0
Research Papers

Quantifying Aesthetic Form Preference in a Utility Function

[+] Author and Article Information
Seth Orsborn

Department of Interdisciplinary Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 65409orsborns@mst.edu

Jonathan Cagan

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213cagan@cmu.edu

Peter Boatwright

Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213boatwright@cmu.edu

J. Mech. Des 131(6), 061001 (Apr 27, 2009) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3116260 History: Received January 25, 2008; Revised March 09, 2009; Published April 27, 2009

One of the greatest challenges in product development is creating a form that is aesthetically attractive to an intended market audience. Market research tools, such as consumer surveys, are well established for functional product features, but aesthetic preferences are as varied as the people that respond to them. Additionally, and possibly even more challenging, user feedback requires objective measurement and quantification of aesthetics and aesthetic preference. The common methods for quantifying aesthetics present respondents with metric scales over dimensions with abstract semantic labels like “strong” and “sexy.” Even if researchers choose the correct semantics to test, and even if respondents accurately record their responses on these semantic scales, the results on the semantic scales must be translated back into a product shape, where the designer must take the consumers’ numerical scores for a set of semantics and translate that into a form which consumers will find desirable. This translation presents a potential gap in understanding between the supply and demand sides of the marketplace. This gap between designer and user can be closed through objective methods to understand and quantify aesthetic preferences because the designer would have concrete directions to use as a foundation for development of the product form. Additionally, the quantification of aesthetic preference could be used by the designer as evidence to support certain product forms when engineering and manufacturing decisions are made that might adversely affect the aesthetics of the product form. This paper demonstrates how the qualitative attribute, form, cannot only be represented quantitatively, but also how customer preferences can be estimated as utility functions over the aesthetic space, so that new higher utility product forms can be proposed and explored. To do so, the form is summarized with underlying latent form characteristics, and these underlying characteristics are specified to be attributes in a utility function. Consumer surveys, created using design of experiments, are then used to capture an individual’s preference for the indicated attributes and thus the form. Once preference is summarized in the utility function, the utility function can be used as the basis for form generation and modification or design verification.

Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Seven SUV atomic attributes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Atomization of product form

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Part-worth value example

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Quadratic function example

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Option designs 1 and 2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Option designs 11 and 12

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Option designs 31 and 32

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Vehicle survey example question

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Respondent 30 Hcowlx

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Respondent 30 Hcowlz

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Respondent 30 V1hoodx

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Respondent 30 V1hoodz

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Respondent 30 V1grllz

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Respondent 30 V1hdltz

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Respondent 30 V4hdltz

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Respondent 30 high utility design 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Respondent 15 low utility design 2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Respondent 30 low utility design 6

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Respondent 30 neutral utility design 2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Summary of verification survey results

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In