Abstract
Introduction
Throughout the history, luxurious cars offered functional solutions comforting the traveling experience of its passengers e.g. Rolls-Royce and the BMW 7 Series Individual designed by Karl Lagerfeld (see Fig. 1). The initial buyers for such highly customizable cars are able to choose among many interior features (tables, fridge, screens), colors and materials. Therefore the car is adapted to each buyer’s respective needs. However, only the 1st owner of a car can choose from this variety of choices. Customers in the retail market or users of car sharing services have only limited possibilities for customization which are primarily available for make-to-order products.
In the last few years new product ideas emerged by a fusion of different products, satisfying a more integrated and combined lifestyle [1]. Furniture solutions such as the Uppleva series of IKEA offer a space saving combination of entertainment system and shelves by merging TV and furniture [2].
The idea of customizing the respective environment by adaptable storage solutions and added functionalities was introduced in 2014 [3] as functional customization [4].
This functional customization in product design is a user centered approach that can be transferred to the car’s interior. Other products like smartphones can be bought with a standardized design and customized afterwards by colored covers or additional functionalities like charging, protection or antenna amplification. The willingness to spend money on functional customization (16–80 Euros) was identified as higher than on aesthetic customization (8–20 Euros).
Functional customization also has to take into account the changing behavior of car users. Megatrends describe that consumer trends like Sensation Seekers search for a sensory experience with the car being an extension of office and leisure [1]. Whereas High-Frequency commuters tend to prefer car-sharing or short-term rental offers [1]. Therefore the car’s interior is exposed to changing mobility behaviors resulting from car sharing and the trend of interconnectedness. Consequently, the users expect to find storage solutions for their most valuable CE devices e.g. smartphones or tablet PCs in their cars. In this project a concept design with integrated standardized interfaces was applied to offer the possibility of rearranging the compartments and storage solutions of the interior continuously. Therefore, the car’s interior is able to cope with the changing needs during its lifetime caused by altering passengers or life stages of the users.
A traffic observation study conducted previously by the authors showed a majority of compacts, station wagons, sedans and functional cars used for commuting as well as vacation traffic [5]. The popularity of SUVs increases. Commuters tend to drive alone in their cars (cf. Fig. 2: green bar; the colors of the bars indicate the number of passengers). At least one passenger accompanies the driver during vacation. Depending on the car’s size up to 5 passengers were observed in one car (cf. Fig. 2: blue bar). Consequently, the car’s interior should fulfill different needs by drivers and passengers alike in different situations which might lead to various use cases.
As space for storage is limited in cars and safety regulations influence the design of interiors, comparable to other types of transportation i.e. Aircraft or trains can indicate important use cases for storage [6, 7].
Methods like crowd sourcing allow researchers to generate a pool of customization ideas almost instantly especially when conducted by a web-based contest [8–16]. As products become more and more similar regarding technical characteristics and quality, the emotional value of products seems to be a promising approach in order to differentiate against competing products [17]. In this study a user-centered approach was preferred based upon Desmet’s and Hekkert’s types of product experience during the user-product interaction with a focus on the user’s aesthetic and emotional experience of functional customization [18]. A thorough understanding of the user is essential to identify the emotional fit of products which influences the purchase decision as well as the pleasure of owning and using a product [19, 20]. However, the emotions caused by a product’s meaning and its intangible attributes (e.g. the joy of using a product) attract users with an added emotional value 19, 17]. Distinct emotions like satisfaction can have an influence upon a product’s usability [21]. But there is no distinct indication by Desmet if there is a relationship between emotion and purchase behavior [19]. However, studies indicated emotions have an impact on the purchase intention [22] and serve as the primary motivation for consumption [23].
In order to identify whether customization of a product provide added emotional value, this research project was initiated. Starting with a general approach, an investigation was conducted about where objects were commonly stored within a car in different situations. As a result, this general knowledge should enable designers to focus on user oriented storage solutions. Afterwards, two concrete designs were tested: an existing product design and a concept design. The analysis focused on the acceptance and appreciation of users. The research question asks if functional customization can provide additional value for users and was subdivided into two questions:
What are customer’s use cases about storing personal objects in cars?
What contributing and motivational factors influence users to buy flexible storage concept solutions and achieve functional customization?
Methods
An insight in functional customization for developing adequate survey techniques
First, structured interviews were held to gain an insight about functional customization by flexible storage concepts. To identify typical use cases which would be the key in product design for new features or assuring the necessity of the existing product portfolio ideas, 10 subjects were questioned at the BMW Welt in Munich. Also a product concept for functional customization was already available in the market and was demonstrated in a car. Thus, the subjects could experience usability, haptic and aesthetic appearance. The most frequently mentioned use cases were holder for CE devices (smartphone, tablet PC), compartments for small objects (keys, wallet) and holders for umbrella, clothes, glasses, jacket, cups and bottles. In order to receive information about new features for customizable systems the subjects preferred product information by the manufacturer or a dealership rather than online marketing or newsletters. Also the use cases were classified by frequently used objects e.g. wallet, keys, smartphone, handbag etc. or situationally used objects like luggage. Referring to the features the subjects expected high quality but also additional functionalities like charging mobile devices or flexibility.
The product concept most positively evaluated was the holder for CE devices. Whereas the variety of the features’ storage in non-use was high (trunk, interior, garage), the perceived value to the users was focused on the ability to take the concept from one car to another (e.g. leasing or car sharing) and to upgrade in case of a new stage of the user’s life.
Even though the diversity of subjects was high, as this was a public place (families, couples, singles at different ages), these interviews only provided a first impression of the topic. As subjects were only spending a short time for the interviews further in depth questions stayed unanswered. For instance, the consumer behavior was different if there was no relationship to the initial purchase of the car. This was indicated by Recaro at the Innovative Seating Conference 2012 as one of the buying criteria for the upgrade possibilities at the Check-in before flights [24]. If consumers had a different price sensitivity for functional customization concepts further investigation is needed concerning the emotional responses.
Experimental set-up for functional customization
A concept design was developed allowing the full range of flexibility with the most unobtrusive design. The standardized interface was hidden behind trim elements of dashboard, door trims, middle console, seating back-panel and trunk. A pre-selection feature portfolio was created by experts of R&D, Marketing and Aftersales of BMW e.g. glasses compartment, hooks and holders for smartphones, cups, keys, bags or tickets. The features were made by applying Selective Laser Sintering reinforced with glass fiber (see Fig. 3). The major selection criteria were derived from existing product designs of flexible storage solutions from Aftersales, the series concept of the MINI Countryman and the results from the use case study in the BMW Welt. The resulting concept design was built into a test car and used for this study in a lab environment in order to guarantee controllable conditions.
With a special emphasis on the consumer trend “simplify”, the customer’s expectation of a simple and intuitive access to a technological system [1, 25] must be considered when designing flexible storage solutions. The subjects were observed by the researcher handling and using the prototypes and their interfaces regarding the empirical usability of the concept design. Their behavior was logged (cf. Fig. 3) and clustered in a 5-pointed Likert-Scale from unusable to intuitively usable; the validity of this approach was tested by a cross-tab analysis to the item “ease of use”. To gather an additional heuristic evaluation of the concept design expert interviews were conducted as well.
The composition of the survey
A study with 70 subjects was conducted to answer the research questions whether functional customization contributed additional value for the user.
The mean age of the study population varied between 20 and 59 years with a majority of middle aged subjects, 27 females and 43 males most of them working at BMW in different departments (R&D 71.4%, Production 12.9%, Marketing 5.7%, HRM 2.9%, Miscellaneous 7%). Before the test, the subject’s emotions were captured by emocards to get an insight on the level of arousal and pleasantness of the emotional responses [19]. In order to identify the emotional responses more detailed in correspondence to the general idea of functional customization and the concept design bipolar 7-point Likert scales with 2 opposite emotions were used: aversion-attraction, fear-hope and boredom-joy. Thus subtle and mixed emotions were observed simultaneously [17]. The subjects had to rate those 3 emotions before and after the test. Pre-tests from earlier studies indicated that a verbal description of the emotion is essential for the subjects to prevent misinterpretations [3].
The first part of the interview was conducted before the subjects experienced the concept design. The expectations of flexible storage solutions in the car’s interior were noted and the frequency of switching compartments if possible (never 14.3%; once 10%; more than once 22.9%). Secondly, as this study intended to identify where belongings were stored in for different situations and the subjects were interviewed while sitting in the driver’s seat. Thus the researchers aimed for continuation and similarities in the setting combined with the anticipation of being the actual driver in the car. Consequently, a deeper insight into the authentic user-product interaction should be reached. Photographs of typical examples of personal belongings and the top view of an entire interior (including trunk) were tools supporting the imagination of the test persons.
In the third part of study a concept design was introduced to the subjects. The user product interaction was observed, followed by a questionnaire about emotional arousal, frequency of switching the compartment prototypes, preferences for the features, and additional functionalities. Also the storage for non-usage was asked. In addition to the favored methods of receiving product information about new features, the distribution channel and price sensitivity concept design and features. The findings of the pretest could be substantiated and complemented by items such as ease of use ratings by a 5 point Likert scale from not important to important. In order to close this part of the survey the subjects evaluated the fit to the BMW brands.
General and socio-demographic data was gathered by the last part of the study including scales of innovativeness, automobile involvement and automotive customization and 21 buying criteria for cars rated from low to high importance with a 5 point Likert scale. For instance, exterior design, overall quality, reliability, quality of the interior, price-performance ratio and safety were evaluated as most important, whereas variability of the interior, brand image, reputation of the manufacturer showed to have no influence upon the buying decision (cf. Fig. 4).
The sample showed a high level of consumer innovativeness and automobile involvement while maintaining a below average level of need for customization (>50% high scores in innovativeness, >70% high scores in automobile involvement, >20% mediocre to moderate high scores in automotive customization). According to the mobility behavior the sample reflected a consistent image of the traffic analysis: hatchbacks (34.7%), sedans (21.8%) and station wagons (15.8%) of medium-class (46%), lower medium-class (22%) to small class cars (17%).
Pre- and post-evaluation of the emotional feedback were tested with t-tests for paired comparisons (p < 0.05). The positive scores were compared to the negative scores using Wilcoxon (p < 0.05). A cross-tab analysis was conducted in order to identify relationships.
Results
The pretest indicated a preference for holders of CE devices (smartphone, tablet PC), compartment for small objects (keys, wallet) and holders for various objects. To investigate such use cases further in order to identify an interesting product portfolio of features for flexible storage solutions 70 subjects mentioned 226 different objects classified in 130 clusters. Those objects were stored in 19 storage areas of the interior (seating back panel, front seats, rear seats, under the seats, floor front driver, floor front passenger, floor rear driver, floor rear passenger, hook, door compartments, ceiling, windshield, glove box, dashboard, center console, center console middle, center console sideways, cup holders and trunk). Simultaneously, 4 situations (commuting, leisure, vacation and special occasion) were considered which also lead to different kind of belongings that driver and passengers need to store in a car.
Various sports equipment, smartphones, beverages, umbrellas, jackets and sun glasses are taken along by driver and passengers. Depending on the situation the preference of the belongings or the object itself changes. As typical belongings for commuters, the subjects mentioned smartphones, keys, sunglasses, umbrellas (dry), wallets and handbags in decreasing importance. Sometimes those objects can be supplemented by laptops, bags or documents for work. In leisure driving situations sports equipment, beverages, smartphones, handbags and sun glasses are specified to be general belongings. Whereas luggage, bottles, supplies, sports equipment and smartphones need to be stored during vacation rides. Concerning special occasions, meaning visiting an opera, restaurant or a trip, the subjects intend to bring jackets, shoes, suits or luggage. Table 1 shows how intense the objects vary depending on the situation because of their relevance to the user.
Furthermore, all these objects need to be stored within a car. 19 storage places could be deduced from the study. However, the usage differed massively. For instance, the seating back panel was named less as instance the seating back panel was named less as storage space for personal belongings. Also the windshield, dashboard, center console sideways, beneath the seats, floor in front of driver and floor in front rear passenger were indicated as being seldom areas used for storage. Surprisingly, the glove box was not used often for the personal belongings (only CDs, navigation in non-use, notepad, pen, tissues), as well as the center console middle although both are closable compartments. Aside from beverages, the cup holders were used for other objects e.g. smartphones, keys, tickets, candy, sun glasses, supplies, wallet, gum, navigation, MP3 player and ID. The seat representing the most dominant part of the interior allows the user to interact with the car’s interior on a visual and haptic perception level [26]. The subjects indicated that they would use the seating back panel primarily for storing maps and clothes. In case of family transportation often the back panel is used for entertainment by installing a holder for tablet PCs or equivalent features. For the typical commuting scenario i.e. only one person driving, the front passenger seat is misused for storing bottles, supplies, handbags, work bags, laptops and smartphones. The front floor of the passenger is used comparably for the driver’s belongings like bottles, handbags, supplies, shoes, umbrellas or work bags. More bulky objects e.g. sports equipment are mainly stored on the back seats along with jackets or coats, laptops, suits or bottles. But also the floor behind the driver’s seat is used for storing work bags, shoes etc. Table 2 summarizes the findings for the seat and its surrounding areas.
Other areas of the interior like the door compartments serve as storage space for tissues, sun glasses, wallets, bottles, keys, umbrellas and even smart phones (cf. Table 3). The center console offered many possibilities and also specialized compartments at the front or beneath the armrest. As Table 4 shows smartphones, keys, wallets, glasses, tissues, sun glasses, gum or supplies were stored in the center console. While dashboards were used to keep sun glasses, smartphones or wallets if possible (depending on the gradient of the surfaces), the trunk usually holds luggage, groceries or sports equipment.
The concept design considered the use cases of the pre-test and the selection by experts, but also allowed new ideas. However, the main focus of features for flexible storage solutions was for smartphone holders, cup holders, compartments for glasses and utility boxes in descending order of frequency. Interesting ideas like a flower holder, flash drive compartment, or snow googles compartment were only mentioned once and were therefore not statistically valid. The subjects preferred additional functionalities of the features as the ability to charge CE devices, flexibility (multiuse, size adjustability), and connection to CE devices or lighting for effect. Regarding the storage of the items while not in use, the sample mostly preferred storage possibilities inside the car such as the trunk, glove box, or the interior. The box for storing the items in a garage was considered an option.
The cross-tab analysis of the features discloses a rather strong relationship between subjects preferring the additional functionality of multiplex usage and subjects preferring a laptop holder (p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.569). Furthermore, relationships could be identified between no preference for toy boxes (p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.737) or cool boxes (p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.489) while driving without any passengers. The subjects disapproving a hanger as a feature tend to switch the features of flexible storage systems more often (p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.569). The preference for smartphone holders was influenced by an intuitive usability of the system (p = 0.003, Cramer’s V = 0.478).
Regarding the purchase of new features, the sample possesses a strong inclination to use established distribution channels (car manufacturer 22.7%, licensed dealership 13.5%, third party provider 12.4%). Online sales channels (19.5%) were preferred to offline ones (16.30%). Other subjects preferred recent product information channels such as Facebook, events or showrooms. The percentages of the preferences of independent versus provided product information were distributed almost equally. According to the brand attribution the concept design was evaluated with a fit to MINI, BMW and BMW I (cf. Fig. 5) this design was an example for functional customization.
As indicated in the pre-test, the price sensitivity for flexible storage solutions could differ according to the purchase date. Consequently, this could be applied to the willingness for customization. The cross-tab analysis proved a rather strong relationship between the price sensitivity for the interfaces i.e. the enabler to use flexible storage and the price sensitivity for the features (p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.563). The more the subjects intend to spend for the interfaces, the more they intend to spend for the features. According to the entire price range of the interfaces starting from 1 euro to 2000 euros for an overall solution, only few subjects prefer to spend less than 50 euros or close to 2000 euros. Simultaneously, the majority of the sample intended to pay less than 60 euros for a feature. Therefore, the resulting core price sensitivitiy of the features reached from 31 to 60 euros. For the corresponding intefaces subjects were willing to spend between 100 to 300 euros. Also relationships were found between the price sensitivity for the interfaces and features combined with the design of the offer. These relationships could be differentiated by a closed system’ s view (i.e. a purchase of the entire system of interfaces and all relevant features at the initial purchase) and an open system’ s view (i.e. the purchase of the interfaces and 3 features with the option to complement the system any time). The subjects who were willing to spend 100 to 200 euros for the interfaces opted for an open system’s approach (p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.891). While subjects expecting to pay 11 to 30 euros or 40 to 50 euros, prefered to buy the entire system at once (p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.81).
The emotional responses recorded with emocards [19] and Likert scales showed significant correlations for the scales ‘aversion-attraction’,’ fear-hope’ and ‘boredom-joy’ both before and after the test with the concept design. The correlations of the emocards with the Likert scale ratings are negative. The emocards were recorded before and after the test compared to the emocards which are represented by the item ‘mood’ and differentiated in before and after the test, with the latter subdivided into an emotional response to the idea of functional customization per se and to the concept idea. As the emocard ratings are inverse to the ratings of the Likert scales measuring the level of attraction, hope and joy, this is the reason for the negative correlations. The highest scores could be recorded for the emotional arousal caused by the concept design which was higher than the one caused rather by the idea of functional customization itself. The items ‘attraction’ and ‘hope’ show significant correlations to almost all emotional responses except for the ‘mood’ asked before the test by emocard, this might be a result of the forward orientation of the item. The level of joy before the test also correlates intensively with other emotions, after the test joy is not only correlating with the emocard, but also strongly with the level of attraction (0.818) and hope (0.874). Table 5 recapitulates all correlations, significant ones are highlighted.
Table 6 shows the results of the emocards before and after experiencing the concept design compared to the emotional responses aroused by the general idea of functional customization. The majority of the subjects indicated average pleasantness. All emotional responses recorded by emocards showed little variance (‘mood’ before: mean = 3.30, std. deviation = 1.301; ‘mood’ by functional customization idea: mean = 3.07, std. deviation = 1.278; ‘mood’ by concept idea: mean = 3.07, std. deviation = 1.333). Additionally, an increase of percentages of the “excited pleasant” state and of the “calm pleasant” state can be detected along with a decrease in negative responses (e.g. “average unpleasant). A comparison of the general idea to the concept design emphasizes this observation. Those responses correlate significantly by 0.567 (p = 0.000).
The Wilcoxon test of the two samples of emotional states before and after regarding attraction, hope and joy indicated weak asymptotic significances within the items hope (p = 0.093 > 0.05) and joy (p = 0.076 > 0.05); attraction showed no significance (p = 0.611). Therefore a Monte Carlo Simulation with a 95% confidence interval resulted in significant findings with the items hope (minimum level: p = 0.045; maximum level: p = 0.053 < = 0.05) and joy (minimum level: p = 0.033; maximum level: p = 0.040 < 0.05).
The positive emotional aspects of the bipolar scale i.e. attraction, hope and joy, prove to have the highest scores. Whereas the level of attraction and joy in the before-after analysis remained unchanged, the level of hope indicates an increase. The item attraction could be biased by the subjects’ expectations being higher than the actual experience itself. As the Wilcoxon test proved a rather strong significance of the emotions fear and boredom to the corresponding counterparts hope and joy, this change in opinion seems to be an important observation (cf. Table 7). Consequently the subject’s price sensitivity, preferences and the perceived importance of usability of flexible storage solutions and the resulting implications upon the subjects’ emotions should be investigated further.
Significant relationships between the emotional responses and preferences of the subjects could be discovered. Subjects with an inclination to the positive aspects of the item ‘hope’, also viewed the importance of ‘ease of use’ very high (p = 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.451).
A cross-tab analysis showed a strong significant relationship between the importance of exterior design to the users and the item joy (p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.528). Also the importance of interior design representing a buying argument in a car purchase can be affected by the flexible storage solutions. Subjects with an inclination to see interior design as a valuable buying criterion, enjoyed the concept design much more (p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.613). If there was tendency to estimate a middle to high importance for variability of the interior, the subjects were also affected positively by the concept design (p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.468). With this study further insight in the requirements of flexible storage solutions should be gathered. The pre-test indicated only slight tendencies by users to switch the features more than once. 1.4% of the 70 subjects tended to switch the compartments all the time, only 16.9% would change their interiors more than once. The majority intends to maintain the feature configuration (23.9% once, 50.8% less, 5.6% never). The extremes of the 7 point Likert scale (always to never) represented only a minority of the sample’s opinion, it was noted but excluded from the observation of the chi-square test. Subjects who enjoyed the concept design or feeling of positive emotional arousal of hope tended to switch the features more frequently than others (joy: p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.431; hope: p = 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.405).
According to the features of the concept design no significant relationships could be identified. Surprisingly the subjects experiencing enjoyment and hope were neither favoring a cool box (hope: p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.702; joy: p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.702) nor rubberized features (hope: p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.702; joy: p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.702).
The brand illustrated by Fig. 5, interfered with the subject’s emotional feedback. A strong inclination to the brand BMW and MINI by subjects with high scores in attraction, hope and enjoyment for the concept design was found. Whereas the relationship between positive emotional arousal and the brand attribute of BMW proved to be slightly more intense (MINI: p = 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.539; BMW: p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.750).
The emotional feedback and the price sensitivity of the subjects regarding the interfaces and the feedback, were compared using chi-square tests. The target group was identified as influenced by the positive emotional arousal of either the interfaces (p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.588) and the features (p = 0.000, Cramer’s V = 0.521). The researchers observed the more positive the emotional response, the more money the subjects are willing to spend for functional customization.
Discussion and conclusion
The generic question whether functional customization concepts can provide additional value for users in cars’ interiors was answered in two steps.
First the use cases of personal objects were identified as well as their location of storage within the interior. Smartphones were not only stored within the primary reach of users like other valuables e.g. wallets or other CE devices, but also within the primary field of vision. This personal object was stored exclusively upon the passenger front seat, the middle console and cup holders, but never on the floor or rear seats. The study showed only a limited use of closed compartments such as the glove box or the closable compartment of the middle console. A reason could be that any objects stored in a closed compartment can be forgotten in the car. Also the floor behind the passenger seat was used seldom used compared with the floor behind the driver’s seat. This is caused by the use cases of single persons, the driver stored the most essential objects either on the front passenger seat or behind the driver’s seat. Regarding clothes e.g. suits or jackets, the floors were not seen as an adequate storage space. The front floor of the driver was excluded by the subjects indicating a safety issue. Objects stored in this particular space could hinder the driver performance. Using the seating back panel, windshield, dashboard or ceiling as storage spaces for personal objects, requires additional equipment like hooks to be installed.
However, there is a trade-off between the user’s freedom of storage and safety as indicated by the expert interviews. Functional customization within a car’s interior is evaluated critically by experts as the user must not be harmed by the features. In crash situations, the expansion of airbags automatically limits the possibilities for flexible storage solutions. According to the concept design, the experts identified a further challenge for the design i.e. an obtrusive interface which results in an almost blind mounting which contradicts the ease of use.
Additionally, the user centered approach of the study allowed further insights to the possibility of customizable interiors by rearranging storage solutions appropriate for the belongings and driving situations. This also answered the second question about the contributing factors for the user’s buying motivation. The study showed that if a product design evokes positive emotional arousal this additional perceived value lead to a user’s willingness to purchase such a product. As proven by the emocards the concept design simultaneously met the subjects’ expectations for functional customization. Other results of the study such as the importance of usability, i.e. an intuitive access for mounting the features, and low frequency of switching the features, may influence design guidelines for functional customizable systems. Because of the relationships between emotional arousal and design, the implementation of flexible storage solutions will be determined by its design, variability and usability.
Although the mock-up reached a high level of integration, the BMW brand attribution biased the attribution to other brands and therefore limited the openness of the brainstorming part of the survey. Because of the homogeneity of the sample (mostly engineers, male, aged 20 to 59), further studies with actual buyers would be necessary. Also a lead user study with subjects having an extraordinary need for customization would be interesting. This can be a focus group of customers regarding the car as an expression of themselves and as an extension of office and living room like the so-called Sensation Seekers [1]. Other direct measurement techniques for emotional feedback should be considered as well for future research like Facereader [27–29] or by monitoring changes in the autonomic nervous system measureable by EEG [17, 30], brain waves and heart rate by ECG measures [31]. These techniques may expand the findings as the change of the autonomic nervous system is not necessarily filtered through the subject’s perception, cognitive processes and interpretation of emotional illustrations and scales [17]. A combination with methods detecting subtle and mixed emotion can therefore provide a thorough understanding of users.
Derived from the findings of the study the researchers suggest a functional customization for car interiors. There are users favoring an open system i.e. the interface including three features with a price expectation of 100 to 200 euros and users favoring to purchase of the entire system all at once. The availability of a combination of both approaches would be useful. The most common features like smartphone holders, cup holders, compartments for glasses and utility boxes should be offered in a standard product portfolio. Rapid Technologies offer the possibility for highly individualized products which could be useful for customized features or unique needs. According to the results, the researchers advise the use of established sales channels e.g. car manufacturer or licensed dealership and inform customers of new features by newsletters, but also introducing those in showrooms, homepages or dealerships. Such an integrated approach of functional customization could especially enhance the emotional value added of mobility solutions like car sharing, rental cars or retail markets.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to report.