research findings with Marketing-Research-Finding Sensitive Visualisation method) Following are the descriptive statistics of the focus group’s response on various attributes considered for evaluation of design ideas.
4.3.1 Evaluation of design ideas considering ease of dishwashing in Indian context It has been observed that the design ideas generated in the second phase have substantially improved in terms of ease of dishwashing in Indian context. In the second phase 60.3% response was in favour of ‘better than existing’ over 47.6% that of the first phase. The response in favour of ‘worse than exiting’ has substantially decreased to 22.7% in the second phase from 40% in the first phase.
Opinion on design ideas in terms of ease of dishwashing in Indian
context
Phase 1 ( conventional sharing of MR findings)
Phase 2 ( sharing of MR findings with MRFSV
method)
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Better than existing (+) 157 47.6 199 60.3
Same as existing (0) 41 12.4 56 17.0
Worse than existing (-) 132 40.0 75 22.7
Table 4.2: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of ease of dishwashing in Indian context
Opinion in terms of ease of dishwashing in Indian context, on design ideas generated with conventional sharing of MR findings (Phase 1)
Opinion in terms of ease of dishwashing in Indian context, on design ideas generated with sharing of MR findings with MRFSV method ( Phase 2)
Figure 4.3: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of ease of dishwashing in Indian context
4.3.2 Evaluation of design ideas considering ease of use
It has been observed that the design ideas generated in the second phase have Better than
existing (+) Same as existing (0) Worse than existing (‐)
Better than existing (+) Same as existing (0) Worse than existing (‐)
123 favour of ‘worse than exiting’ has decreased to 20.9% in the second phase from 33% in the first phase.
Opinion on design ideas in terms of ease of use
Phase 1 ( conventional sharing of MR findings)
Phase 2 ( sharing of MR findings with MRFSV
tool)
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Better than existing (+) 167 50.6 195 59.1
Same as existing (0) 54 16.4 66 20
Worse than existing (-) 109 33.0 69 20.9
Table 4.3: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of ease of use Opinion in terms of ease of use, on
design ideas generated with conventional sharing of MR findings (Phase 1)
Opinion in terms of ease of use, on design ideas generated with sharing of MR findings with MRFSV method (Phase 2)
Figure 4.4: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of ease of use
4.3.3 Evaluation of design ideas considering ergonomics
It has been observed that the design ideas generated in the second phase have improved in terms of ergonomic considerations. In the second phase 49.4% response was in favour of
‘better than existing’ over 47.6% that of the first phase. The response in favour of ‘worse than exiting’ has decreased to 19.1% in the second phase from 27.9% in the first phase.
Better than existing (+) Same as existing (0) Worse than existing (‐)
Better than existing (+) Same as existing (0) Worse than existing (‐)
Opinion on design ideas in terms of ergonomic
considerations
Phase 1 ( conventional sharing of MR findings)
Phase 2 ( sharing of MR findings with MRFSV
tool)
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Better than existing (+) 157 47.6 163 49.4
Same as existing (0) 81 24.5 104 31.5
Worse than existing (-) 92 27.9 63 19.1
Table 4.4: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of ergonomic consideration Opinion in terms of ergonomic
consideration, on design ideas generated with conventional sharing of MR findings (Phase 1)
Opinion in terms of ergonomic consideration, on design ideas generated with sharing of MR findings with MRFSV method (Phase 2)
Figure 4.5: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of ergonomic consideration
4.3.4 Evaluation of design ideas considering ease of manufacture and assembly It has been observed that the design ideas generated in the second phase have just slightly improved in terms of ease of manufacture and assembly. The reason for this marginal improvement may be that marketing research findings did not much emphasise on ease of manufacture and assembly. However the response in favour of ‘worse than exiting’ has decreased to 38.2% in the second phase from 43.3% in the first phase.
Better than existing (+) Same as existing (0) Worse than existing (‐)
Better than existing (+) Same as existing (0) Worse than existing (‐)
125 Opinion on design ideas in
terms of ease of manufacture and assembly
Phase 1 (conventional sharing of MR findings)
Phase 2 ( sharing of MR findings with MRFSV
tool)
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Better than existing (+) 126 38.2 127 38.5
Same as existing (0) 61 18.5 77 23.3
Worse than existing (-) 143 43.3 126 38.2
Table 4.5: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of ease of manufacture and assembly
Opinion in terms of ease of manufacture and assembly, on design ideas generated with conventional sharing of MR findings (Phase 1)
Opinion in terms of ease of manufacture and assembly, on design ideas generated with sharing of MR findings with MRFSV method (Phase 2)
Figure 4.6: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of ease of manufacture and assembly
4.3.5 Evaluation of design ideas considering aesthetic appeal/ design variety
It has been observed that the design ideas generated in the second phase have substantially improved in terms of aesthetic appeal and design variety. In the second phase 52.7% response was in favour of ‘better than existing’ over 46.7% that of the first phase. The response in favour of ‘worse than exiting’ has decreased to 23.0% in the second phase from 30.3% in the first phase.
Better than existing (+) Same as existing (0) Worse than existing (‐)
Better than existing (+) Same as existing (0) Worse than existing (‐)
Opinion on design ideas in terms of aesthetic appeal/
design variety
Phase 1 ( conventional sharing of MR findings)
Phase 2 ( sharing of MR findings with MRFSV
tool)
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Better than existing (+) 154 46.7 174 52.7
Same as existing (0) 76 23.0 80 24.2
Worse than existing (-) 100 30.3 76 23.0
Table 4.6: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of aesthetic appeal/ design variety
Opinion in terms of ease of aesthetic appeal/ design variety, on design ideas generated with conventional sharing of MR findings (Phase 1)
Opinion in terms of aesthetic appeal/
design variety, on design ideas generated with sharing of MR findings with MRFSV method (Phase 2)
Figure 4.7: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of aesthetic appeal/ design variety
4.3.6 Evaluation of design ideas considering economic and financial feasibility
It has been observed that the design ideas generated in the second phase have substantially improved in terms of economic and financial feasibility. In the second phase 36.4% response was in favour of ‘better than existing’ over 29.4% that of the first phase.
The response in favour of ‘worse than exiting’ has decreased to 35.8% in the second phase from 48.8% in the first phase.
Better than existing (+) Same as existing (0) Worse than existing (‐)
Better than existing (+) Same as existing (0) Worse than existing (‐)
127 Opinion on design ideas in
terms of economic and financial feasibility
Phase 1 ( conventional sharing of MR findings)
Phase 2 ( sharing of MR findings with MRFSV tool) Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Better than existing (+) 97 29.4 120 36.4
Same as existing (0) 72 21.8 92 27.9
Worse than existing (-) 161 48.8 118 35.8
Table 4.7: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of economic and financial feasibility
Opinion in terms of ease of economic and financial feasibility, on design ideas generated with conventional sharing of MR findings (Phase 1)
Opinion in terms of economic and financial feasibility, on design ideas generated with sharing of MR findings with MRFSV method (Phase 2)
Figure 4.8: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of economic and financial feasibility
4.3.7 Evaluation of design ideas considering environment friendliness
It has been observed that the design ideas generated in the second phase have substantially improved in terms of environment friendliness. In the second phase 45.5%
response was in favour of ‘better than existing’ over 36.4% that of the first phase. The response in favour of ‘worse than exiting’ has substantially decreased to 15.8% in the second phase from 25.5% in the first phase.
Better than existing (+) Same as existing (0) Worse than existing (‐)
Better than existing (+) Same as existing (0) Worse than existing (‐)
Opinion on design ideas in terms of environment
friendliness
Phase 1 ( conventional sharing of MR findings)
Phase 2 ( sharing of MR findings with MRFSV tool) Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Better than existing (+) 120 36.4 150 45.5
Same as existing (0) 126 38.2 128 38.8
Worse than existing (-) 84 25.5 52 15.8
Table 4.8: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of environment friendliness Opinion in terms of environment friendliness,
on design ideas generated with conventional sharing of MR findings (Phase 1)
Opinion in terms of environment friendliness, on design ideas generated with sharing of MR findings with MRFSV method (Phase 2)
Figure 4.9: Respondents’ opinion on design ideas in terms of environment friendliness
4.4 Relationship and variance in ranking of design ideas generated in the 1st phase