Quantitative Laddering

The model, the implementation, the analysis

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Laddering methodology
What is the Voice of the Customer?

The Customers’ needs expressed in their own terms

The Customers’ behavior observed

2
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Laddering methodology
Definition

Laddering is a combination of qualitative and

quantitative techniques who analyze features, benefits
and values from service or product/concept.

The result of a laddering survey is a map showing
how features are linked to benefits and values. So we
get the picture, it is an aggregated picture from a
qualitative survey. This has to be validated and should
enable us to link the individual choices to the ladders
(links between features-benefits-values).

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Laddering methodology
The model

Using laddering, you can

uncover what drives the
Values
consumer to purchase a
certain brand and reveal,
at the same time, what is
the best way to address Benefits
this consumer to
convince him to buy your
product!
Features

4
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Laddering methodology
An example

PERSON:
Emotions CAR DRIVER
and values
Values

Benefits Benefits
(consequences)
TOYOTA CAR
to the person
Price
Features
Fuel
consumption
Product Modern
Brand design
Attributes Brand

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Laddering methodology
A typical laddering interview

(The interviewer has established that fuel economy (low fuel consumption)
is the most important car attribute)

Q. You stated that fuel economy is important to you. Why is that?

A. Use as little as possible. Cut down on pollution.

Q. Can you explain to me why you care about cutting down on pollution?

A. The atmosphere is fouled enough and I should do my bit. We must all

be greener.

Q. And if you are not greener? What are the consequences for you then?

A. I have an obligation to for future generations. It just is part of my ethic –

I feel responsible.

Q. Why is this important for you? What is your ‘benefit’ in this?

A. Makes me feel good. To be happy!

6
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Laddering methodology
A typical laddering analysis

Value
Makes me feel good. To be happy!
Feel good

Consequence
Obligation to
I have an obligation for future generations. It’s just part of my ethic - Individual
I feel responsible
next generation
means-
means-end
Consequence
chain
We must be The atmosphere is fouled and I should do my bit. We must all be greener
‘greener’

Consequence
Use as little as possible. Cut down on pollut ion
Less pollution

Characteristic
Fuel Fuel economy is a very important car characteristic for me
consumption

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Laddering methodology
A typical laddering analysis

Financial Self
Feel good expression
securit y

Spend
money on Individual
other
things means-
means-end
corresp.to chain
personality

Budget

V alue
f . money

Fuel
consump. Modern
Price look

8
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Laddering methodology
A typical laddering analysis

Toyota Yaris Verso Toyota Yaris Verso

Care for family My family is the most important thing in my life
Children and family are the main things in my life ‘I feel as if my life is fulfilled’
Self fulfilment ‘I’m great!’
‘I want to be able to be proud of myself’

Many things
to transport I have a family, we always take a lot of
for family luggage with us, need space ‘To feel more relaxed’
Avoid stress ‘I feel at ease’
Family / ‘I don’t want to feel tired’
child friendly We've recently had another child so we need a bigger car ‘I don’t like getting crazy about things’
I must think of my family when I buy a car
It has to fit the whole family ‘I can feel comfortable in the car’
Like to be ‘I like comfort and well-being’
comfortable
‘I need a car which although small has room for me’
Transport I want to be able to transport bigger things ‘To feel well inside’
many things when necessary
Drive comfortably

Large interior
Everybody needs to feel comfortable
The whole atmosphere is more relaxed and friendly
Performance Large interior

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Laddering methodology
A typical laddering analysis

Financial Self
Feel good Survival
security expression

Spend
money on
other Peace
things of
mind
corresp.to
personality

Budget
Feeling young
protected singles/couples
families
em pty nesters
modern
Fuel
look
consump. Safe

10
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Laddering methodology
A typical laddering analysis

Respondents who Financial

Respondents who
do not consider Feel good consider Toyota
security
Toyota Yaris Yaris

Spend
money on
other
things

Budget

Value
f. money

Fuel
Price consump.

11

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Laddering methodology
A typical laddering analysis

POSITIONING
MODEL
STRATEGY
Care for Self
Driving force family fulfilment
Value Bridge: and on the other hand the
owner of the Yaris Verso takes a definite
stand concerning the styling
Family/child
friendly Personal relevance Bridge: On the one hand
Transport the car complies with the transport needs of a
many young family
things
Consumer Drive
comfortably Avoid
benefits stress

Product Bridge: The new Toyota Yaris

Performance
Verso is a new, compact Toyota with
style, which offers the necessary space
Message and performance, especially for young
Large
elements interior families

12
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

References

- Claeys, C., Vanden Abeele, P.: Consumers’ means-end chains for “think” and “feel” products;
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, pp. 193-208, 1995
- Hofstede, F, Audenaert, A, Steenkamp, J.B.E.M, Wedel, M: An investigation into the association
pattern technique as quantitative approach to measuring means-end chain, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 1998.
- Kenett, R. and Zacks, S.: Modern Industrial Statistics, Duxbury Press: San Francisco, 1998
- Fuchs C. and Kenett, R.: Multivariate Quality Control, M. Dekker: New York, 1998
- Izard, C.A.: Human Emotions. Plenum Press New York, 1977.
- Reynolds, T.J., Gengler, C.E., Howard D.J.:A means-end analysis of brand persuasion through
advertising; international journal of research in marketing 12 (October 1995) pg 257-266
- Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J: Laddering theory, method, analysis and interpretation.; Journal of
advertising research , pp 11-13, 1988
- Sukhdial, A.S., Chakraborty, G., Steger, E.K., Measuring values can sharpen segmentation in the
luxury auto market; Journal of Advertising Research, pp. 9-22, 1995

13

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Designing an internal Help Desk

with quantitative laddering

14
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

A Survey of Company Values

Most Best To be
Company Values Code Important Feature improved TOTAL

Can Do D1 5 3 2 10
Customer First D2 5 3 4 12
Result Driven D3 4 3 6 13
Excellence D4 5 5 3 13
Collaboration D5 2 2 0 4
Accountability D6 0 1 5 6
Respect for Ind. D7 1 2 2 5

15

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Correspondence Analysis Overview

Correspondence analysis is a statistical visualization method for picturing

the associations between the levels of a two-way contingency table. The
name is a translation of the French "Analyses des Correspondances",
where the term ‘correspondance’ denotes a “system of associations”
between the elements of two sets. In a two-way contingency table, the
observed association of two traits is summarized by the cell frequencies. A
typical inferential aspect is the study of whether certain levels of one
characteristic are associated with some levels of another. Correspondence
analysis displays the rows and columns of a two-way contingency table as
points in a low-dimensional space, such that the positions of the row and
column points are consistent with their associations in the table. The goal is
to have a global view of the data that is useful for interpretation.

16
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Company Values Analysis

Correspondence analysis of Company Values’ contingency table by category

Symmetric Plot
Most Important:
1.0
> Can do
> Customer first
0.5

Component 2
C an Do
Most Important
Result Driven
Best:
Best Customer First To be improved
0.0 Excellence
> Excellence Best COMVERSE Values Accountability
Respect for Ind.
C ollaboration

-0.5

To be improved:
improved
> Result Driven -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Component 1

17

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

A Survey of Personal Values

Most Best To be
Values Code Important Feature improved TOTAL

Customer satisfaction C1 5 4 5 14
Effectiveness - Efficiency C2 9 4 8 21
Customer information C3 0 2 0 2
Quality C5 1 3 0 4
Reliability C6 0 0 2 2

18
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Personal Values – Most Important

Pareto Chart of Values

16
100
Effectiveness/
14
12 80
efficiency and
customer

Percent
10
Count

60
8
6 40 satisfaction are
4
20 the most
2
0 0 important values
Values y n ity er
ie
nc
fa
ct
io
Qu
al
O
th (93.3%)
ffic tis
E
- sa
ss er
ne om
tive st
c
fe Cu
Ef
Count 9 5 1 0
Percent 60.0 33.3 6.7 0.0
Cum % 60.0 93.3 100.0 100.0

19

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Personal Values – Best

Pareto Chart of Values

14 Customer
100
12 satisfaction and
10 80
Effectiveness/
Percent
Count

8 60
6
40
efficiency and
4
20
customer
2
0 0
satisfaction are
Values r
tio
n
ie
nc
y
al
ity
at
io
n
Ot
he the best value
f ac if c Qu m
tis Ef or (61.5%)
sa - inf
e r ss e r
e
om en om
st tiv st
Cu f ec Cu
Ef
Count 4 4 3 2 0
Percent 30.8 30.8 23.1 15.4 0.0
Cum % 30.8 61.5 84.6 100.0 100.0

20
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Personal Values – To be Improved

Pareto Chart of Values

16
Effectiveness/
100
14 efficiency and
12 80
customer

Percent
10
Count

60
8
satisfaction need
6 40
4
20
to be improved
2
0 0
(86.7%)
Values y n y r
nc io lit he
ie ct bi Ot
ffic is f
a l ia
-
E at Re
s r s
es e
en om
tiv st
fe
c Cu
Ef
Count 8 5 2 0
Percent 53.3 33.3 13.3 0.0
Cum % 53.3 86.7 100.0 100.0

21

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Personal Values summary

Correspondence analysis of Personal Values’ contingency table by category

Symmetric Plot
To be improved:
improved
Reliability
1.0
> Effectiveness/efficiency
> Customer Satisfaction
C ustomer information
0.5
To be improv ed
Best Personal Values
Component 2

Quality Customer satisfaction

0.0 Effectiv eness - Efficiency

Most Important

Best:
Best -0.5
> Quality
-1.0

-1.5
Most Important:
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
> Effectiveness/efficiency Component 1

> Customer Satisfaction

22
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Benefits

Most Best To be
Benefits Code Important Feature improved TOTAL
Efficiency B1 5 4 11 20
Understanding customer & business needs B2 6 4 2 12
Quality B5 1 1 0 2
Ability to listen B6 0 3 0 3
Customer satisfaction B8 0 0 2 2
Tec. Knowledge B9 1 2 0 3
Work flow B10 2 1 0 3
User's motivation B11 1 0 0 1
Resource allocation B13 0 0 1 1

23

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Benefits

Pareto Chart of Most important Benefits Pareto Chart of Best Benefits Pareto Chart of To be improved Benefits
18 16 18
100
16 100 14 16 100
14 12 80 14
12
80 80
Percent

12
Percent

Percent

10
Count
Count

Count

10 60 60 10 60
8
8 8
6 40 6 40 6 40
4 4 4
20 20 20
2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
Benefit s y e n r Benefit y r Benefit y n s n r
ed nc
w ty
dg he nc ds te
n
dg
e ty w
he nc io ed tio he
flo ali tio
Ot
e
lis ali flo ct Ot
ne fic
ie k Qu le va ie ne le Qu k Ot fic
ie fa ne ca
or w oti fic to ow or tis llo
BU Ef no Ef BU y Ef BU a
& W
.K 's
m & ilit Kn W sa & e
er er c. er er rc
Te
c e r Ab Te
u
om Us m m
to
m so
t to s to us re
C us us Cu C
C
d. d. d.
Un Un Un
Count 6 5 2 1 1 1 0 Count 4 4 3 2 1 1 0 Count 11 2 2 1 0
Percent 37.5 31.3 12.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 0.0 Percent 26.7 26.7 20.0 13.3 6.7 6.7 0.0 Percent 68.8 12.5 12.5 6.3 0.0
Cum % 37.5 68.8 81.3 87.5 93.8 100.0 100.0 Cum % 26.7 53.3 73.3 86.7 93.3 100.0 100.0 Cum % 68.8 81.3 93.8 100.0 100.0

Understanding Customer & Efficiency and

Efficiency needs to be
Business needs and understanding Customer &
improved (68.8%)
efficiency are the most Business needs and are best
important benefits (68.8%) benefits (53.3%)

24
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Benefits summary

Most Important: Correspondence analysis of Benefits’ contingency table by category

> Workflow Symmetric Plot
> Understanding Customer U ser's motiv ation

needs
1.0
>Quality M ost Important
Work flow
0.5

Component 2
To be improved:
improved U nd. C ustomer & BU needs
Q uality
E fficiency
To be improv ed
> Efficiency 0.0
resource allocation
Tec. Know ledge
> Resource allocation C ustomer satisfaction
-0.5 Best Benefit
> Customer Satisfaction
-1.0 A bility to listen

Best:
Best -1.5
> Tech. Knowledge -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Component 1
> Ability to listen

25

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

A Survey of Help Desk Features

Feature
Professionalism
Understanding needs
Quality of solution
Response time to answer
Customer training
Availability
Response time to solution
Awareness for previous calls
Flexibility
Level of knowledge
Willingness to assist
Most Best To be
Code Important Feature improved TOTAL
A1 7 4 1 12
A2 5 1 2 8
A3 0 0 3 3
A4 1 2 2 5
A6 0 0 1 1
A7 0 3 1 4
A8 2 0 5 7
A9 0 0 1 1
A10 1 0 0 1
A11 0 2 1 3
A13 1 2 0 3

26
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Features

Pareto Chart of Most Important Features Pareto Chart of Best Features Pareto Chart of To be improved Features
18 14 100 18
100 100
16 16
12
14 80 80 14 80
10 12

Percent
12

Percent
Percent

Count
Count
Count

10 60 8 60 10 60
8 8
40 6 40 6
40
6
4
4 4
20
20 20 2
2 2
0 0
0 0 0 0 Feature n n s g e r
Feature t r tio tio ed lity calls in dg lis
m he
m
ed
s
tio
n
i lit
y
sis he
Feature m l it
y e er st s er lu lu ne bi ain wle Ot
lis l is dg si ed la us na
na ne lu xi b as Ot bi le sw as ne
th so so g ai tr
no io
so e to na la an
O to of in Av vio er ss
sio in
g
to Fl io ai no
w to g e ty nd re m f k ofe
es nd ss ss Av fk
to s
nd
in m li ta p to l o r
of ta
e ne fe e es ti a rs r s ve P
Pr rs tim ng Pr
o l o
tim n ta se Qu de fo Cu Le
de se ill i ve ng rs on Un es
s
Le se illi de sp en
Un on W on W Un
sp sp Re ar
Re Re Aw
Count 7 5 3 1 1 0 Count 4 3 2 2 2 1 0 Count 7 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0
Percent 41.2 29.4 17.6 5.9 5.9 0.0 Percent 28.6 21.4 14.3 14.3 14.3 7.1 0.0 Percent 41.2 17.6 11.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 0.0
Cum % 41.2 70.6 88.2 94.1 100.0 100.0 Cum % 28.6 50.0 64.3 78.6 92.9 100.0 100.0 Cum % 41.2 58.8 70.6 76.5 82.4 88.2 94.1 100.0 100.0

Professionalism and Professionalism and Response time to solution

Understanding needs are most availability are best features is the major feature to be
important features (70.6%) (50%) improved (41.2%)

27

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Features summary

Correspondence analysis of Features’ contingency table by category

Most Important:
Symmetric Plot
> Understanding needs
1.5 Flexibility
> Professionalism
1.0
To be improved:
improved Most Important
Understanding needs
> Response time to solution 0.5 Professionalism
Component 2

> Quality Solution

Response time to solution
> Awareness of previous 0.0 Willingness to assist
calls To be improved
Best Feature
> Customer training -0.5 Awareness for prev ious calls
C ustomer training Lev el of k nowledge
Av ailability
Quality of solution Response time to answer
Best:
Best -1.0

> Willingness to assist

> Level of knowledge -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Component 1
> Availability

28
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Means-End Chains

Help Desk Means-End Chains

Most important

Best

To be improved

29

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Help Desk Means-End Chains

Most Important

30
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Help Desk Means-End Chains

Best

31

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Help Desk Means-End Chains

To be Improved

32
 © 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Take Away Message

Customer
Can Do
First

Efficiency vs. effectiveness balance

Understanding
Efficiency
the customer*

Time
Professionalism
to solution
To be improved Preserve

33

© 2009, KPA Ltd., all rights reserved

Thank You

34