• Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.239-248
• /
• 2010

This paper describes a collaborative project between academia and industry which focused on improving the marketing and product development strategies for two private label apparel brands of a large regional department store chain in the southeastern United States. The goal of the project was to revitalize product lines of the two brands by incorporating student ideas for new solutions, thereby giving the students practical experience with a real-life industry situation. There were a number of key players involved in the project. A privately-owned department store chain based in the southeastern United States which was seeking an academic partner had recognized a need to update two existing private label brands. They targeted middle-aged consumers looking for casual, moderately priced merchandise. The company was seeking to change direction with both packaging and presentation, and possibly product design. The branding and product development divisions of the company contacted professors in an academic department of a large southeastern state university. Two of the professors agreed that the task would be a good fit for their classes - one was a junior-level Intermediate Brand Management class; the other was a senior-level Fashion Product Development class. The professors felt that by working collaboratively on the project, students would be exposed to a real world scenario, within the security of an academic learning environment. Collaboration within an interdisciplinary team has the advantage of providing experiences and resources beyond the capabilities of a single student and adds "brainpower" to problem-solving processes (Lowman 2000). This goal of improving the capabilities of students directed the instructors in each class to form interdisciplinary teams between the Branding and Product Development classes. In addition, many universities are employing industry partnerships in research and teaching, where collaboration within temporal (semester) and physical (classroom/lab) constraints help to increase students' knowledge and experience of a real-world situation. At the University of Tennessee, the Center of Industrial Services and UT-Knoxville's College of Engineering worked with a company to develop design improvements in its U.S. operations. In this study, Because should be lower case b with a private label retail brand, Wickett, Gaskill and Damhorst's (1999) revised Retail Apparel Product Development Model was used by the product development and brand management teams. This framework was chosen because it addresses apparel product development from the concept to the retail stage. Two classes were involved in this project: a junior level Brand Management class and a senior level Fashion Product Development class. Seven teams were formed which included four students from Brand Management and two students from Product Development. The classes were taught the same semester, but not at the same time. At the beginning of the semester, each class was introduced to the industry partner and given the problem. Half the teams were assigned to the men's brand and half to the women's brand. The teams were responsible for devising approaches to the problem, formulating a timeline for their work, staying in touch with industry representatives and making sure that each member of the team contributed in a positive way. The objective for the teams was to plan, develop, and present a product line using merchandising processes (following the Wickett, Gaskill and Damhorst model) and develop new branding strategies for the proposed lines. The teams performed trend, color, fabrication and target market research; developed sketches for a line; edited the sketches and presented their line plans; wrote specifications; fitted prototypes on fit models, and developed final production samples for presentation to industry. The branding students developed a SWOT analysis, a Brand Measurement report, a mind-map for the brands and a fully integrated Marketing Report which was presented alongside the ideas for the new lines. In future if the opportunity arises to work in this collaborative way with an existing company who wishes to look both at branding and product development strategies, classes will be scheduled at the same time so that students have more time to meet and discuss timelines and assigned tasks. As it was, student groups had to meet outside of each class time and this proved to be a challenging though not uncommon part of teamwork (Pfaff and Huddleston, 2003). Although the logistics of this exercise were time-consuming to set up and administer, professors felt that the benefits to students were multiple. The most important benefit, according to student feedback from both classes, was the opportunity to work with industry professionals, follow their process, and see the results of their work evaluated by the people who made the decisions at the company level. Faculty members were grateful to have a "real-world" case to work with in the classroom to provide focus. Creative ideas and strategies were traded as plans were made, extending and strengthening the departmental links be tween the branding and product development areas. By working not only with students coming from a different knowledge base, but also having to keep in contact with the industry partner and follow the framework and timeline of industry practice, student teams were challenged to produce excellent and innovative work under new circumstances. Working on the product development and branding for "real-life" brands that are struggling gave students an opportunity to see how closely their coursework ties in with the real-world and how creativity, collaboration and flexibility are necessary components of both the design and business aspects of company operations. Industry personnel were impressed by (a) the level and depth of knowledge and execution in the student projects, and (b) the creativity of new ideas for the brands.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.22-33
• /
• 2003

Purpose : The purpose of this study was to evaluate the present status of patients' satisfaction and the reasons for any satisfaction or dissatisfaction in cancer pain management Methods : A cross-sectional survey was used to obtain the feedback about pain management. The results of the survey were collected from 59 in- or out-patient who had cancer treatment at two of the teaching hospitals in Seoul from July, 2002 to November, 2002. The data was obtained by a structured questionnaire based on the American Cancer Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire(APS-POQ) and other previous research. The clinical information for all patients were compiled by reviewing their medical records. Resuts : 1) The subjects' mean score of the worst pain was 6.77, the average pain score was 3.80, and the pain score after management was 2.93 for the past 24 hours. The mean score of total pain interference was $25.03{\pm}12.82$. Many of the subjects had false beliefs about pain such as 'the experience of pain is a sign that the illness has gotten worse', 'pain medicine should be 'saved' in case the pain gets worse' and 'people get addicted to pain medicine easily'. 2) 66.1% of the subjects were properly medicated with analgesics. 33.9% of the subjects reported use of various methods in controlling pain other than the prescribed medication. Only 33.9% of the subjects had a chance to be educated about pain management by doctors or nurses. 3) The mean score of patients' satisfaction with pain management was $4.19{\pm}1.14$. 72.9% of the subjects answered 'satisfied' with pain management. The reasons for dissatisfaction were 'the pain was not relieved even after the pain management', 'I was not quickly and promptly treated when I complained of pain', 'doctors and nurses didn't pay much attention to my complaints of pain.', and 'there was no appropriate information given on the methods of administration, effect duration and side effects of pain medicine.' The reasons for satisfaction were: 'the pain was relieved after the pain management.', 'doctors and nurses quickly and promptly controlled my pain.', 'doctors and nurses paid enough attention to my complaints of pain.' and 'trust in my physician'. 4) In pain severity or pain interference, no significant difference was found between the satisfied group and dissatisfied group. On the belief 'good patients avoid talking about pain', a significant difference was found between the satisfied group and dissatisfied group. Conclusions : The patients' satisfaction with cancer pain management has increased over the years but still about 30% of patients reported to be 'not satisfied' for various reasons. The results of this study suggest that patients' education should be done to improve satisfaction in the pain management program.