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.

1.
Griffin
,
A.
, and
Hauser
,
J. R.
, 1993, “
The Voice of the Customer
,”
Mark. Sci. (Providence R.I.)
0732-2399,
12
(
1
), pp.
1
27
.
2.
Otto
,
K.
, and
Antonsson
,
E.
, 1994, “
Modeling Imprecision in Product Design
,”
Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems
, Vol.
1
, pp.
346
351
.
3.
Scott
,
M.
, and
Antonsson
,
E. K.
, 1998, “
Aggregation Functions for Engineering Design Trade-Offs
,”
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
0165-0114,
99
(
3
), pp.
253
264
.
4.
Berkowitz
,
M.
, 1987, “
Product Shape as a Design Innovation Strategy
,”
J. Prod. Innovation Manage.
0737-6782,
4
(
4
), pp.
274
283
.
5.
Bloch
,
P. H.
, 1995, “
Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response
,”
J. Marketing
0022-2429,
59
(
3
), pp.
16
29
.
6.
Wolter
,
J. F.
,
Bacon
,
F. R.
,
Duhan
,
D. F.
, and
Wilson
,
R. D.
, 1989, “
How Designers and Buyers Evaluate Products
,”
Ind. Mark. Manage.
0019-8501,
18
, pp.
81
89
.
7.
Krishnan
,
V.
, and
Ulrich
,
K. T.
, 2001, “
Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature
,”
Manage. Sci.
0025-1909,
47
(
1
), pp.
1
21
.
8.
Yamamoto
,
M.
, and
Lambert
,
D.
, 1994, “
The Impact of Product Aesthetics on the Evaluation of Industrial Products
,”
J. Prod. Innovation Manage.
0737-6782,
11
(
4
), pp.
309
324
.
9.
Cagan
,
J.
, and
Vogel
,
C.
, 2002,
Creating Breakthrough Products, Innovation From Product Planning to Program Approval Environment and Planning B
,
Prentice Hall
,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
.
10.
Nagamachi
,
M.
, 1995, “
Kansei Engineering: A New Ergonomic Consumer-Oriented Technology for Product Development
,”
Int. J. Ind. Ergonom.
0169-8141,
15
, pp.
3
11
.
11.
Lai
,
H. -H.
,
Chang
,
Y. -M.
, and
Chang
,
H. -C.
, 2005, “
A Robust Design Approach for Enhancing Feeling Quality of a Product: A Car Profile Case Study
,”
Int. J. Ind. Ergonom.
0169-8141,
35
, pp.
445
460
.
12.
Chang
,
H. -C.
,
Lai
,
H. -H.
, and
Chang
,
Y. -M.
, 2006, “
Expression Modes Used by Consumers in Conveying Desire for Product Form: A Case Study of a Car
,”
Int. J. Ind. Ergonom.
0169-8141,
36
, pp.
3
10
.
13.
Osgood
,
C.
,
Suci
,
G.
, and
Tannenbaum
,
P.
, 1957,
The Measurement of Meaning
,
University of Illinois Press
,
Urbana, IL
.
14.
Michalek
,
J. J.
,
Cervan
,
O.
,
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
, and
Koren
,
Y.
, 2006, “
Balancing Marketing and Manufacturing Objectives in Product Line Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
128
(
6
), pp.
1196
1204
.
15.
Vergeest
,
J. S. M.
,
Van Egmond
,
R.
, and
Dumitrescu
,
R.
, 2004, “
Freeform Shape Variables of Product Designs and Their Correlation to Subjective Criteria
,”
Journal of Design Research
,
4
(
1
), pp.
1
19
.
16.
Orsborn
,
S.
,
Boatwright
,
P.
, and
Cagan
,
J.
, 2008, “
Identifying Product Shape Relationships Using Principal Component Analysis
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
0934-9839,
18
(
4
), pp.
163
180
.
17.
Von Neumann
,
J.
, and
Morgenstern
,
O.
, 1944,
Theory of Games and Economic Behavior
,
Princeton University Press
,
Princeton, NJ
.
18.
Keeney
,
R. L.
, and
Raiffa
,
H.
, 1976,
Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preference and Value Tradeoffs
,
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge, UK
.
19.
Thurston
,
D. L.
, 1990, “
Multiattribute Utility Analysis in Design Management
,”
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.
0018-9391,
37
(
4
), pp.
296
301
.
20.
Thurston
,
D. L.
, 1991, “
A Formal Method for Subjective Design Evaluation With Multiple Attributes
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
0934-9839,
3
(
2
), pp.
105
122
.
21.
Otto
,
K.
, and
Antonsson
,
E.
, 1993, “
The Method of Imprecision Compared to Utility Theory for Design Selection Problems
,”
Proceedings of the 1993 ASME DTM Conference
, pp.
167
173
.
22.
Li
,
H.
, and
Azarm
,
S.
, 2000, “
Product Design Selection Under Uncertainty and With Competitive Advantage
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
122
(
4
), pp.
411
418
.
23.
Li
,
H.
, and
Azarm
,
S.
, 2002, “
An Approach for Product Line Design Selection Under Uncertainty and Competition
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
124
(
3
), pp.
385
392
.
24.
Maddulapalli
,
A. K.
, and
Azarm
,
S.
, 2006, “
Product Design Selection With Preference and Attribute Variability for an Implicit Value Function
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
128
(
5
), pp.
1027
1037
.
25.
Thurston
,
D. L.
, and
Carnahan
,
J.
, 1992, “
Fuzzy Ratings and Utility Analysis of Preliminary Design Evaluation of Multiple Attributes
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
114
(
4
), pp.
648
658
.
26.
Thurston
,
D. L.
, 2001, “
Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
123
(
2
), pp.
176
182
.
27.
Callaghan
,
A.
, and
Lewis
,
K.
, 2000, “
A 2-Phase Aspiration-Level and Utility Theory Approach to Large Scale Design
,”
Proceedings of the ASME DETC 2000
, Baltimore, MD.
28.
Green
,
P. E.
, and
Rao
,
V. R.
, 1971, “
Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data
,”
J. Mark. Res.
0022-2437,
8
, pp.
355
363
.
29.
Green
,
P. E.
, and
Srinivasan
,
V.
, 1978, “
Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook
,”
J. Consum. Res.
0093-5301,
5
(
2
), pp.
103
123
.
30.
Srinivasan
,
V.
,
Lovejoy
,
W. S.
, and
Beach
,
D.
, 1997, “
Integrated Product Design for Marketability and Manufacturing
,”
J. Mark. Res.
0022-2437,
34
, pp.
154
163
.
31.
Holbrook
,
M. B.
, and
Moore
,
W. L.
, 1981, “
Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal Versus Pictorial Presentations
,”
J. Consum. Res.
0093-5301,
8
, pp.
103
113
.
32.
Page
,
A. L.
, and
Rosenbaum
,
H. F.
, 1987, “
Redesigning Product Lines With Conjoint Analysis: How Sunbeam Does It
,”
J. Prod. Innovation Manage.
0737-6782,
4
(
2
), pp.
120
137
.
33.
Durgee
,
J. F.
, 1988, “
Product Drama
,”
J. Advert.
,
17
, pp.
42
49
. 0091-3367
34.
Holbrook
,
M. B.
, 1986, “
Aims, Concepts, and Methods for the Representation of Individual Differences in Esthetic Responses to Design Features
,”
J. Consum. Res.
0093-5301,
13
, pp.
337
347
.
35.
Sawtooth Software, Inc.
, 2007, “
Aca System for Adaptive Conjoint Analysis
,” Technical Report.
36.
Chen
,
W.
,
Wiecek
,
M.
, and
Zhang
,
J.
, 1999, “
Quality Utility—A Compromise Programming Approach to Robust Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
121
(
2
), pp.
179
187
.
37.
Zwerina
,
K.
,
Huber
,
J.
, and
Kuhfeld
,
W.
, 1996, “
A General Method for Constructing Efficient Choice Designs
,” SAS Technical Report No. TS-722E.
38.
Kuhfeld
,
W. F.
,
Tobias
,
R. D.
, and
Garratt
,
M.
, 2005, “
Efficient Experimental Design With Marketing Research Applications
,” SAS Technical Report No. TS-722D.
39.
Kuhfeld
,
W.
, 2004, “
Experimental Design, Efficiency, Coding, and Choice Designs
,“ SAS Technical Report No. TS-722C.
40.
Swait
,
J.
, and
Adamowicz
,
W.
, 2001, “
The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching
,”
J. Consum. Res.
0093-5301,
28
, pp.
135
148
.
41.
Deshazo
,
J. R.
, and
Fermo
,
G.
, 2002, “
Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency
,”
J. Envir. Econom. Manage.
0095-0696,
44
(
1
), pp.
123
143
.
42.
Luce
,
R. D.
, 1959,
Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis
,
John Wiley and Sons
,
New York
.
43.
Luce
,
R. D.
, 1977, “
The Choice Axiom After Twenty Years
,”
J. Math. Psychol.
0022-2496,
15
, pp.
215
233
.
44.
Bradley
,
R. A.
, and
Terry
,
M. E.
, 1952, “
Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs
,”
Biometrika
0006-3444,
39
, pp.
324
345
.
You do not currently have access to this content.