MARKET ORIENTED NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT - HOW CAN A

MEANS-END CHAIN APPROACH AFFECT THE PROCESS?

Helle Alsted Sndergaard
The MAPP Centre, Aarhus School of Business, Haslegaardsvej 10,
DK-8210 Aarhus V, Denmark
hals@asb.dk
ABSTRACT
Few disagree on the advantage of market oriented product development. However, can a
well-known theory on consumer behaviour be used as a catalyst for achieving it? This paper
describes a case study where a means-end chain (MEC) approach was introduced to a crossfunctional development team at two different stages of the development process. Results show
that MEC data is perceived as a good way of gaining knowledge about consumers; that the
information serves well as the basis of discussions and for keeping project goals fixed. The
results also indicate that MEC data are most valuable to the team in the early stages of the
development process.
INTRODUCTION
The Means-end chain (MEC) theory is widely used in consumer research and for the
development of advertising strategy [1,2]. This paper shows an attempt to apply a MEC approach
to the development of new products. The aim is to investigate how the introduction of means-end
chain data to the NPD process influences some of the critical factors that support successful
product development.
When looking into the vast literature on success and failure in new product development it is
clear that certain groups of factors are especially vital for the success of new product
development [3,4]. Two of the central themes are market orientation and inter-functional
integration between functions in the development process. Due to the way means-end chain data
are collected and to the nature of the data it seems an adequate instrument for influencing these
two vital areas in new product development.
A MEANS-END CHAIN APPROACH TO NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
The means-end chain theory of consumer behaviour is based on the assumption that
consumers demand products because of the expected positive consequences of using the products
[1,5,6]. Products are usually described in terms of their attributes, even though the consequences
of using them are more important, since these may be related to the realisation of life values. A
means-end chain illustrates the connections between product attributes, consequences and values,
where the means is the product and the end is the desired value state. The purpose of the MEC
theory is to explain how product preference and choice is related to the achievement of central
life values [1]. Figure 1 illustrates a means-end chain for apples. It can illustrate that we buy
apples not only for the sake of the apples but e.g. because they taste good and give us a sense of
satisfaction when eating them, which perhaps helps us to a moment of quality in our lives.

Natural fruit sugar

Gives me energy

I can do more,
staying power

Quality of life,
feel well

Attribute

Consequence

Consequence

Value

Figure 1: A Means-end chain for apples

The most important practical application of the means-end chain concept has been for the
development of advertising strategy. For this purpose, the Means-Ends Conceptualisation of the
Components of Advertising Strategy (MECCAS) model has been developed which builds on
positioning products in terms of personal relevance to the consumer [7,8]. According to Gutman
(1982) and Olson and Reynolds (1983) the means-end chain approach is also applicable in
product development [1,9]. However, the application of the approach to product development has
been sparse [6,10].
Information about the consumers most important means-end chains for a product category
may give companies the necessary knowledge to develop products that give consumers the
desired consequences of using the product and which help them obtain central life values. It is
therefore expected that a means-end chain approach to product development is able to affect
areas central to successful market oriented product development. These areas are identified in the
following paragraph.
SUCCESFUL MARKET ORIENTED NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
The understanding of customer needs with the purpose of supplying superior customer value
is central both to market orientation [11,12] and to new product development [13,14,15]. Most
definitions of market orientation include reference to both the use of market information and
inter-functional coordination. Market oriented new product development can, with inspiration
from Kohli and Jaworski (1990) be defined as [16]:
The development of new products, which is based on the generation of market information, the
dissemination of the information across departments and responsiveness of various departments to
it.[17].

The use of market information in NPD

One of the primary goals of the collection and use of market information in NPD is the
identification of customer preferences [18]. Empirical studies show that the customer focus part
of market orientation is central to the success of innovation [19,20]. However, there is still much
to know about the role of market information product development [21]. In their study Ottum and
Moore (1997) show that the use of market information has a direct positive effect on new product
success, and stress the importance of using the information effectively [22]. Market information
may be used in different ways in connection with product development, either instrumentally (the
use of information for decision making, implementation and evaluation of decisions) or

conceptually (the information is valued and the company has processes for converting information to knowledge) [23]. The barriers inhibiting market orientation are many and complex [24]. In
their study Adams, et. al. (1998) find that some of the barriers can be overcome by broadening
the functional participation in acquiring, interpreting and using market data. Furthermore, the
collected data should be vivid and in an understandable language [25].
Inter-functional integration in NPD
The relationship between functions, especially R&D and Marketing, in product development
has been the interest of a large body of literature in NPD [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Although
there is agreement in the literature that integration is a question of both communication and
cooperation there has been no uniform way of analysing the concept. This is criticised by Kahn
(1996, 2001) who in his studies show that although communication is essential for integration it
is collaboration, which correlates with success [34,35]. Integration between R&D and Marketing
is primarily important in the early stages of the development process [36]. The barriers to
integration identified in Gupta et. al. (1985) can be overcome by promoting mutual
understanding, encouraging teamwork, by being more responsive to market needs and by
improving marketing research [37,30].
The two areas; the use of market information and inter-functional integration may be
interconnected since the use of market information is seen as a way of overcoming the barriers of
integration and visa versa. The way in which the factors are expected to be influenced by a
means-end approach and in turn affect successful new product development is illustrated in figure
2 below.
The use of
market
information

MEC-approach

Communication
between
functions

Succesful new
product
development

Collaboration
between
functions

Figure 2: How the MEC- approach is expected to influence the new product development
process.
Due to the way MEC data is collected and to the nature of the data it seems an adequate
instrument for influencing the use of market information and inter-functional integration. MEC
data gives information about consumer attitudes on three levels of abstraction: attributes,
consequences and values. In order to develop products with superior value for customers it is
important for the NPD team to be aware of the motivations that lie behind consumer preferences
2

[13,18,1]. Furthermore, since MEC data are presented in the words of the consumers it is easily
understood by all members of the development team, which is essential for the cross-functional
communication and integration of activities in the development process [25,37].
RESEARCH METHOD
The research method for the project is a case study approach with an element of action
research where a means-end chain-intervention involves MEC data being collected and made
available to the product development team in the case company for a specific project. Prior to the
development task team members are interviewed about NPD routines in the company and again
afterwards about their experience with using MEC data in the development process. The action
research process is illustrated in figure 3 below.
MEC-intervention:
1. Choice of project
2. Collection of MEC data
3. Introduction of data to
the development team

Pre
intervention
interviews

Post
intervention
interviews

Figure 3: The phases of the action research process

The MEC-intervention involves MEC data being made available to the product development
team for the specific NPD project. First, the team is introduced to the means-end chain theory and
to how it allegedly conveys links between attributes, consequences and values in the consumers
mind. Concurrently, MEC data is collected for the chosen NPD project. Then the data is
introduced to the development team, which is left to develop product concepts. After the MECintervention, team members were interviewed about their experiences using the MEC approach in
the process of developing product concepts for the specific project. The interview guide for the
final interviews was developed on the basis of a literature review focusing on market information
and inter-functional integration in product development. The guide is shown in table 1 below.
The use of market information:
Attitudes to market information:

What do you think of the information in the hierarchical value

maps (commitment, recognise the value)?

Are they understandable (relevance, credibility,

comprehensibility)?

Did you feel like using it?

The use of market information:

Moeneart and Souder

(1996)
Adams et. al. (1998)
Moorman (1995)

Moorman (1995)

How did you use the information?

-

Directly/instrumental use (in connection with decision

making, implementation and evaluation of decisions)?

Indirectly/conceptual use (by conversion of information

into knowledge and understanding)

Inter-functional integration:
Kahn (1996)

Communication between functions:

Has the information been used in the communication between

R&D and Marketing (how)?

What effect has the information had?

What type of information has been exchanged?

Cooperation between functions:

Gupta (1990)

How has the cooperation between R&D and Marketing taken place
during the project? (the role of the information)?
-

Gupta et. al. (1985)

Kahn (1996)

Teamwork, shared vision, mutual understanding, shared

knowledge and resources?

Co-ordination of tasks:

Griffin and Hauser

(1992)

How has the co-ordination been between the development of the

product, advertising, packaging etc.?

Griffin and Hauser

(1992)

Table 1: Guide for the post intervention interviews

This paper draws on empirical evidence from a case study where MEC data was collected
and made available to a new product development team, which represented both marketing and
technical development. The study is part of a project conducted in cooperation with a Danish
food manufacturer with the purpose of developing nutritious frozen products for children based
on organic vegetables. The collection of MEC data took place in two different phases of the
development process. The first round of MEC data collection was carried out during the early
stages of the development process in order to give the development team initial material to work
with. The second round of MEC data collection was designed as a concept test of the product
concepts, developed by the team. The MEC data was achieved by conducting laddering
interviews, which is the most common way of collecting MEC data [38,39]. Thirty respondents
participated in each round of data collection. The software programme Ladder Map was used to
develop the hierarchical value maps (HVM) from the coded interviews.
Design and results of the MEC data collection in the case company
Drawing on initial focus group interviews with children and parents six broad meal
categories were identified for the first round of MEC data collection. Respondents, which were
parents of children aged 2-14, were first asked to rank and then generate ladders for the following
six descriptions of food categories, all based on organic vegetables:
Frozen accompaniment for the family
Fresh accompaniment for the family
Frozen accompaniment for children

Frozen ready-made dish for children

Frozen snack for children
Fresh snack for children

Frozen accompaniment for the family

Part of
upbringing
children
Variation

More
time for
family

Same
food for
all

Easy to
prepare

Bad
taste,
quality

Unhealthy

Healthy

Good for
environment

Gives no
energy

Figure 4: Hierarchical value map for frozen accompaniment for the family
One of the meal categories that the respondents ranked highest in the first round of
data collection was frozen accompaniment for the family. See figure 4 above for the
hierarchical value map for this category. As can be seen from the HVM, parents perceive
this type of product in a positive manner due to the fact that it is an accompaniment for
the whole of the family and not just the children. Furthermore, it is easy to prepare and it
is possible to serve the same food product for the whole of the family instead of having to
prepare separate food for the children. This is important for the manner in which parents
wish to bring up their children regarding food and meals.
After data collection and analysis, the six hierarchical value maps from the collected
MEC data were introduced to the development team and they were left to develop new
product ideas. After a period of time the team came up with seven different product ideas,
which were used as product concepts in the second round of MEC data collection (One of
the concepts developed was Indian mix, a product based on frozen rice with peas, corn
and carrots). The respondents were asked to rank a number of products showed to them
as pictures, see appendix for an example. The hierarchical value map showing parents
perceptions of Indian mix is shown in figure 5 below.

Indian mix

Energy
reserves
Not ill
Time for
other
things

Enjoyment

Good
health

Sharing the
meal
experience

Healthy
eating
habits
Desire to
eat
Not good
taste

Good
taste

Variation

The
children
like

Figure 5: Hierarchical value map for Indian mix

The HVM shows that parents perceived it as a negative attribute that the product is
frozen. At the same time the ingredients are perceived as good, which is important for the
good taste and for ones desire to eat. The central consequence is healthy eating habits and
health, which gives energy, makes one able to cope and is important for ones quality of
life. After considerations about economic feasibility and strategic fit of the Indian mix,
the participating company decided not to launch the product. However, other product
concepts, which received better evaluations are still in the refining process and will be
launched within a year. The Indian mix product serves as an example of the hierarchical
value maps and their use in the development process.
RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS
The final interviews with members of the development team show that the MEC
intervention clearly led the team to use the available information on consumer
motivations as inspiration for the development of product concepts. Furthermore, the
instrument gave the teams a very good basis for discussion during project meetings and it
helped to maintain development goals clear and fixed. The effects of the first round of
MEC data collection are shown in figure 6 below.

The use of market information:

- The information is easy to grasp and understand
- It gives useful knowledge of consumers (although
knowledge of taste is lacking)
- The information is converted into useful information for the
company
- It is used for decisions regarding concepts and product
ideas
MEC-intervention
in the
case company

- The information is converted into knowledge for the project

Communication and collaboration:

- The information is used for discussions about the direction
of the project
- and for maintaining the chosen direction
- The converted knowledge is shared between the project
participants

Figure 6: Empirical results of the MEC-intervention (first round of MEC data collection)
The team members expressed a high degree of satisfaction with information from the
first round of MEC data collection. Regarding the second round of MEC data collection
the team preferred that the respondents had been able to taste prototypes of the developed
concepts. This indicates that for the use of the means-end approach in the food industry it
may be preferable to include an opportunity for the respondents to taste the product. It
was clear from the interviews with the team members that the results from the first round
of MEC data collection were used to a much larger extent than results from the second
round. The team indicated that since the maps from the second round of data collection
(based on product concepts) supplied information at a different level of abstraction the
information gave little further inspiration to the development process and would have
been more useful for the design of communication and advertising. This result is
consistent with expectations for the usefulness of the MEC-approach in product
development, which is expected to be highest for the early phases of the development
process where ideas are generated and concepts developed at a more abstract level.
The means-end chain approach has clear advantages for market oriented product
development. Product developers perceive the MEC data presented in hierarchical value
maps as easily accessible information about consumer perceptions regarding product
attributes and perceived consequences. They understand that negative consequences
identified by consumers should be avoided while the positive should be emphasized as
suggested by MEC literature [8]. The information in the hierarchical value maps is

suitable for discussions about the goals of the development process and for keeping the
project on track. Further work should be done regarding the appropriate design of the
data collection in order to take into account the special demands of a development
process in the food industry where taste is paramount. Without the element of taste the
use of the MEC approach as a concept test is only useful for indications of trial purchase.
For repeat purchase it is necessary to include the liking of taste in the test.
The MEC intervention was not able to secure that the NPD process takes place in a
collaborative manner. The organisational structures and routines around the new product
development process are crucial for the extent of collaboration and are difficult to
influence. This points towards a possible analysis of the effects of a MEC-intervention
with an organisational learning perspective, where the companys degree of orientation
towards learning (or willingness to change) mediates the possible influence of a meansend approach on product development. A learning orientation (defined as commitment to
learning, shared vision, open-mindedness and intra-organisational knowledge sharing)
has in Calantone et. al. (2002) been shown to affect both firm innovativeness and firm
performance [40]. The role of learning orientation in this study may be illustrated as in
figure 7 below where the learning orientation acts as a mediator on the way the MECintervention affects the use of market information and inter-functional integration and on
the way these factors affect successful product development.
Learning
orientation

The use of market

information
MECintervention

Communication between
functions

Successful
product
development

Collaboration between
functions

Figure 7: The possible effect of a learning orientation on a MEC-intervention.

It is important for further research in the use of a MEC-approach for enhancing
market oriented product development to take into account that the changes, which most
likely will take place in central areas, may be dependent on the learning orientation of the
company. A certain willingness to change may be a prerequisite for the successful
implementation of the instrument. It would be relevant to look further into the effects of
learning orientation on change projects in companies. It is also important for companies
to be aware of the limited effects of a MEC-approach to product development (or other
instruments) if the company as a whole or certain functions are unwilling to accept
changes to the daily routines. This should not deter the companies from initiating changes

only make them aware of the importance of the companys willingness to change and
learning orientation.
APPENDIX
Indian mix

Content: Organic boiled white rice, organic peas, organic carrots, organic corn.
Use: Can be used as an accompaniment or as a cold salad.
Preparation: Bring 2 pints of water to the boil and add the mix, when the water boils
again pour through a strainer.
REFERENCES
[1] Gutman, J. (1982). "A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization
processes." Journal of Marketing 46(2): 60-72.
[2] Reynolds, T. J. and D. B. Whitlark (1995). "Applying laddering data to
communications strategy and advertising practice." Journal of Advertising Research
(July/August): 9-17.
[3] Henard, D. H. and D. M. Szymanski (2001). "Why some new products are more
successful than others." Journal of Marketing Research XXXVIII(August): 362-375.
[4] Montoya-Weiss, M. M. and R. Calantone (1994). "Determinants of new product
performance: A review and meta-analysis." Journal of Product Innovation Management
11: 397-417.
[5] Walker, B. A. and Olson, J. C. (1991). Means-end chains: Connecting products with
self. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 111-119.

[6] Grunert, K. G. and C. Valli (2001). "Designer made meat and dairy products:
Consumer-led product development." Livestock Production Science, 72, 83-98.
[7] Reynolds, T.J. and Craddock, A.B. (1988). The application of the MECCAS model to
the development of advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising Research, 24(1), 27-37.
[8] Reynolds, T. J. and Whitlark, D. B. (1995). Applying laddering data to
communications strategy and advertising practice. Journal of Advertising
Research(July/August), 9-17.
[9] Olson, J.C. and Reynolds, T.J. (1983). Understanding consumers cognitive structures:
implications for advertising strategy. In: L. Percy and A. G. Woodside (Eds.), Advertising
and consumer psychology, pp. 77-.90. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
[10] Valli, C., R. J. Loader, et al. (1999). Pan-European food market segmentation: An
application to the yogurt market in the EU. Cross-national and cross-cultural issues in
food marketing. E. Kaynak, Haworth Press: 77-99.
[11] Jaworski, B. J. and A. K. Kohli (1996). "Market orientation: review, refinement, and
roadmap." Journal of Market-Focused Management 1(2), 119-136.
[12] Narver, J. C., S. F. Slater, et al. (1998). "Creating a market orientation." Journal of
Market-Focused Management 2(1), 241-255.
[13] Griffin, A. and J. R. Hauser (1993). "The voice of the customer." Marketing Science
12(1), 1-27.
[14] Zirger, B. J. and M. A. Maidique (1990). "A model of new product development: An
empirical test." Management Science 36(7), 867-883.
[15] Cooper, R. G. and E. J. Kleinschmidt (1995). "Benchmarking the firm's critical
success factors in new product development." Journal of Product Innovation
Management 5(12), 374-391.
[16] Kohli, A. K. and B. J. Jaworski (1990). "Market orientation: The construct, research
propositions, and managerial implications." Journal of Marketing 54 (April), 1-18.
[17] Biemans, W. G. and H. Harmsen (1995). "Overcoming the barriers to marketoriented product development." Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing
Science 1(2), 7-25.
[18] Moore, W. L. (1987). "New product development practices of industrial markets."
Journal of Product Innovation Management 4: 6-19.
[19] Lukas, B. A. and O. C. Ferrell (2000). "The effect of market orientation on product
innovation." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(2): 239-247.

[20] Han, J. K., N. Kim, et al. (1998). "Market orientation and organizational
performance: Is innovation a missing link?" Journal of Marketing 62: 30-45.
[21] Hart, S., N. Tzokas, et al. (1999). "The effectiveness of market information in
enhancing new product success rates." European Journal of Innovation Management
2(1): 20-35.
[22] Ottum, B. D. and W. Moore, L (1997). "The role of market information in new
product success/failure." Journal of Product Innovation Management 14: 258-273.
[23] Moorman, C. (1995). "Organizational market information processes: Cultural
antecedents and new product outcomes." Journal of Marketing Research 32 (August):
318-335.
[24] Bisp, S. (2000). Barriers to increasing market-oriented activity. PhD Thesis, The
MAPP Center/Department of Marketing. Aarhus, The Aarhus School of Business.
[25] Adams, M. E., G. S. Day, et al. (1998). "Enhancing new product development
performance: An organizational learning perspective." Journal of Product Innovation
Management 15: 403-422.
[26] Dougherty, D. (1992). "Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large
firms." Organization Science 3(2): 179-202.
[27] Griffin, A. and J. R. Hauser (1992). "Patterns of communication among marketing,
engineering and manufacturing a comparison between two new product teams."
Management Science 38(3): 360-373.
[28] Griffin, A. and J. R. Hauser (1996). "Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and
analysis of the literature." Journal of Product Innovation Management 13(3): 191-215.
[29] Gupta, A. K. and D. Wilemon (1988). "The credibility - Cooperation connection at
the R&D-Marketing interface." Journal of Product Innovation Management 5(March):
20-31.
[30] Gupta, A. K. (1990). "Improving R&D/marketing relations: R&D's perspective."
R&D Management 20(4): 277-290.
[31] Moenaert, R. K. and W. E. Souder (1996). "Context and antecedents of information
utility at R&D/marketing interface." Management Science 42(11): 1592-1610.
[32] Souder, W. E. (1981). "Disharmony between R&D and marketing." Industrial
Marketing Management 10: 67-73.

[33] Souder, W. E. (1988). "Managing relations between R&D and marketing in new
product development projects." Journal of Product Innovation Management 5: 6-19.
[34] Kahn, K. B. (1996). "Interdepartmental Integration: A definition with implications
for product development performance." Journal of Product Innovation Management 13:
137-151.
[35] Kahn, K. B. (2001). "Market orientation, interdepartmental integration, and product
development performance." The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18(5): 314323.
[36] Olson, E. M., J. O. C. Walker, et al. (2001). "Patterns of cooperation during new
product development among marketing, operations and R&D: Implications for project
performance." Journal of Product Innovation Management 18: 258-271.
[37] Gupta, A. K., S. P. Raj, et al. (1985). "The R&D-marketing interface in high
technology firms." Journal of Product Innovation Management 2: 12-24.
[38] Reynolds, T. J. and Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, methods, analysis, and
interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research 18(1), 11-31.
[39] Grunert, K. G. and S. Grunert (1995). "Measuring subjective meaning structures by
the laddering method: Theoretical considerations and methodological problems."
International Journal of Research in Marketing 12, 209-225.
[40] Calantone R.J., S.T. Cavusgil, et. al. (2002). "Learning orientation, firm innovation
capability, and firm performance." Industrial Marketing Management 31: 515-524.