Journal of the Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회논문지)

Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Consumer Preferences for Attributes of Wearable Devices: A Conjoint Analysis Reflecting Anticipatory Standardization Activities

웨어러블 디바이스의 소비자 선호 속성에 관한 연구: 예지적 표준화 활동을 반영한 컨조인트 분석

  • Ji, Ilyong (Department of IT Convergence Science and Management, KOREATECH) ;
  • Park, Hyo Joo (Department of Semiconductor-Display Science and Management, KOREATECH)
  • 지일용 (한국기술교육대학교 IT융합과학경영학과) ;
  • 박효주 (한국기술교육대학교 반도체디스플레이과학경영학과)
  • Received : 2019.03.12
  • Accepted : 2019.04.20
  • Published : 2019.04.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As fierce competition is expected in the wearable devices marekt, it is needed to develop a technology planning that can increase consumer acceptance. This study aims to provide implications for technology planning of wearable devices by examining consumer preferences for the devices. For this purpose we employed a conjoint analysis. In the process of the analysis, we considered the trend of anticipatory standardization for wearable devices in an attempt to improve objectivity of analysis whilst many previous studies relied on focus group interview. For the anticipatory standardization information, we utilized liaisons and projects of wearable devices at International Electrotechnical Commission, and we designed a conjoint survey on the basis of the information. We conducted an online survey, and a total of 229 individuals responded to our survey. The result of conjoint analysis shows that main use and enhanced features were more important attributes than the others were. However, consumer preferences for detailed levels of each attribute were different by gender and age groups. This result implies that technology planning of wearable devices require distinct approaches by consumer segments.

웨어러블 디바이스를 둘러싼 기업 간 경쟁이 치열해 짐에 따라, 소비자들의 수용성을 제고할 수 있는 기술기획이 필요한 상황이다. 이에 본 연구는 웨어러블 디바이스의 소비자 선호 속성을 파악함으로써 이 분야 기술기획을 위한 시사점을 제공하고자 하였다. 이를 위한 분석 방법으로는 컨조인트 분석을 활용하였다. 이 과정에서 초점집단면점을 주로 사용한 기존 연구들과는 달리 표준화 기구의 예지적 표준화 활동을 반영함으로써 분석의 객관성을 보완하고자 하였다. 예지적 표준화 활동으로는 국제전기기술위원회의 리에종 및 프로젝트 현황을 조사하였으며, 이를 바탕으로 컨조인트 분석을 설계하였다. 컨조인트 설문은 온라인으로 진행하여, 총 229명이 응답하였다. 분석 결과, 웨어러블 디바이스의 주용도와 강화된 기능이 중요한 속성으로 파악된 가운데, 속성 수준별 세부 선호도는 소비자 성별, 연령대별 다르게 나타났다. 따라서 웨어러블 디바이스의 기술기획 시에는 소비자 세그멘트별 차별화된 접근이 필요할 것으로 예상된다.

Keywords

Table 1. Projects of TC124

OHHGBW_2019_v10n4_7_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Liaisons of TC124

OHHGBW_2019_v10n4_7_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Prices of Some Wearable Devices by Brand

OHHGBW_2019_v10n4_7_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Attributes and Levels

OHHGBW_2019_v10n4_7_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Conjoint Profiles

OHHGBW_2019_v10n4_7_t0005.png 이미지

Table 6. Demographics of Respondents

OHHGBW_2019_v10n4_7_t0006.png 이미지

Table 7. Result for All Respondents

OHHGBW_2019_v10n4_7_t0007.png 이미지

Table 8. Result for Male Respondents

OHHGBW_2019_v10n4_7_t0008.png 이미지

Table 9. Result for Female Respondents

OHHGBW_2019_v10n4_7_t0009.png 이미지

Table 10. Result for Respondents Aged 20~49

OHHGBW_2019_v10n4_7_t0010.png 이미지

Table 11. Result for Respondents Aged 50~59

OHHGBW_2019_v10n4_7_t0011.png 이미지

Table 12. Summary of Results

OHHGBW_2019_v10n4_7_t0012.png 이미지

References

  1. M. Dehgani, K. J. Kim & R. M. Dangelico. (2018). Will Smartwatches last? Factors Contributing to Intention to Keep Using Smart Wearable Technology. Telematics and Informatics, 35(2), 480-490. DOI : 10.12811/JKCS.201.11.2.129
  2. S. H. Choi & S. I. Kim. (2017). A Study on the Factors Affecting the Purchase of Healthcare Smart Bands. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 8(7), 175-181. DOI: 10.15207/JKCS.2017.8.7.175
  3. S. H., Lee & D. W. Lee. (2015). On Issue and Outlook of Wearable Computer Based on Technology in Convergence. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 6(3), 73-78. DOI: 10.15207/JKCS.2015.6.3.073
  4. COMPA (2018). Wearable Devices. S&T Market Report. Vol.61. Seoul : Commercializations Promotion Agency for R&D Outcomes.
  5. IDC (2018). IDC Forecasts Sustained Double-Digit Growth for Wearable Devices Led by Steady Adoption of Smartwatches. IDC. https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS44553518
  6. IITP (2014). Diffusion of Wearable Devices and the Beginning of Platform Competition. Daejeon: Institute for Information & Communications Technology Promotion.
  7. M. Fallon, K. Spohrer & A. Heinzel. (2019). Wearable Devices: A Physiological and Self-Regulatory Intervention for Increasing Attention in the Workplace. Lecture Notes in Information systems and Organization, 29, 229-238. DOI : 10.1007/978-3-030-01087-4_28
  8. B. Attallah & Z. Il-agure. (2019). Evaluating the Affordances of Wearable Technology in Education, International Journal of Grid and Utility Computing, 10(1), 22-28. DOI : 10.1504/IJGUC.2019.097227
  9. N. Sultan. (2015). Reflective Thoughts on the Potential and Challenges of Wearable Technology for Healthcare Provision and Medical Education. International Journal of Information Management, 35(5), 521-526. DOI : 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.010
  10. L. F. Cardoso, S. B. Sorenson, O. Webb & S. Landers. (2019). Recent and Emerging Technologies: Implications for Women's Safety. Technology in Society, Article in Press. DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.01.001
  11. A. Marasco, P. Buonincontri, M. Niekerk, M. Orlowski & F. Okumus. (2018) Exploring the Role of Next-Generation Virtual Technologies in Destination Marketing. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 9, 138-148. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.12.002
  12. M. C. T. Dieck, T. H. Jung, & D. T. Diek. (2018). Enhancing Art Gallery Visitors' Learning Experience Using Wearable Augmented Reality: Generic Learning Outcomes Perspective. Current Issues in Tourism, 21, 2014-2034. DOI : 10.1080/13683500.2016.1224818
  13. J-Y. Jung & T-W. Roh. (2017). The Intention of Using Wearable Devices: Based on Modified Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Digital Convergence, 15(4), 205-212. DOI : 10.14400/JDC.2017.15.4.205
  14. M. Baek, H. Choi, & H. Lee. (2015). Age-Specific Acceptance Intention over Wearable Smart Healthcare Device. Korean Journal of Business Administration, 28(12), 3171-3189. DOI : 10.18032/kaaba.2015.28.12.3171
  15. J. K. Bae. (2016). The Structural Relationships among Innovation Characteristics, Consumer Characteristics, Innovation Resistance, and Intention to Acceptance of Wearable Device Customers: Based on Innovation Resistance Model and Theory of Perceived Risk. Journal of Information Systems, 25(4), 87-104. DOI : 10.5859/KAIS.2016.25.4.87
  16. J-Y. Jung, J-S. Lee, & S-J. Kwak. (2017). Consumers' Preference about the Attributes of 3rd Generation Device. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, 18(3), 703-710. DOI : 10.5762/KAIS.2017.18.3.703
  17. Y. Jung, S. Kim, & B. Choi. (2016). Consumer Valuation of Wearables: The Case of Smartwatches. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 899-905. DOI : 10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.040
  18. J. Kim, K. Ban, Y. Im, & E. S. Jung. (2017). Hook Type Wearable Device Based on User Discomfort. Journal of Ergonomic Society of Korea, 36(6), 765-776. DOI : 10.5143/JESK.2017.36.6.765
  19. J. F. Hair, W. Black, B. J. Babin, & R. A. Anderson. (2010). Conjoint Analysis. In Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. London: Pearson. 342-413.
  20. C. Park. (2010). Conjoint Analysis. In: J. W. Lim, H. J. Park, & M. S. Kang. Marketing Research Methods, Seoul: Bobmunsa. 271-328.
  21. H. Byeon. (2017), A Convergent Perspective on Preference Attributes by Purchase Channel Choosing Used Cars, Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 8(3), 215-233. DOI : 10.15207/JKCS.2017.8.3.215
  22. J. Shin, Y. Park, & D. Lee. (2015). Google TV or Apple TV?-The Reasons for Smart TV Failure and a User-Centered Strategy for the Success of Smart TV. Sustainability, 7, 15955-15966. DOI : 10.3390/su71215797
  23. A. Konig, T. Bonus, J. Grippenkoven. (2018). Analyzing Urban Residents' Appraisal of Ridepooling Service Attributes with Conjoint Analysis. Sustainability, 10, 3711-3726. DOI : doi.org/10.3390/su10103711
  24. S. J. Jee, & S. Y. Sohn. (2015). Patent Network Based Conjoint Analysis for Wearable Devices. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 101, 338-346. DOI : 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.09.018
  25. I. Ji. (2012). Challenges in the National Standardization of Transport Protocole Expert Group Service Technologies in Korea: Implications for Latecomer Countries. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 20(2), 171-185. DOI: 10.1080/19761597.2012.726416
  26. B. M. Byrne & P. A. Golder, (2002). The Diffusion of Anticipatory Standards with Particular Reference to the ISO/IEC Information Resource Dictionary System Framework Standard. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 24, 369-379. DOI : 10.1016/S0920-5489(02)00057-0
  27. M. Bonino, & M. B. Spring. (1991). Standards as Change Agents in the Information Technology Market, Computer Standards and Interfaces, 12, 97-07. DOI :10.1016/S0920-5489(98)00064-6
  28. IEC (2019). IEC TC/SCs: IEC Technical Committees & Subcommittees. International Electrotechnical Commission. https://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:62:0::::FSP_LANG_ID:25
  29. IEC (2019). TC124 Wearable Electronic Devices and Technologies. International Electrotechnical Commission. https://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:20537
  30. J. Swingle. (2018). IDC: Apple and Xiaomi lead the way as wearable shipments reach 32M units. PhoneArena. https://www.phonearena.com/news/Wearables-shipments-Apple-Xiaomi-Samsung-Huawei-Q3-2018_id111615
  31. USA News Hub (2019). IDC: Wearables grew 5.5% in Q2 2018, Apple leads Xiaomi as Fitbit falls. USA News Hub. http://www.allusanewshub.com/2018/09/04/idc-wearables-grew-5-5-in-q2-2018-apple-leads-xiaomi-as-fitbit-falls/
  32. L. Zaninello. (2017). Do you need a smart band or a smartwatch?. AndroidPIThttps://www.androidpit.com/smartwatch-vs-smartband-difference
  33. S. Addelman. (1962). Orthogonal Main-Effects Plans for Asymetrical Factorial Experiments. Technometrics, 4, 21-46. DOI : 10.2307/1266170