Chapter 4: Findings/Analysis:

This chapter will present and analyse the data collected by way of survey, in a bid to
address the research questions. It will strive to address the four research questions for
the study, listed as follows:
1. Is there any standardised smart phone design features envisaged by consumers?
2. Will Product Differentiation foster competitiveness of the LGs G5 Smartphone?
3. To what extent do the unique design accounts for consumer preference for LGs
G5 Smartphone?
4. What design adjustments need to be done to foster greater product acceptance?
The data are thematically analysed corresponding to the research questions. The study
first presents the demographic data and background of the participants, before
embarking on thematic analysis of findings to the research questions.

4.1 Demographic Data and Respondent Background

The respondents who took part in the survey were of diverse background, and varying
experience in using smartphones. As shown in the table below, majority were of female
gender. In view that snowball sampling was being used, it appears that females tended
to be responsive to the invitations of the researcher and their peers. The studys
outcome is in that regards, arguably, more representative of the female gender who
constituted 60.4% of the participants
Table 1:Gender distribution

In terms of age distribution, majority were those aged below 40 years, as depicxted in
the figure below. This trend can be explained by the fact that youthful populations are
generally more responsive to technology, and have high participation in the social
media. As invitation for participation was done via social media, it was expected that this
age group would be better attracted compared to the older counterparts (40 years and
above).

Figure 1:Age distribution

Incidentally, the study managed to reach out a few participants who were employees of LG , a
trend attributed to snowballing effect where one employee was reached, who then could have
invited others. Otherwise, majority were users, followed by the vendors, as shown in the table
below:
Table 2:Relationship of the respondents with LG

All the three categories of respondents have a first hand experience with LG products,
boosting the validity of the study.
In terms of experience with smartphones, and LG products, the majority are those who
had used them for a period of between 1-2 years. This is a relatively long period,
enough to give an informed judgment on what constitutes a good smart phone, in the
context of standardization versus differentiation debate.

Figure 2:Experience using smartphones

Figure 3:Experience using LG Products

More than a half of the respondents are those who had been using LG smartphones for the past 12 years, and about 32.08 had been using it for more than 2 years. It is expected that the
respondents here had had sufficient knowledge with the LG products, given these lengthy
timeline of product usage.

4.2 Differentiation Versus Standardization in Smart-Phone Technology

Central to this study was what, between a differentiated and a standardized smartphone design
would render a smartphone more acceptable among the users, with a special case study of LG
G5 smartphone. The findings of the study in relation to this debate are presented below.

4.2.1 Standardisation of Smartphone: Is there any standardised smart phone

design features envisaged by consumers?
The study sought the users views on various aspects of smartphones that make up a
standard design. Using likert sacle measured on a range of 1-10, with the increasing
value indicating extent of concurrence that the feature represents a standardized smart
phone design, the researcher noted that some features such as advanced phone
operating systems, presence of high quality digital camera and ability to efficiently
access internet are the core features of a standard smart phone. The use of USB
charger was also extensively considered to be a typical feature of a smart phone.
There was a divided view on whether a standardized smart phone ought to have a
smart screen, with a significantly lower mean score (relative to the other aspects) being
reported. The table below presents the mean scores of various features defining a
standard smart phone.
Table 3: Features considered to be standardized in smart phones

In view of the above findings, the smartphone designers need to pay attention to the
functionalities such as cameras, internet access efficiency, advancement of the
operating systems, and the charging systems (which ideally should be enabled to be
able to use USB technology). It is important to note that while the mean score of those
suggesting touch screen is a typical standard design feature in a smart phone was low
at 4.96 (suggesting a doubt), there were substantial proportion of respondents who still
considered it to be crucial. The figure below shows the frequency of these responses in
a likert scale range of 1-10.

Figure 4:The extent to which touch screen defines a smart phone

It can be noted that 15.0% were absolutely of the view that a smart phone ought to be defined by
a touch screen, and another 13.21 rating this requirement at 9 out of 10. The rating of 9 and
above therefore takes 28.3% of the respondents.
The controversial responses on this feature promoted the researcher to underatake further tests,
with a view to assessing how and whether the responses had a statistical association with various
demographic features, namely gender and age. It is established from ANOVA tests that the
consideration of the need for smart screen, in as much as it varies across respondents, has no
significant statistical association with the age of the respondents, as depicted in the table below.
It is noted from the results that the P value is above the 0.05 required to draw a 95% level of
confidence that a statistical association exists.
Table 4: ANOVA Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (Age and touch screen as standard design feature in smart
phones

The study also strived to assess if this factor could be linked to gender, through conducting an
independent sample T-test. The results are summarised in the two tables below, indicating both
the group means and the independent sample statistics.
Table 5/; Group statistics, Gender vs smart phone as a standard element of smartphones

Table 6:Independent sample T-Test, Gender vs smart phone as a standard element of smartphones

From the tables, womens score is lower at 4.2, suggesting a view that touch screen is doubtfully
a standard feature in smart phones, unlike their male counterparts who were largely in
concurrence evidenced in a relatively high mean score of 6.04. From the significance levels in
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances, the P-value falls at 0.05 level, affirming a statistical
association between gender and views on this feature. The statistical association can be explained
from two possible perspectives. First, it could be a matter of consumer preference, with male
respondents having a greater liking for touch screened smartphones as compared to their female
counterparts. An alternative explanation could be exposure and experience in using various types
of smartphones. As a matter of common knowledge, many non-touch screen smartphones exists,
especially with Blackberry and Samsung and as such respondents who have this background will
less likely to regard it a standard feature. All in all, is vital for phone designers to consider a
mixed design, to cater for those who value touch screens as well as those who could value the
physical touch pads.
An interview with smartphone venders largely corroborated the view above, and highlighted a
number of other features. Respondents were unanimous that there are no strict smartphone
standards, even though the design practice has resulted into some features that appears to be
standard. According to interviewee 1, ability to run apps defines a smartphone. Today there are
lots of third party software being designed for use on smartphones, and we would be questioning
a kind of smart phone that cannot run these apps. From these perspectives, it is evident that
smart phones OS serves to anchor the application software, thus enabling them to perform
further functions. However, the design features are not just on software and functionality. It was

revealed by an interviewee that he had noticed a common trend in the smartphone user interface
screen. In his observation, apart from having high graphic quality, most smartphones have their
screens covering majority of the front phone surface. In his estimation, this coverage ranges
between 70-95% of the front surface. One interviewee, however, refuted the idea of
standardisation of design, as a feature of smartphone. In her view, it is by coincidence
that some features are similar in phones. From her perspective:
The similarity you see around is in the interest of promoting compatibility,
particularly with third party accessories. It is more in the interest of efficiency and
promoting product acceptability among the consumers. The ultimate test of
whether you have a smartphone is if you can do the normal phone uses (like
calling, receiving text and so on) while also doing the roles of other digital mobile
devices. It is kind of a computer, that is, used as a phone.
From the highlights above, standardisation in smartphone making is a matter of convenience ,
and that the designers and manufactures have respondent to this by developing somne standard
features as those highlighted in the results.

4.2.1 Role of Product Differentiation in Enhancing Competativeness

Will Product Differentiation foster competitiveness of the LGs G5 Smartphone?
4.2.2 Role of Design Uniqueness in consumer preference for LGs G5
Smartphone
To what extent do the unique design accounts for consumer preference for LGs G5 Smartphone?
4.2.3 Design Adjustments to Foster Greater Product Acceptance
What design adjustments need to be done to foster greater product acceptance?

4.3 Chapter Summary

1. Is there any standardised smart phone design features envisaged by consumers?

2. Will Product Differentiation foster competitiveness of the LGs G5 Smartphone?

3. To what extent do the unique design accounts for consumer preference for LGs
G5 Smartphone?
4. What design adjustments need to be done to foster greater product acceptance?

Discussion: This chapter reflects on the theoretical and conceptual implications of

the findings. It includes a discussion of the findings that makes appropriate reference
to theory and other aspects covered in the literature review. The research questions
must be addressed in this chapter.

Conclusions: This chapter should summarise the key findings of your research and
assess their implications for practice and/or theory. Where appropriate, the chapter
may include recommendations for action or for further research that are derived from
the conclusions. This chapter should never introduce new materials.

Reflection: A brief section in which you reflect on the process of researching your
project and writing your dissertation. In this chapter you should try to identify how
your experience of the dissertation process has contributed to your personal,
academic and professional development.

Reference List: All the works that you have referred to in your dissertation listed in
alphabetical order. The list should be accurate, complete and in full detail. You
should use the Harvard style