Dear Derek,
The party has died down a bit and before the next one starts again, I thought perhaps I could get back to our online colloquium....hope you are still interested.
I have found two good sources. One scientific study by Kristensen and Gabrielsen on the relation between product design, logo design, web design and value creation. The first two types of design are positively correlated to value creation. So this study gives the basis to choose question B) to what extent is the design of iPhone (I narrow this down and don't want to worry about iPod) a factor for Apple market success between 2007 to 2011.
The other source is a Masters thesis by Holmberg et al. case studying the important factors for Apple to survive as a niche player in a network economy. In this thesis, the authors focus on technology and design, industrial relation and market strategy.
In Holmberg's thesis there is a short story of Apple, from 1975 to 2004 and I learn that PowerMac G4 Cube was NOT a market success although it was also an innovative design. So I am thinking, instead of doing a multi-factor analysis on the success of iPhone, I can do a comparative case study between PowerMac G4 and iPhone.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Rosan
-----Original Message-----
From: Derek B. Miller [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2012 19:11
Subject: Re: some more questions on research design RE: Is claim/research on 'success' one-sided?
----Snip---
"Are their designs a success factor." That's starting to become a researchable question. And your use of the word "factor" is a good one because you're not asking if they are a determinant of success, but rather a factor. But we're still not there because the thesis would be, "the designs are a success factor", and the antithesis would be "the designs are not a success factor." I'm not versed in this literature, but I sort of suspect no one is out there suggesting strongly that the designs were utterly irrelevant top Apple's success with these products.
So it isn't so much whether the designs were a success factor, but rather A) in what ways, or B) to what extent.
If you choose one of these (and you start from the stated assumption that the designs were likely a success factor, which would probably find few detractors), then you can start to make some headway of which of these is more interesting (to you) to pursue.
You basically have two options. The nominal argument (designs were a factor vs. designs were not a factor) or you have an issue of measurement (not whether, but to what extent.). The second is more interesting, because surely we want to get some sense of the power and value of good design to Apple's success. So the FUNDAMENTAL question is HOW to measure that? And that's a research design question.
---snip---
|