1 / 22

Customers of the Future

Customers of the Future. Jane Peck & Jennie Carroll. Agenda. Introductions Novell - Cambridge Technology Partners The University of Melbourne What & why The 2001 program What we have discovered How we went about it Questions. Novell

pchamberlain
Download Presentation

Customers of the Future

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Customers of the Future Jane Peck & Jennie Carroll

  2. Agenda • Introductions • Novell - Cambridge Technology Partners • The University of Melbourne • What & why • The 2001 program • What we have discovered • How we went about it • Questions

  3. Novell • A leading provider of eBusiness Solutions and Net Services software • Novell acquired Cambridge Technology Partners in July 2001 • Cambridge is the global eServices subsidiary of Novell and provides management consulting and system integration services • Over 7000 employees worldwide in 43 countries • Novell Asia Pacific is comprised Australia, New Zealand and Asia including Singapore, Thailand and Hong Kong, head office in Sydney

  4. The University of Melbourne • Australia’s leading research university awarded University of the Year 2001-2002 • The Department of Information Systems at The University of Melbourne has research and consulting expertise in electronic commerce, enterprise systems and interaction design Interaction Design Group • Improving the fit between end users and ICTs, including mobile, multimedia and web based systems. • Mixes information systems, human computer interaction, graphic and industrial design, software engineering, commerce, psychology and anthropology.

  5. What are we doing? • Finding out how young people currently use information & communication technology and, in particular, mobile phones • Looking for opportunities to innovate or create something new • Defining that innovation or creation…

  6. Why are we doing it? • Learn to drive innovation and invention from user needs • Understanding the impact of technology on users • Findings to be used for other technologies • Envisioning the future !

  7. Implications for industry • Telecommunications companies • Can learn where young people’s use of mobile technology is headed • What features and functions should be designed • Direction of research and development • IT industry • New method to approach problems

  8. 2001 Program Stages • Stage 1 Information & Communication Technologies (complete) • Stage 2 Internet enabled mobile phones (complete) • Stage 3 Future technologies (in progress)

  9. Stage 1 – Benchmarking • First stage looked at ICTs in current use • Developed a model of appropriation • Criteria which influence whether a technology is taken up • 3 important factors for ongoing use: • Identity • Power • Fragmentation

  10. Dis Appropriation (reject after evaluation) Appropriation Process Non Appropriation (reject before use) ‘’ Positive Criteria ‘x’ Negative Criteria Reinforcers Filter Attractors / repellants Appropriation (on-going use) Technology-as-designed Technology-in-use

  11. Stage 2 • Testing the appropriation model • Do the factors stand up when young people face a new technology? • Stage 2: Appropriation of a new technology

  12. Stage 2 – what we did • We gave young people a new WAP mobile phone to use for a month - free • Sydney & Melbourne • 16 - 22 year olds • Male & Female • 30 subjects recruited professionally

  13. What we discovered -“Who doesn’t want a free mobile phone?” • Young people are discriminating users • Cost is not the only consideration • Young people will reject a mobile phone where appropriation criteria are not satisfied… • Doesn’t add anything to their lives • Social management – cannot SMS to other networks • Usability – difficult to use

  14. 250 200 150 100 50 0 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 Phone WAP calls WAP 300 70 60 60 50 250 50 40 200 40 30 150 30 20 100 20 10 50 10 0 0 0 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 Phone WAP Phone WAP Phone WAP 160 140 140 120 120 100 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 Phone WAP Phone WAP 50 45 100 80 40 90 70 35 80 60 30 70 25 50 60 20 50 40 15 40 30 10 30 5 20 20 0 10 10 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 0 0 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 Phone WAP Phone WAP Phone WAP 100 100 200 90 180 90 80 80 160 70 140 70 60 120 60 50 100 50 40 80 40 30 60 30 20 40 20 10 20 10 0 0 0 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 Phone WAP Phone WAP Phone WAP

  15. Technology as designed • Initial Attractors • Fashion – does it suit my lifestyle it? • Convenience – will it do all I want? • Familiarity – is this similar to what I already know? • Usability – do I know how to use it effectively? • Pick up and play

  16. Technology on trial • Each young person discovers different functions and features • Discoveries are usually shared between peers • The technology is used and evaluated – an iterative process • Decisions made whether to adopt or change or drop • New and unexpected uses discovered – speaker phone

  17. Technology on trial (cont’) • Balancing appropriation criteria – all do not carry equal weight • All things equal – cost is important • Remove the cost and other factors come into play • Social management, lifestyle, critical mass

  18. Stage 2 - What we discovered • WAP • Misunderstood • No critical mass • Internet not particularly useful to their needs • Only used when better than alternative • Email disappointed in actuality versus anticipation • Personalised WAP site not of interest unless with peer group • Would not use most of the features if they had to pay for them

  19. Stage 2 - What we discovered (cont’) • SMS • Unable to text across other networks • Alternative methods of contact not appropriate • Failure in social contact • Went back to old phones

  20. Stage 2 – Focus Intention was to study the adoption process not to test the phones • New and different device to their standard • Needed something new in order to watch the adoption process. • New network not compatible for SMS with all others: • Looking at individual adoption and use • Examining alternatives to SMS for communicating with peers • New service -WAP/Internet • Security Internet setup – to see whether level of interest would cause changes to the set up

  21. Stage 2 – Focus (cont’) • Studying short and medium term adoption of technology • Using multiple research techniques – triangulation • eg focus groups, co-discovery, observations • Longitudinal study – more than a single snap shot • Not just self-reporting • Studying young people’s technology use in context

  22. Stage 2 - Overall conclusions • The study validated the model of appropriation • In general, the usage of the phone diminished over the month as they were gradually ‘dis-appropriated’ • By studying in real life contexts, we discovered unexpected uses of features such as the speakerphone • Young people are critical users of technology: pragmatic, discriminating and thoughtful

More Related