessed 23 Mar 2010].
• Itgovernance.co.uk (2010), “Service as a Product”, http://www.
itgovernance.co.uk/service-as-a-product.aspx [accessed 23 Mar 2010].
• Jary, D. & Jary, J. (1991), The HarperCollins Dictionary Of Sociology,
Glasgow: Harper-Collins.
• Karwowski, W. (2001), International Encyclopaedia Of Ergonomics And
Human Factors, London: Taylor & Francis.
• Kelley, J. F. (1983), Natural Language And Computers: Six Empirical Steps
For Writing An Easy-To-Use Computer Application, Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University.
• Khan, M. A. (2007), Consumer Behaviour, New Delhi: New Age
International.
• Kim, W. C. & Mauborgne, R. (2005), Blue Ocean Strategy, Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
• Kolb, D. A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience As The Source Of
Learning And Development, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
• Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Wong, V. & Saunders, J. (2008), Principles Of
Marketing, London: Pearson Education.
• Koudelka, J. (1997), Consumer Behaviour And Marketing, Prague: Grada.
• Kurtz, D. L. (2008), Contemporary Marketing, London: Cengage Learning
EMEA.
• Kurtz, D. L., Mackenzie, H. F. & Snow, K. (2009), Contemporary Marketing,
London: Cengage Learning EMEA.
• Lacey, A. R. (1996), A Dictionary Of Philosophy, London: Routledge.
• Langdridge, D. (2006), Phenomenological Psychology: Theory, Research And
Method, Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Lazar, J. (2007), Universal Usability: Designing Computer Interfaces For
Diverse User Populations, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
94
• Leavy, P. & Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2005), The Practice Of Qualitative Research,
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
• Lessig, L. (2001), The Future Of Ideas: The Fate Of The Commons In A
Connected World, New York: Random House.
• Lohr, S. L. (1999), Sampling: Design And Analysis, Pacific Grove, CA:
Duxbury.
• Markel, N. (1998), Semiotic Psychology: Speech At An Index Of Emotions
And Attitudes, New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
• Marketingcharts.com (2009), “Firefox Market Share”, http://www.marketing
charts.com/interactive/firefox-share-tops-20-in-november-7380/ [accessed 25
Sep 2009].
• Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C. (2004), Handbook Of Qualitative
Research Methods For International Business, Northampton, MA: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943), “A Theory of Human Motivation”, Psychological
Review, 50(4), 370-396.
• Max-Neef, M. A., Elizalde, A. & Hopenhayn, M. (1991), Human Scale
Development: Conception, Application And Further Reflections, New York:
Apex.
• Maxwell, J. A. (2005), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive
Approach, London: SAGE Publications.
• McKenna, F. E. (2000), Business Psychology And Organisational Behaviour:
A Student's Handbook, New York: Psychology Press.
• Moonie, N. (2003), BTEC National Care, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Moran, D. (2000), Introduction To Phenomenology, London: Routledge.
• Mowen, J. C. & Minor, M. (2001), Consumer Behaviour: A Framework, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Msu.edu (2009), “Technology: Background”, http://globaledge.msu.
edu/industries/technology/background/ [accessed 26 Dec 2009].
• Neal, C., Quester, P. & Pettigrew, S. (2006), Consumer Behaviour:
Implications For Marketing Strategy, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
95
• Neal, C., Quester, P. & Pettigrew, S. (2007), Consumer Behaviour:
Implications For Marketing Strategy (5th edition), Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
• Netapplications.com (2010), “Browser Market Share”, http://marketshare.
hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0 [accessed 05 Feb 2010].
• Netmarketshare.com (2010), “Top Browser Share Trend”, www.
netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=1&qptimeframe=M&
qpsp=111&qpnp=25 [accessed 04 Apr 2010].
• Nielsen, J. (1993), Usability Engineering, Boston, MA: Academic Press.
• Nintendo.co.jp (2010), “Consolidated Financial Highlights”, www.nintendo.
co.jp/ir/pdf/2009/090730e.pdf [accessed 29 Mar 2010].
• OECD (2002), Towards Sustainable Household Consumption? : Trends And
Policies In OECD Countries, Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. & Krishnan, R. (2009), Marketing Research,
New Delhi: Wiley India.
• Patton, M. Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation And Research Methods, London:
SAGE Publications.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002), Qualitative Research And Evaluation Methods, London:
SAGE Publications.
• Perry, B. (2009), CIMA Learning System: Enterprise Operations, Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Pollard, D. (2005), “Why Google's Business Model Is So Revolutionary”, http:
//blogs.salon.com/0002007/2005/10/16.html [accessed 22 Jan 2010].
• Porter, M. E. (1980), Competitive Strategy, New York: The Free Press.
• Porter, M. E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, New York: The Free Press.
• Porter, M. E. (1998), Competitive Strategy: Techniques For Analyzing
Industries And Competitors, New York: The Free Press.
• Rao, K. R. M. (2007), Services Marketing, New Delhi: Pearson Education.
• Reid, G. C. (1993), Small Business Enterprise: An Economic Analysis,
London: Routledge.
• Reyes, M. (2004), Social Research: A Deductive Approach, Quezon City: Rex
Bookstore Inc.
96
• Robson, C. (2002), Real World Research: A Resource For Social Scientists
And Practitioner-Researchers, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Rokeach, M. (1979), Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal,
New York: Free Press.
• Runyon, K. E. & Stewart, D. W. (1987), Consumer Behaviour And The
Practice Of Marketing, Princeton, NC: Merrill Publishing.
• Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2002), Research Methods For
Business Students (3rd edition), London: Pearson Education.
Business Students (4th edition), London: Pearson Education.
Business Students (5th edition), London: Pearson Education.
• Scei.co.jp (2010), “PlayStation2 Worldwide Hardware Unit Sales”,
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps2_sale_e.html [accessed 04 Apr
2010].
• Scei.co.jp (2010), “PlayStation3 Worldwide Hardware Unit Sales”,
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3_sale_e.html [accessed 04 Apr
2010].
• Schutt, R. K. (2006), Investigating The Social World: The Process And
Practice Of Research, Newbury Park, CA: Pine Forge Press.
• Shneiderman, B. (1987), Designing The User Interface: Strategies For
Effective Human-Computer Interaction, London: Addison-Wesley.
• Shneiderman, B. (2000), “Universal Usability”, Communications Of The
ACM, 43(5), 84-91.
• Simpson, H. (1984), Design Of User-Friendly Programs For Small
Computers, New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Smith, D. W. (2005), Phenomenology And Philosophy Of Mind, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
• Sprenkle, D. H. & Piercy, F. P. (2005), Research Methods In Family Therapy,
New York: Guilford Press.
• Stahl, M. J. & Grigsby, D. W. (1997), Strategic Management, Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
97
• Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1990), Basics Of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures And Techniques, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
• Steidler-Dennison, T. (2009), Mac For Linux Geeks, New York: Apress.
• Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003), Handbook Of Mixed Methods In Social
And Behavioural Research, London: SAGE Publications.
• Telegraph.co.uk (2010) “Online Shopping And Social Media”, http://www.
telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/technology/broadband/7482480/Online-shopping-
and-social-media.html [accessed 23 Mar 2010].
• TGDaily.com (2008), “Google Chrome Crosses 1% Market Share Again”,
http://www.tgdaily.com/trendwatch-features/40575-google-chrome-crosses-1-
market-share-again [accessed 29 Mar 2010].
• Usitc.gov (2009), “Protecting U.S. Intellectual Property Rights And The
Challenges Of Digital Piracy”, http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/
working_papers/wp_id_05.pdf [accessed 26 Dec 2009].
• Vashisht, K. (2005), A Practical Approach To Marketing Management, New
Delhi: Atlantic Publishers.
• Wahba, A., & Bridgewell, L. (1976), “Maslow Reconsidered: A Review Of
Research On The Need Hierarchy Theory”, Organizational Behaviour And
Human Performance 15, 212-240.
• Watson, R. T., Berthon, P., Pitt L. F. & Zinkhan, G. M. (2000), Electronic
Commerce: The Strategic Perspective, Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press.
• Webster, M. (1985), Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, London:
Merriam-Webster Inc.
• Weitz, B. A., Wensley, R. (2002), Handbook Of Marketing, Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications.
• Wellman, B. & Haythornthwaite, C. A. (2002), The Internet In Everyday Life,
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Wickens, C. D., Lee, J. D. & Gordon-Becker, S. (2004) An Introduction To
Human Factors Engineering, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Xu, H. (1998), Golden Rules For Business Success, Singapore: Asiapac
Books.
98
• Yeow, C. C. (2005), Firefox Secrets: A Need-To-Know Guide, San Francisco,
CA: SitePoint Pty.
• Yeshin, T., C.I.M (1998), Integrated Marketing Communications: The
Holistic Approach, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Zikmund, W. G. (2000), Business Research Methods (6th edition), Fort Worth,
TX: Dryden Press.
99
Appendixes
_______________________________________________
100
Appendix 1
A Questionnaire on
The User-friendliness of High-Tech Products
Dear Participant,
This questionnaire requests your candid opinion in regards to your experiences

with high-tech products. The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect the
required primary data for a dissertation that is to be submitted in part fulfilment of
the Master of Business Administration degree at Liverpool John Moores
University. The researcher is investigating consumer behaviours to determine the
importance of user-friendliness in the success of high-tech products.
The researcher fully appreciates that you may be working on a tight schedule;
however, your participation in this research would assist the researcher to better
understand the customer philosophies while buying a high-tech product. This
study will help the technology industry to better evaluate customer priorities and
by extension, bring out better products. In that respect, you -as a customer- will be
a beneficiary of this research. Your co-operation is deeply appreciated.
Eligibility
You should be, at the very least, the age of eighteen. This is for the compliance of
legal requirements, if any. You should also own or have regularly used at least
one of the shortlisted products (please see question 1) for a minimum period of
one month.
Confidentiality
The researcher takes your privacy very seriously. Principles of anonymity and
confidentiality will be strictly adhered and no personally identifiable data will be
collected or stored. The expressed comments and views will be treated in strict
confidence. The analysis of the data collected will be submitted in a form that
does not identify the participants. A copy of the findings can be forwarded to you
on request for complete transparency.
101
Directions
This is an open-ended questionnaire, i.e. the researcher is looking for your

opinion. There are no right or wrong answers, only opinions. You have to
reply to the questions in your own words; explaining good or bad
experiences, the circumstances that led up to them and what happened after,
all in your own words. Additional space has been offered at the end of the
questionnaire to enable you to provide any relevant information or experience you
may wish to share, but are not covered by the questions.
Note: If the answer to Q1 is ‘NO’, then you are ineligible to participate in this
research
Q1 Do you own or actively use any of the following products? Give details.
Nintendo Wii, Sony PlayStation, Apple iPhone, Blackberry Curve,
Google Chrome, Microsoft Internet Explorer.
Q2 While buying the product/s you are using, what are the factors you gave
more importance to?
102
Q3 In relation to the product/s you own or use; when you first considered
buying it, what weightage -if any- did you give the usability factor of the
product?
Q4 In your opinion, is better usability more important than the latest

functionality features of your device/software?
Q5 In relation to the current devices you use; if given a choice will you
sacrifice some technological advances for better usability?
103
Q6 Do you think that the manufacturers should try to improve the usability of
your products rather than trying to incorporate more and more highly
advanced features?
When considering a replacement for your current device/software, will

Q7 new and better technological features alone influence you? Will you
choose a system with basic features, but good usability?
Q8 In your opinion, -if at all- how do the usability features of your product/s
improve your life?
104
Q9 Do you think that better usability adds value to your product? If so how?
If usability does indeed add value to products, are you willing to pay a
Q10 premium for better usability? If so, how much?
Q11 Have you brought products (which are otherwise not required) just
because it is user-friendly?
105
Q12 How does the user-friendliness of your products affect your perception of
maker/competitor brands?
Q13 Generally, how comfortable are you with hi-tech products?
Q14 State Your Age. Note: If you are not, at the very least, the age of
eighteen, then you are ineligible to participate in this research. You
do not need to answer other questions or return the questionnaire.
Q15 State Your Gender.
106
Provide any relevant information or experience you may wish to share,
but are not covered by the questions
107
Appendix 2
Research Gantt Chart
108

An MBA Dissertation - An Investigation Into Consumer Buying Behaviour: User-Friendliness As Success Factor in High-Tech Products

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An MBA Dissertation - An Investigation Into Consumer Buying Behaviour: User-Friendliness As Success Factor in High-Tech Products

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liverpool John Moores University

An Investigation into Consumer Buying

I, Tom Jacob, declare that no portion of the work referred to

My profound thanks to my research supervisor with whom I

This dissertation could not have been written without the

This research uses ‘Phenomenology’ as its research philosophy, complimented by

After analysing 42 participant responses, this researcher hypothesised that

This chapter acts as an introduction to the dissertation by explaining the research

Overview of the Research Problem

Challenges facing the Industry

Benefits to the Industry

Benefits to the Academics and the Society

1. Analyse the consumer philosophies when selecting and buying Hi-

2. Find if user-friendliness of a product can influence buying decisions.

3. Find if customers associate user-friendliness with ‘added value’.

2. If that is the case, then how important is this usability factor to a

3. Is User-friendliness a strong brand building/busting point?

Chapter Two – Critical Literature Review

Chapter Three – Research Methodology

Chapter Four – Findings and Results of Data

Chapter Five – Analysis of Data and Discussion

Chapter Six – Conclusion and Recommendations

Chapter Seven – Personal Statement on Reflective Learning

Hooks & Ferry (2001) notice that ‘user-friendly’ is a particularly troublesome

Jane Carey (1995) hypothesize that user-friendliness is linked to the productivity

Effectiveness and efficiency can be measured. However, satisfaction -which is

Learnability or ‘ease of learning’ (Carey 1995) is perhaps the most important

Henry Simpson (1984) suggest that a program or system should be consistent in

In most scenarios, this task is accomplished by displaying error messages which

Cougias et al. (2003) stresses the importance of contingency planning when

Agreeing partially, Parasuraman et al. (2009) writes that clever integrated

The concept of universal usability is particularly relevant when we consider

The earliest literature on customer buying behaviour is perhaps by Fan Li -also

Six Stage Buying Process

When a customer is aware of his need he then, mostly subconsciously, decides on

Factors Influencing Consumer Behaviour

Social factors are particularly important in the modern ‘socially-connected’ world

Task definition is described by the role an individual is playing at any given

Customers exhibit a habitual buying behaviour when the personal involvement

Variety-seeking buying behaviour is the mostly the same as habitual buying

Dissonance-reducing buying behaviour takes place when a highly involved

Relevant Theories and Models

Academics of various disciplines -from economics and politics to psychology-

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Porter's Generic Strategies

The Extended Marketing Mix

Recent Developments and Debates

Emergence of Online Stores and Internet Economy

User-friendliness of prominent virtual stores is questioned by a study by usability

The ‘Virtual’ Customer Behaviour

George Zinkhan et al. (2000) identified a change of behaviour in people when

It is argued that a customer do not need to own a song (even in an electronic

If so, how important Marshallian Theory Marshallian Theory holds that

Is User-friendliness a Porter's Generic Can companies use the Usability

This chapter describes, in detail, the methodological approach to this research.

Dermot Moran (2000) described phenomenology as an attempt to describe a

Brief on Other Philosophies

Interpretivism, a research philosophy used in social researches, tries to understand

Justification of the Adopted Philosophy

Research Approach: Inductive

Also known as the ‘bottom-up’ approach, an inductive research involves four

Brief on Other Approaches

Justification of the Adopted Approach