=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Sales Configurator Capabilities to Prevent Product Variety From Backfiring
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-958/paper9.pdf
|volume=Vol-958
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/confws/TrentinPF12
}}
==Sales Configurator Capabilities to Prevent Product Variety From Backfiring==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-958/paper9.pdf
Sales Configurator Capabilities to Prevent Product
Variety from Backfiring
Alessio Trentin and Elisa Perin and Cipriano Forza1
Abstract.1 Firms offering high product variety and customization a product variant within that space, thus preventing inconsistent or
can paradoxically experience a loss of sales because customers feel unfeasible product characteristics from being defined [14, 18].
overwhelmed by the number of product configurations offered. Additional functionalities of a sales configurator may include
Sales configurators may be a solution for avoiding this paradox, providing real-time information on price and/or delivery terms of a
but relatively few studies have focused on the characteristics they
product variant, making quotations [19, 20] and recommending a
should have in order to overcome this problem. Furthermore,
empirical investigation on the effectiveness of the product solution that can be further altered [13]. Sales
recommendations made by these studies has been hindered by the configurators may be stand-alone applications or modules of other
lack of psychometrically sound measurement items and scales. applications, known as product configurators, which support both
This paper conceptualizes, develops and validates five capabilities sales specifications and the creation of product data necessary to
that sales configurators should deploy in order to avoid the product build the product variant requested by the customer, such as bill of
variety paradox: namely, focused navigation, flexible navigation, materials, production sequence, etc. [21].
easy comparison, benefit-cost communication, and user-friendly Many studies on sales configurators and, more generally, on
product-space description capabilities. The measurement product configurators have investigated technical or application
instrument is hoped to support advancements in both research and development issues, such as the modeling of configuration
practice.
knowledge or the algorithms to make configurators faster and more
accurate [e.g., 22, 23-28]. Many other studies have provided
1 INTRODUCTION detailed accounts of the introduction and use of a configurator in a
single company, focusing mainly on implementation challenges
Many firms in diverse industries are increasing the product variety and operational performance outcomes from the company
and customization offered to their customers [1-3]. By giving perspective [e.g., 19, 20, 29, 30-32]. In this vein, large-scale
customers exactly what they want, or at least something closer to hypothesis-testing studies on the effects of product configurator
their ideal product solutions, companies expect to gain higher use on a firm’s operational performance have recently appeared as
market shares and/or to be able to charge higher prices [4, 5], well [33, 34].
thereby increasing revenues. Instead, less attention has been given in literature to which
There is a risk, however, that a strategy of product proliferation characteristics of sales configurators reduce the effort involved in
and customization backfires, leading to lower rather than greater the specification process and drive users’ satisfaction with this
revenues, as increasingly suggested in literature [5-11]. Potential process [14], thereby alleviating the risk that companies experience
customers, for example, may feel so confused and overwhelmed by the product variety paradox [12]. In particular, the empirical study
the number of product configurations offered by a company that of how sales configurators should be designed to ease the customer
they choose not to make a choice at all [6] and the company loses decision process and to increase configuration process-related
potential sales. Firms offering product variety and customization value for the customer is still in its infancy [14, 35]. To help
may therefore experience what has been termed the “product narrow this research gap, the present paper conceptualizes,
variety paradox” [12]: offering more product variety and develops and validates five sales configurator capabilities that are
customization in an attempt to increase sales paradoxically results expected to motivate and facilitate further empirical investigation
in a loss of sales. in the field.
An important role in alleviating the risk of experiencing this
paradox can be played by sales configurators [12-14]. A sales
configurator is a subtype of software-based expert systems (or 2 BACKGROUND
knowledge-based systems) with a focus on the translation of each
Literature has suggested several mechanisms that can explain the
customer’s idiosyncratic needs into complete and valid sales
product variety paradox [11]. In particular, four inter-related
specifications of the product solution that best fits those needs
mechanisms link product variety and customization to the
within a company’s product offer [15, 16]. The fundamental
difficulty experienced by potential customers in configuring the
functions of a sales configurator include presenting a company’s
product solutions that best fit their needs within a company’s
product space, meant as the set of product solutions that a firm
product space. Difficulty in the decision process may become a
offers [17], and guiding customers in the generation or selection of
criterion for the potential customer’s evaluation of the decision
1 outcome itself [9, 11, 36, 37], leading to lower satisfaction with the
Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padova,
Padova, Italy, email: cipriano.forza@unipd.it
configured products and, eventually, reduced willingness to make a potential customers to process all of the available information [5],
purchase [9, 11]. but also cause potential customers to experience negative emotions
A first explanation for the product variety paradox relies on such as anticipated regret [5]. This happens because trade-off
choice complexity, defined as the amount of information resolution involves consideration of potential unwanted
processing necessary to make a decision [9]. As product variety consequences and threatens one’s reputation of self-esteem as a
and customization increase, so too does choice complexity, since decision maker [49]. These negative emotions are another
more alternatives have to be processed in order for a potential mechanism that increase subjective experience of choice task
customer to make a decision based on rational optimization. The difficulty [9] and decreased satisfaction with the chosen product
amount of information processing is a widely acknowledged source [11], thus explaining the product variety paradox.
of decision difficulty [38]. If potential customers are provided with
“too much” information at a given time, such that it exceeds their
processing limits, information overload occurs [39]. Information 3 CONSTRUCT DEVELOPMENT
overload, in turn, may lead potential customers to choose from In the following subsections, we propose five sales configurator
competing brands that do not require such cognitive effort [5] thus capabilities that help companies avoid the product variety paradox
reducing the company’s revenues. by hindering operation of at least one of the mechanisms outlined
A related explanation for the product variety paradox relies on in the previous section. These capabilities were identified based on
anticipation of post-decisional regret, which is a cognitively a comprehensive literature review and the authors' experience in
determined negative emotion that individuals experience when the design and implementation of product configurators.
realizing or imagining that their present situation would have been
better, had they acted differently [40]. When choice complexity
becomes excessive, potential customers may become unable to 3.1 Focused navigation capability
invest the requisite time and effort in seeking the best option for
We define focused navigation capability as the ability to quickly
them, thus basing their decision on heuristics which reduce
focus a potential customer’s search on a product space subset that
information processing demands by ignoring potentially relevant
contains the product configuration that best matches his/her
information [38, 41, 42]. Furthermore, potential customers may
idiosyncratic needs. A fundamental way of improving focused
have uncertain preferences because of poorly developed
navigation capability is to allow potential customers to sequence
preferences or poor insight into their preferences [42-44]. When
their choices on product-differentiation attributes from the least
potential customers are unable to engage in rational optimization
uncertain choice to the most uncertain one [12]. This is because, in
and/or have uncertain preferences, they may anticipate the
relation to the attribute being considered, a customer’s preferences
possibility of post-decisional regret, due to poor fit between the
may be more or less uncertain [43] and preference uncertainty is an
selected product configuration and their preferences [7, 8, 45], and
antecedent of anticipated regret [8, 50]. If the customer’s early
try to minimize this possibility during the decision process [8, 45].
choices are those for which his/her preferences are best developed,
This goal makes their decision processes more difficult [7] and
then he/she is enabled to narrow down the search more quickly, as
may lead them to delay their purchase decisions [7, 45] or to prefer
anticipated regret associated with those choices is lower.
a standard product to a customized one [8].
Noteworthy, a prerequisite for this way of structuring the
A third related explanation for the product variety paradox relies
customer-company interaction is the by-attribute presentation of
on responsibility felt by potential customers for making a good
the company’s product space, meaning that the customer is asked
decision. As product variety and customization increase, potential
which value he/she prefers for each product-differentiation
customers feel more responsible for their choices, given the greater
attribute instead of being required to choose from among a set of
opportunity of finding the very best option for them [7, 11]. These
fully-specified product configurations, as happens with the by-
enhanced feelings of responsibility promote anticipated regret, as
alternative presentation [6]. Another option to enhance focused
subjectively important decisions, for which individuals feel more
navigation capability is to provide one or more starting points, that
responsible, will result in more intense post-decisional regret when
is, initial product configurations close to the customer’s ideal
things go awry [40, 45]. By amplifying anticipated regret and the
solution and that may be further altered [13]. Starting points can be
resulting decision difficulty, responsibility for making a good
recommended with little or no effort on the customer’s part, based
decision magnifies the negative impact of choice complexity on
on his/her past purchases and/or customer input concerning simple
customers’ willingness to make a purchase.
demographics, intended product usage and his/her best developed
Finally, a fourth mechanism relating product variety and
preferences [26, 51]. Noteworthy, this solution requires
customization to decision difficulty relies on conflict between
complementing the by-attribute presentation of the product space
product attributes that are highly valued by potential customers [5,
with the by-alternative presentation.
9, 38, 46]. To increase product variety and customization,
Focused navigation capability helps avoid the product variety
companies need to broaden the range of product attributes on
paradox by reducing choice complexity and by mitigating
which they allow their potential customers to make a choice [47].
anticipated regret. A sales configurator with this capability does
As the number of product-differentiation attributes increases, so
not force potential customers to go through and evaluate a number
too does the likelihood that potential customers have to face trade-
of product options that they regard as certainly inappropriate for
offs among attractive attributes. This happens because offering all
themselves. Therefore, this capability reduces the amount of
the possible combinations of all the different levels of the various
information processing necessary to make a decision without
product-differentiation attributes may be economically unfeasible,
potential customers experiencing anticipated regret [8, 40, 45, 50].
owing to insufficient manufacturing process flexibility and limited
Furthermore, by quickly reducing the size of the search problem,
product modularity [48]. Explicit trade-offs among attractive
this capability enables potential customers to invest more time and
attributes not only increase the cognitive effort required of
effort in exploring the product options for which their preferences less certain and, thus, the possible negative effects of this
are less certain. Potential customers can learn more about both capability on choice complexity are mitigated.
these options and the value they would derive from them,
especially when focused navigation capability is complemented
with the capabilities discussed in the subsequent sections. In 3.3 Flexible navigation capability
addition, a potential customer can rely on more time-consuming, We define flexible navigation capability as the ability to minimize
compensatory decision strategies for the resolution of between- the effort required of a potential customer to modify a product
attribute conflicts [42], thus being more confident that the chosen configuration that he/she has previously created or is currently
solution is the one that best fits his/her needs within the company’s creating. A fundamental way of improving flexible navigation
product space. Reduced uncertainty on the superior fit of the capability is to allow sales configurator users to change the choice
selected product configuration with the customer’s preferences, in made at any previous step of the configuration process without
turn, translates into less anticipated regret [45]. having to start it over again [13]. Furthermore, after changing the
choice made at a given step, potential customers should not be
required to go through all the subsequent steps up to the current
3.2 Benefit-cost communication capability
one. Instead, they should be asked to revise only those choices, if
We define benefit-cost communication capability as the ability to any, that are no longer valid because of the change they have just
effectively communicate the consequences of the available choice made [59]. Another option to enhance flexible navigation
options both in terms of what the customer gets (benefits) and in capability is to allow potential customers engaged in configuring
terms of what the customer gives (monetary and nonmonetary their products to bookmark their works [13],to immediately recover
costs). A fundamental way of improving benefit-cost a previous configuration in the case that they decide to reject the
communication capability is to explain what potential needs a newly-created one.
given choice option contributes to fulfill and to what extent it does Flexible navigation capability helps avoid the product variety
so [12]. This is especially important when choice options involve paradox by mitigating anticipated regret. A sales configurator with
design parameters of the product, such as specifications of product this capability enables potential customers to quickly make and
components, because potential customers are often unable to relate undo changes to previously created product configurations.
design parameters to satisfaction of user needs [13]. Besides the Consequently, the number of product solutions a potential
benefits, it is also important to communicate monetary and customer can explore in the time span he/she is willing to devote to
nonmonetary costs of each option, for example by displaying the the sales configuration task is larger. Stated otherwise, potential
prices of the individual product components from among which customers can conduct more trial-and-error tests to evaluate the
potential customers can choose or by warning potential customers effects of initial choices made and to improve upon them. Trial-
that certain options imply longer delivery lead-times [12]. and-error experimentation promotes potential customers’ learning
Benefit-cost communication capability helps avoid the product about the value they would derive from the product being
variety paradox by mitigating anticipated regret. During the sales configured [56, 57], especially when flexible navigation capability
configuration process, potential customers seek to anticipate the is complemented with the benefit-cost communication one as well
value they will perceive from consumption of the product being as those discussed in the subsequent sections. This learning process
configured [54]. Perceived product value is defined as the makes potential customers more confident that the product
customer’s “overall assessment of the utility of a product based on configuration they have selected is the one that best fits their needs
perceptions of what is received and what is given” [55: 14]. By within the company’s product space. This, in turn, translates into
delivering clear pre-purchase feedback on the effects of the less anticipated regret for the customer [45].
available choice options, a sales configurator with high benefit-cost
communication capability fosters potential customers’ learning
about the value they would derive from these options [56, 57]. This 3.4 Easy comparison capability
learning process makes a potential customer more confident that We define easy comparison capability as the ability to minimize
the product configuration he/she has selected is the one that best the effort required of a potential customer to compare previously
fits his/her needs within the company’s product space. Reduced created product configurations. A fundamental way of improving
uncertainty on the superior fit of the chosen product configuration easy comparison capability is to allow potential customers to save
with the customer’s preferences, in turn, translates into less a product configuration they have just created and, then, to
anticipated regret [45], thus lowering choice task difficulty [7]. compare previously saved configurations side-by-side in the same
At the same time, however, higher benefit-cost communication screen [13]. The advantages of providing an overview of previous
capability may lead to greater choice complexity, with negative configurations can be enhanced by highlighting commonalities and
effects on decision difficulty. For instance, individual pricing of the differences among them, especially if the sales configuration
available choice options may make cost-benefit trade-offs more process involves many choices. In this manner, a potential
salient and, hence, may increase information processing demands customer can immediately understand, for example, which
[58]. To fully realize the potential advantages of benefit-cost configuration choices have caused the price or weight difference
communication capability, therefore, this capability needs to be between two configurations he/she is comparing. Another solution
complemented with the focused navigation one, which lowers to enhance easy comparison capability is to rank-order previously
choice complexity by quickly reducing the size of the search created configurations in terms of fit to the customer’s preferences
problem for potential customers. As a result, the learning process or profile [43]. This can be accomplished with little or no effort on
enabled by benefit-cost communication capability focuses only on the customer’s part, based on his/her past purchases and/or
those choice options for which potential customers’ preferences are
customer input concerning simple demographics, intended product User-friendly product-space description capability helps avoid
usage and his/her best developed preferences [26, 51]. the product variety paradox by reducing choice complexity and by
Easy comparison capability helps avoid the product variety mitigating anticipated regret. A sales configurator deploying this
paradox by reducing choice complexity and by mitigating capability provides potential customers with the information
anticipated regret. A sales configurator with this capability fosters content they value most according to their individual
potential customers’ learning about the value they would derive characteristics or usage contexts and does not bother users with
from consumption of the product being configured. This happens communications they do not need [52]. In addition, a sales
because, in assessing the value of a particular product solution, configurator with this capability augments or switches modalities
customers tend to rely on comparisons with other alternatives that of presentation of the same information content in such a way that
are currently available or that have been encountered in the past each individual user’s information processing is enhanced [67]. By
[43, 60]. In particular, the possibility of easily comparing complete tailoring both information content and information format, this
product configurations is of greatest assistance when global capability reduces information overload and eases the customer
performance characteristics, which arise from the physical decision process [68-70]. In particular, this capability allows for
properties of most if not all of the product components [48], are aligning the way in which the product space is presented to a
important to potential customers. In brief, easy comparison potential customer with the way in which he/she is able or willing
capability gives potential customers practice at evaluating to express his/her requirements [56, 57]. As potential customers
alternative configurations and provides anchors for the evaluative interact with a sales configurator in their customary language, they
process [6]. Consequently, potential customers improve their become able to assess the fit of the configured product with their
confidence that the configuration they have eventually selected is needs more easily and in less time [71]. This means that, once a
the one that best fits their needs within the company’s product potential customer has selected his/her most preferred product
space. In turn, reduced uncertainty on the superior fit of the chosen configuration, he/she is more confident that the chosen solution is
product configuration with the customer’s preferences translates the one that best fits his/her needs within the company’s product
into less anticipated regret [45]. A sales configurator with high space. Reduced uncertainty on the superior fit of the selected
easy comparison capability also alleviates choice complexity, by product configuration with the customer’s preferences, in turn,
reducing information processing necessary to make comparisons. translates into less anticipated regret [45].
Potential customers do not need to rely on their limited working
memory to recover configurations they have previously created.
Moreover, potential customers do not need to rely on their limited 4 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT AND
computational abilities to decompose the configurations they want VALIDATION
to compare to find out similarities and differences among them. We adopted a comprehensive, multi-step approach for the
development, refinement and validation of the sales configurator
3.5 User-friendly product-space description capabilities measures. First, we generated a list of items based on
both the relevant literature and subject matter experts’ advice in
capability
order to ensure content validity of our instrument. Then, these
We define user-friendly product-space description capability as the items were reviewed by a focus group and through a field pretest,
ability to adapt the product space description to the needs and to reduce redundancy and ambiguity. Subsequently, we assessed
abilities of different potential customers, as well as to different and improved the reliability and the validity of the instrument by
contexts of use. One way of improving user-friendly product-space means of a Q-sort procedure. Finally, the resulting questionnaire
description capability is to employ content adaptation techniques (items are listed in Appendix A) was used to validate our measures,
[cf. 61] to provide optional detailed information pertaining to the using large-scale data to assess the quality of the measures
available choice options. In this manner, potential customers with following the guidelines of O'Leary-Kelly and Vokurka [72].
higher involvement for the product, who are more interested in
acquiring product information [62], are allowed to learn more
about the choice options for which their preferences are less 4.1 Instrument development and refinement
developed. Conversely, customers with lower involvement, who The items for the five sales configurator capabilities were
feel less responsible for making a good decision [45], are not generated based upon the relevant literature, the authors’
forced to process product information they are not interested in. In experience in industry, and extensive interviews with practitioners
this respect, a promising approach is to design multimedia-based involved with the development and use of sales configurators. All
interfaces that enable potential customers to retrieve rich the items were measured by means of a 7-point Likert scale. We
information and explanations about specific product parts/features used only positive statements, as negatively worded questions with
without breaking the continuity of their product evaluation an agree-disagree response format are often cognitively complex
processes [63]. Another option to enhance user-friendly product- [73] and may be a source of method bias [74].
space description capability is to adapt information content Then, the items were reviewed by a focus group of six people
presented to potential customers according to their prior knowledge with different experiences and perceptions relative to sales
about the product [13, 52]. Particularly, novice customers should configuration, who were questioned about the appropriateness and
be allowed to use a needs-based interface, where the available completeness of the instrument. Moreover, to replicate as closely
choice options involve desired product performance and functions, as possible data collection procedures to be used in our large-scale
while expert customers should be enabled to employ a parameter- study, we pretested the instrument with 20 engineering students
based interface, where the available choice options include design from our university, who were asked to comment on any problems
parameters such as specifications of product components [12, 64]. encountered while responding, such as interpretation difficulties,
faulty instructions, typos, item redundancies, etc. Based on the [79], we regressed our 17 indicators on 63 dummies representing
feedback from the focus group and field pretesting, redundant and the participants in our study and used the standardized residuals
ambiguous items were either modified or eliminated. Finally, the from this linear, ordinary least square regression model as our data
resulting instrument was evaluated through a Q-sort procedure for in all the subsequent analyses.
establishing tentative indications of construct validity and Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to assess
reliability [75]. Each of ten practitioners who are experienced in unidimensionality, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and
developing or using sales configurators was given a questionnaire reliability of our measurement scales. In particular, we used
containing short descriptions of the proposed capabilities, together LISREL 8.80 to conduct the analysis, with maximum likelihood
with a randomized list of the items. Subsequently, these expert estimation of the parameters in the model (factor loadings of the
judges were asked to assign each item to one or none of the defined measurement items on their respective latent constructs,
capabilities. All the items were placed in the target construct by at measurement errors, variance and covariance of the latent
least 75% of the judges and, therefore, were retained for our large- constructs). We estimated an a priori measurement model where
scale study [54]. the empirical indicators were restricted to load on the latent factor
they were intended to measure. This model showed good fit indices
(RMSEA (90% CI)= 0.047 (0.040; 0.054), χ2/df (df) = 2.39 (109),
4.2 Sample and data collection CFI=0.991, NFI=0.984), meaning that our hypothesized factor
Each of the proposed sales configurator capabilities indicates a structure reproduced the sample data well. Inspection of the
fundamental benefit that potential customers should experience standardized factor loadings further indicated that each of them
during the sales configuration process if the product variety was in its anticipated direction (i.e., positive correspondences
paradox is to be avoided. Consistent with the capability perspective between latent constructs and their posited indicators), was greater
of routines, which sees routines as a “black box” [76], we do not than 0.50, and was statistically significant at p<0.001. Altogether,
focus on how such benefits are delivered, but rather on their these results suggested unidimensionality and good convergent
purpose or motivation. Accordingly, to measure the proposed sales validity of our measurement scales [80-83]. Unidimensionality
configurator capabilities, we needed to collect data on sales implies that a set of empirical indicators reflect one, as opposed to
configurations experiences made by potential customers using sales more than one, underlying latent factor. Convergent validity
configurators. Specifically, data for our large-scale study were ensures that the multiple items used as indicators of a construct
gathered on a sample of 630 sales configuration experiences made significantly converge, or covary. Discriminant validity, which
by 63 engineering students at the authors’ university (age range: measures the extent to which the individual items of a construct are
24-27; 29% females) using Web-based sales configurators for unique and do not measure other constructs, was tested using [84]’s
consumer goods. As a result, our data are biased in favor of young, procedure. For each latent construct, the square root of the average
male, and fairly adept persons who are familiar with the Internet. variance extracted (AVE) exceeded the correlation with all the
At the same time, however, young people adept at using Internet other latent variables, thereby suggesting that our measurement
also represent the majority of business-to-consumer sales scales represent distinct latent variables [84]. Reliability of a
configurator users [35, 78]. measurement scale, in turn, is established when the variance
The Web-based sales configurators used in the study largely captured by the underlying latent factor is significantly larger than
varied in the graphical solutions deployed, in the complexity and that captured by the error components. This was assessed using
length of the configuration process, and also in the size of the both AVE and the Werts, Linn, and Joreskog (WLJ) composite
configuration space. They ranged from shoes configurators, where reliability method [85]. All the WLJ composite reliabilty values
the customer could personalize simple product attributes (such as were greater than 0.70 and all the AVE scores exceeded 0.50,
the colors of various parts of the product) with virtually no indicating that a large amount of the variance is captured by each
constrains, to cars configurators, where the customer had to choose latent construct rather than due to measurement error [84, 86].
among a set of predefined options with complex compatibility rules Finally, we examined the predictive validity of our constructs
among them. Such differences in the selected sales configurators by determining whether they exhibit relationships with other
increased the variance of the sales configurators capabilities constructs in accordance with theory [87]. Our proposed sales
observed in our sample. configurator capabilities are posited to help firms avoid the risk
Each participant was pre-assigned 10 of these Web-based sales that offering more product variety and customization to increase
configurators. We assigned these configurators ensuring variance sales, paradoxically results in a loss of sales. Accordingly, these
in the sales configurators capabilities to which each participant was capabilities are hypothesized to positively influence both choice
exposed. Further, we ensured variance in the involvement of each satisfaction (measured as in [9]) and purchase intention (measured
participant in the products he/she had to configure, avoiding the following [88]). The structural model testing the hypotheses that
assignment of products not of interest to him/her at all. Participants the proposed sales configurator capabilities positively influence
were then asked to configure a product on all these websites, both choice satisfaction and purchase intention, showed a good fit
according to their individual needs, and to fill out a questionnaire to the data: RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.0432 (0.0372; 0.0493), χ2/df
to rate the capabilities of each configurator. (df) = 2.18 (169), CFI=0.993, NFI=0.987. All the path coefficients
are positive and statistically significant, indicating that each of the
five sales configurator capabilities has a significant positive effect
4.3 Instrument validation on both choice satisfaction and purchase intention and thus
establishing the predictive validity of our constructs.
We decided to control for possible effects of participants’
characteristics before assessing the psychometric properties of our
measurement scales. Consequently, consistent with prior studies 5 CONCLUSION
Drawing upon prior research concerning sales configurators and customer perceived value of customization is reinforced by another
the customer decision process, the present paper conceptualizes capability, as our paper suggests.
five capabilities that sales configurators should deploy in order to
help avoid the product variety paradox: namely, focused
navigation, flexible navigation, easy comparison, benefit-cost ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
communication, and user-friendly product-space description We acknowledge the financial support of the University of Padova,
capabilities. Overall, these capabilities support personalization of Project ID CPDA109359.
the sales configuration experience according to each individual
user’s characteristics and context of usage. Benefit-cost
communication capability combined with user-friendly product- APPENDIX A
space description capability supports personalization on the content
Benefit-cost communication capability: (1) Thanks to this system, I
and presentation levels [cf. 89], while focused navigation, flexible
understood how the various choice options influence the value that
navigation, and easy comparison capabilities support
this product has for me. (2)Thanks to this system, I realized the
personalization on the interaction level [cf. 89]. Personalization of
advantages and drawbacks of each of the options I had to choose
the sales configuration experience is essential to build successful
from. (3) This system made me exactly understand what value the
sales configurators, which improve fit between selected product
product I was configuring had for me.
configuration and customer needs while limiting search effort [cf.
Easy comparison capability: (1) The system enables easy
89, 90]. The ultimate goal would be to simulate the adaptive and
comparison of product configurations previously created by the
heuristic behavior that makes salespeople effective and aids in
user. (2) The system lets you easily understand what previously
improving both the shopping experience and the final product
created configurations have in common. (3) The system enables
choice [91, 92].
side-by-side comparison of the details of previously saved
Another contribution of this study is the development and
configurations. (4) The systems lets you easily understand the
validation of an instrument to measure the proposed set of
differences between previously created configurations.
capabilities. The instrument was rigorously tested for content
User-friendly product-space description capability: (1) The
validity, unidimensionality, convergent validity, discriminant
system gives an adequate presentation of the choice options for
validity, predictive validity, and reliability. In particular, we found
when you are in a hurry, as well as when you have enough time to
that each of the proposed capabilities significantly predicts both
go into the details. (2) The product features are adequately
choice satisfaction and purchase intention, in accord with the
presented for the user who just wants to find out about them, as
theoretical argument that these capabilities help avoid the product
well as for the user who wants to go into specific details. (3) The
variety paradox. Admittedly, our large-scale validation study
choice options are adequately presented for both the expert and
involved hypothetical rather than real purchase experiences, only
inexpert user of the product.
focused on sales configurators for consumer goods, and used
Flexible navigation capability: (1) The system enables you to
students as subjects for research. Therefore, future studies should
change some of the choices you have previously made during the
strengthen the proposed instrument through a series of refinements
configuration process without having to start it over again. (2) With
and tests across different populations and settings, including truly
this system, it takes very little effort to modify the choices you
representative samples of potential customers, sales configurators
have previously made during the configuration process. (3) Once
for industrial goods, etc. In business-to-business contexts, for
you have completed the configuration process, this system enables
instance, the set of relevant sales configurator capabilities for
you to quickly change any choice made during that process.
avoiding the product variety paradox should be reconsidered. For
Focused navigation capability: (1) The system made me
technical and complex products, such as machinery, it may happen
immediately understand which way to go to find what I needed. (2)
that all configurator users are experts with deep knowledge of the
The system enabled me to quickly eliminate from further
specific product. In such a context, user-friendly product-space
consideration everything that was not interesting to me at all. (3)
description capability might be less relevant.
The system immediately led me to what was more interesting to
Though conscious that development of a measurement
me. (4) This system quickly leads the user to those solutions that
instrument is an ongoing process [93], we believe our instrument
best meet his/her requirements.
will be a useful diagnostic and benchmarking tool for companies
seeking to assess their sales configurators to identify areas of
improvement in order to ease the customer decision process and to REFERENCES
increase his/her process-related value. This would help companies
reduce the risk of developing high product and processes internal [1] B.J.II Pine, Mass Customization: the New Frontier in Business
Competition, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1993.
competences but still experiencing a loss of sales because
[2] L.F. Scavarda, A.Reichhart, S.Hamacher, and M. Holweg, 'Managing
customers feel confused and overwhelmed by the number of
product variety in emerging markets', International Journal of
product configurations they are offered. Operations & Production Management, 30, 205-224, (2010).
Further, we believe the instrument developed in this paper will [3] M. Bils and P.J. Klenow, ‘'The acceleration in variety growth', The
be of use to researchers not only as a basis for refinement and American Economic Review, 91, 274-280, (2001).
extension, but also directly. Future studies could develop and test [4] S. Kekre and K. Srinivasan, 'Broader product line: a necessity to
hypotheses linking the proposed capabilities to the various achieve success?', Management Science, 36, 1216-1231, (1990).
dimensions of the value of customization that have been discussed [5] J.T. Gourville and D. Soman, 'Overchoice and assortment type: when
in literature [35, 54, 78]. In particular, further research is needed to and why variety backfires', Marketing Science, 24, 382-395, (2005).
empirically investigate complementarities among the proposed [6] C. Huffman and B.E. Kahn, 'Variety for sale: mass customization or
mass confusion?', Journal of Retailing, 74, 491-513, (1998).
capabilities, meaning that the effects of one capability on the
[7] S.S. Iyengar and M.R. Lepper, 'When choice is demotivating: can one modeling for one-of-a-kind production', Computers in Industry, 61,
desire too much of a good thing?', Journal of Personality and Social 270-279, (2010).
Psychology, 79, 995-1006, (2000). [29] J.R. Wright, E.S. Weixelbaum, G.T. Vesonder, K.E. Brown, S.R.
[8] N. Syam, P. Krishnamurthy, and J.D. Hess, 'That's what i thought i Palmer, J.I. Berman, and H.H. Moore, 'A knowledge-based
wanted? Miswanting and regret for a standard good in a mass- configurator that supports sales, engineering, and manufacturing at
customized world', Marketing Science, 27, 379-397, (2008). AT&T network systems', AI Magazine, 14, 69-80, (1993).
[9] A. Valenzuela, R. Dhar, and F. Zettelmeyer, 'Contingent response to [30] L. Hvam, 'Mass customisation in the electronics industry: based on
self-customization procedures: implications for decision satisfaction modular products and product configuration', International Journal
and choice', Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 754-763, (2009). of Mass Customisation, 1, 410-426, (2006).
[10] X. Wan, P.T. Evers, and M.E. Dresner, 'Too much of a good thing: [31] C. Forza and F. Salvador, 'Managing for variety in the order
the impact of product variety on operations and sales performance', acquisition and fulfilment process: the contribution of product
Journal of Operations Management, 30, 316-324, (2012). configuration systems', International Journal of Production
[11] K. Diehl and C. Poynor, 'Great expectations?! Assortment size, Economics, 76, 87-98, (2002).
expectations, and satisfaction', Journal of Marketing Research, 47, [32] C. Forza and F. Salvador, 'Product configuration and inter-firm co-
312-322, (2010). ordination: an innovative solution from a small manufacturing
[12] F. Salvador and C. Forza, 'Principles for efficient and effective sales enterprise', Computers in Industry, 49, 37-46, (2002).
configuration design', International Journal of Mass Customisation, [33] A. Trentin, E. Perin, and C. Forza, 'Overcoming the customization-
2, 114-127, (2007). responsiveness squeeze by using product configurators: beyond
[13] T. Randall, C. Terwiesch, and K.T. Ulrich, 'Principles for user design anecdotal evidence', Computers in Industry, 62, 260-268, (2011).
of customized products', California Management Review, 47, 68-85, [34] A. Trentin, E. Perin, C. Forza, “Organisation design strategies for
(2005). mass customisation: an information-processing-view perspective”,
[14] M. Heiskala, J. Tiihonen, K.-S. Paloheimo, and T. Soininen, Mass International Journal of Production Research, forthcoming.
customization with configurable products and configurators: a [35] N. Franke and M. Schreier, 'Why customers value mass-customized
review of benefits and challenges, 1-32, in: Mass Customization products: the importance of process effort and enjoyment', Journal of
Information Systems in Business, T. Blecker, G. Friedrich (Eds.), IGI Product Innovation Management, 27, 1020-1031, (2010).
Global, London, UK, 2007. [36] G.J. Fitzsimons, 'Consumer response to stockouts', Journal of
[15] C. Forza and F. Salvador, 'Application support to product variety Consumer Research, 27, 249-266, (2000).
management', International Journal of Production Research, 46, [37] N. Novemsky, R. Dhar, N. Schwarz, I. Simonson, 'Preference fluency
817-836, (2008). in choice', Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 347-356, (2007).
[16] A. Haug, L. Hvam, and N.H. Mortensen, 'Definition and evaluation [38] S. Chatterjee and T.B. Haeth, 'Conflict and loss aversion in
of product configurator development strategies', Computers in multiattribute choice: the effects of trade-off size and reference
Industry, (in press). dependence on decision difficulty', Organizational Behavior and
[17] M.M. Tseng and T.F. Piller, The Customer Centric Enterprise: Human Decision Processes, 67, 144-155, (1996).
Advances in Mass Customization and Personalization, Springer [39] N.K. Malhotra, 'Information load and consumer decision making',
Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2003. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 419-430, (1982).
[18] N. Franke and F.T. Piller, 'Key research issues in user interaction [40] M. Zeelemberg, W.W. van Dijk, and A.S.R. Manstead,
with user toolkits in a mass customization system', International 'Reconsidering the relation between regret and responsibility',
Journal of Technology Management, 26, 578-599, (2003). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 254-
[19] J. Vanwelkenhuysen, 'The tender support system', Knowledge-based 272, (1998).
systems, 11, 363-372, (1998). [41] J.W. Payne, J.R. Bettman, and E.J. Johnson, 'Adaptive strategy
[20] L. Hvam, S. Pape, and M.K. Nielsen, 'Improving the quotation selection in decision making', Journal of Experimental Psychology:
process with product configuration', Computers in Industry, 57, 607- Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 534-552, (1988).
621, (2006). [42] J.R. Bettman, M.F. Luce, and J.W. Payne, 'Constructive consumer
[21] C. Forza and F. Salvador, Product Information Management for choice processes', Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187-217,
Mass Customization, Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK, 2007. (1998).
[22] S.M. Fohn, J.S. Liau, A.R. Greef, R.E. Young, and P.J. O'Grady, [43] I. Simonson, 'Determinants of customers' responses to customized
'Configuring computer systems through constraint-based modeling offers: conceptual framework and research propositions', Journal of
and interactive constraint satisfaction', Computers in Industry, 27, 3- Marketing, 69, 32-45, (2005).
21, (1995). [44] I. Simonson, 'Regarding inherent preferences', Journal of Consumer
[23] T. Soininen, J. Tiihonen, T. Männistö, R. Sulonen 'Towards a general Psychology, 18, 191-196, (2008).
ontology of configuration', Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, [45] M. Zeelemberg, 'Anticipated regret, expected feedback and
Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 12, 357-372, (1998). behavioral decision making', Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
[24] A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, and D. Jannach, 'Conceptual modeling for 12, 93-106, (1999).
configuration of mass-customizable products', Artificial Intelligence [46] R. Dhar, 'Consumer preference for a no-choice option', Journal of
in Engineering, 15, 165-176, (2001). Consumer Research, 24, 215-231, (1997).
[25] S.K. Ong, Q. Lin, and A.Y.C. Nee, 'Web-based configuration design [47] F. Salvador, C. Forza, and M. Rungtusanatham, 'Modularity, product
system for product customization', International Journal of variety, production volume, and component sourcing: theorizing
Production Research, 44, 351-382, (2006). beyond generic prescriptions', Journal of Operations Management,
[26] X. Luo, Y. Tu, J. Tang, and C.K. Kwong, 'Optimizing customer's 20, 549-575, (2002).
selection for configurable product in B2C e-commerce application', [48] K. Ulrich, 'The role of product architecture in the manufacturing
Computers in Industry, 59, 767-776, (2008). firm', Research Policy, 24, 419-440, (1995).
[27] P.T. Helo, Q.L. Xu, S.J. Kyllönen, and R.J. Jiao, 'Integrated vehicle [49] M.F. Luce, 'Choosing to avoid: coping with negatively emotion-laden
configuration system-Connecting the domains of mass consumer decisions', Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 409-433,
customization', Computers in Industry, 61, 44-52, (2010). (1998).
[28] G. Hong, D. Xue, and Y. Tu, 'Rapid identification of the optimal [50] J. Nasiry and I. Popescu, 'Advance selling when consumers regret',
product configuration and its parameters based on customer-centric Management Science, (in press).
[51] A. De Bruyn, J.C. Liechty, E.K.R.E. Huizingh, and G.L. Lilien, [73] F.J. Fowler, Survey Research Methods, Sage Publications, Newbury
'Offering onlinerecommendations with minimum customer input Park, CA, 1993.
through conjoint-based decision aids', Marketing Science, 27, 443- [74] H.W. Marsh, 'Positive and negative global self-esteem: a
460, (2008). substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors?' Journal of
[52] S. Spiekermann and C. Parashiv, 'Motivating human-agent Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 810-819, (1996).
interaction: transferring insights from behavioral marketing to [75] J.K. Stratman and A.V. Roth, 'Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
interface design', Electronic Commerce Research, 2, 255-285, competence constructs: two-stage multi-item scale development and
(2002). validation', Decision Sciences, 33, 601-628, (2002).
[53] A.G. Sutcliffe, S. Kurniawan, and J.-E. Shin, 'A method and advisor [76] A. Parmigiani and J. Howard-Grenville, 'Routines revisited:
tool for multimedia user interface design', International Journal of exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives', The Academy of
Human-Computer Studies, 64, 375-392, (2006). Management Annals, 5, 413-453, (2011).
[54] A. Merle, J.-L. Chandon, E. Roux, and F. Alizon, 'Perceived value of [77] L. D'Adderio, 'Configuring software, reconfiguring memories: the
the mass-customized product and mass customization experience for influence of integrated systems on the reproduction of knowledge and
individual consumers', Production and Operations Management, 19, routines', Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 321-350, (2003).
503-514, (2010). [78] N. Franke and M. Schreier, 'Product uniqueness as a driver of
[55] V. Zeithaml, 'Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a customer utility in mass customization', Marketing Letters, 19, 93-
means-end model and synthesis of evidence', Journal of Marketing, 107, (2008).
52, 2-22, (1988). [79] G.J. Liu, R. Shah, and R.G. Schroeder, 'Linking work design to mass
[56] E. von Hippel, 'PERSPECTIVE: User toolkits for innovation', customization: a sociotechnical systems perspective', Decision
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 247-257, (2001). Sciences, 37, 519-545, (2006).
[57] E. von Hippel and R. Katz, 'Shifting innovation to users via toolkits', [80] D.W. Gerbing and J.C. Anderson, 'An updated paradigm for scale
Management Science, 48, 821-833, (2002). development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment',
[58] B.G.C. Dellaert and S. Stremersch, 'Marketing mass-customized Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186-192, (1988).
products: striking a balance between utility and complexity', Journal [81] J.C. Anderson and D.W. Gerbing, 'Structural equation modeling in
of Marketing Research, 42, 219-227, (2005). practice: a review and recommended two-step approach',
[59] B. Yu and J. Skovgaard, 'A configuration tool to increase product Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423, (1988).
competitiveness', IEEE Intelligent Systems, 13, 34-41, (1998). [82] L. Menor and A.V. Roth, 'New service development competence in
[60] I. Simonson and A. Tversky, 'Choice in contexts: tradeoff contrasts retail banking: Construct development and measurement validation',
and extremeness aversion', Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281- Journal of Operations Management, 25, 825–846, (2007).
295, (1992). [83] J.F.J. Hair, R.E. Anderson, and R.L. Tatham, Multivariate Data
[61] A. Kobsa, J. Koenemann, and W. Pohl, 'Personalised hypermedia Analysis, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1992.
presentation techniques for improving online customer relationships', [84] C. Fornell and D.F. Larcker, 'Evaluating structural equation models
The Knowledge Engineering Review, 16, 111-155, (2001). with unobservable variables and measurement error', Journal of
[62] J.L. Zaichkowsky, 'Measuring the involvement construct', Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50, (1981).
Consumer Research, 12, 341-352, (1985). [85] C.E. Werts, R.L. Linn, and K.G. Jöreskog, 'Intraclass reliability
[63] Z. Jiang, W. Wang, and I. Benbasat, 'Multimedia-based interactive estimates: testing structural assumptions', Educational &
advising technology for online consumer decision support', Psychological Measurement, 34, 25-33, (1974).
Communications of the ACM, 48, 93-98, (2005). [86] S.W. O'Leary-Kelly and R. J. Vokurka, 'The empirical assessment of
[64] T. Randall, C. Terwiesch, and K.T. Ulrich, 'Principles for user design construct validity', Journal of Operations Management, 16, 387-405,
of customized products', California Management Review, 47, 68-85, (1998).
(2005). [87] S. Li, S.S. Rao, T.S. Ragu-Nathan, and B. Ragu-Nathan,
[65] J.H. Gerlach and F.-Y. Kuo, 'Understanding human-computer 'Development and validation of a measurement instrument for
interaction for information systems design', MIS Quarterly, 15, 527- studying supply chain management practices', Journal of Operations
549, (1991). Management, 23, 618-641, (2005).
[66] L.M. Reeves, J.Lai, J.A.Larson, S.Oviatt, T.S. Balaji, S. Buisine, P. [88] A.E. Schlosser, T.B. White, and S.M. Lloyd, 'Converting Web site
Collings, P. Cohen, B. Kraal, J.-C. Martin, M. McTear, T. Raman, visitors into buyers: how Web site investment increases consumer
K.M. Stanney, H. Su, and Q.-Y. Wang, 'Guidelines for multimodal trusting beliefs and online purchase intentions', Journal of Marketing,
user interface design', Communications of the ACM, 47, 57-59, 70, 133-148, (2006).
(2004). [89] G. Kreutler and D. Jannach, Personalized needs acquisition in Web-
[67] K. Stanney, S. Samman, L. Reeves, K. Hale, W. Buff, C. Bowers, B. based configuration systems, 293-302, in: Mass Customization,
Goldiez, D. Nicholson, and S. Lackey, 'A paradigm shift in Concepts - Tools - Realization, Proceedings of the International Mass
interactive computing: deriving multimodal design principles from Customization Meeting 2005 (IMCM'05), T. Blecker, G. Friedrich
behavioral and neurological foundations', International Journal of (Eds.), GITO-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2005.
Human-Computer Interaction, 17, 229-257, (2004). [90] D. Jannach, A. Felfernig, G. Kreutler, M. Zanker, and G. Friedrich,
[68] A. Ansari and C.F. Mela, 'E-customization', Journal of Marketing Research issues in knowledge-based configuration, 221-236, in:
Research, 40, 131-145, (2003). Mass customization information systems in business, T. Blecker, G.
[69] T.-P. Liang, H.-J. Lai, and Y.-C. Ku, 'Personalized content Friedrich (Eds.), IGI Global, London, UK, 2007.
recommendation and user satisfaction: theoretical synthesis and [91] D. Jannach and G. Kreutler, 'Rapid development of knowledge-based
empirical findings', Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, conversational recommender applications with advisor suite', Journal
45-70, (2006-7). of Web Engineering, 6, 165-192, (2007).
[70] H. Berghel, 'Cyberspace 2000: Dealing with information overload', [92] A.V. Lukas, G. Lukas, D.L. Klencke, and C. Nass, System and
Communications of the ACM, 40, 19–24, (1997). method for optimizing a product configuration, Patent Number US
[71] T. Randall, C. Terwiesch, and K.T. Ulrich, 'User design of 7,505,921 B1, Finali Corporation, Westminster, CO (US), US, 2009.
customized products', Marketing Science, 26, 268-280, (2007). [93] R.L. Hensley, 'A review of operations management studies using
[72] S. W. O'Leary-Kelly, J. R. Vokurka, “The empirical assessment of scale development techniques', Journal of Operations Management,
construct validity”, Journal of Operations Management, 16, 387-405, 17, 343-358, (1999).
(1998).