Design Strategy for Consumer Solar Products

• Main Authors: Po-Chen Yeh, 葉柏成
• Other Authors: Chen-Hui Lu
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2009
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/24219867288946638227

碩士 === 實踐大學 === 產品與建築設計研究所 === 97 === Due to price competition and low sales performance, development of consumer solar products has gradually slowed down in recent years. Concerned about this phenomenon, this study collected literature in technical, industrial, and consumer behavior perspectives and constructed a purchase decision model to analyze selected products and propose design strategies to cope with this phenomenon. The first section of this study was to analyze the bottlenecks in the development of consumer solar products. Products were classified into four types, including A1a (the existing product requires power, which can be replaced by solar energy), A1b (the existing product requires power, which can be assisted by solar energy), A2 (the existing product does not require power), and B (not attached to any existing product). Results showed that designers of the present consumer solar products are excessively focused on satisfaction of consumer’s material needs. As to high-end needs, they only highlight the environmental benefits of solar energy. As a result, A1a and B products are sold under intense competition due to high homogeneity with same types of products; A1b and A2 products are weaker than same types of products in satisfying high-end needs and are thus less competitive. This study proposed a hypothesis that “consumer solar product’s competitiveness and market transparency can be increased by strengthening the product’s symbolic characteristics and enhancing satisfaction of consumer’s high-end needs”. The second section was to test the design strategy through a small workshop. Two variables were used, including “adoption of the design strategy” and “product type”. Designers were divided into the experimental group (using the design strategy) and the control group (not using the design strategy). Both groups needed to propose design concepts for A1b and B respectively. Some well-known designers were later invited to evaluate these designs in three aspects, including “product characteristics”, “competitiveness”, and “solar energy promotion effect”, on a Likert scale. The results showed: (1) The experimental group received significantly higher scores than the control group in “product characteristics”. (2) The experimental group received significantly higher scores than the control group in “competitiveness”, indicating that the design strategy could effectively enhance the competitiveness of these two types of products. (3) Interactive effects were found between two variables from the scores in the “solar energy promotion effect”. B product designed by the experimental group was given significantly higher scores than the B product by the control group. But the effect of design strategy was not significantly between A product designed by the experimental and control group. Conclusions were as follows: (1) The current consumer solar products are focused on satisfaction of consumer’s material needs but weak in satisfying high-end needs (2) The design strategy that enhances the product’s symbolic characteristics can help B type of products more competitive with same types of products. (3) Product attributes affect the effect of the design strategy, so manufacturers should carefully select the items to be developed according to their expected goals. (4) The solar energy industry should develop toward branding and providing channel service to make up their current insufficiency.