Global Power Tool Brand

Designing a digital mass customization product from the ground up.

 
 
 
 

One of the world’s leading power tool brands was in search of an innovative mass customization product that could serve as the launch pad for a full consumer e-commerce offering.

 

Role

UX Lead

Activities

In-depth interviews - quantitative surveys - user personas - user journey maps - information architecture - wireframes - moderated usability testing

 
 

The Challenge

We were tasked with designing and developing a workable prototype for this new product, as well as crafting a strategic test plan to gauge consumer sentiment and serve as proof of concept verification.

The Process

 

Understanding the why

Uncovering company-wide goals was imperative in guiding us towards productive creative brainstorming in the product concept ideation phase. We knew the overarching goal of the project was to come up with a product that could serve as a the launch pad for the company’s emergence into e-commerce. In addition, the outcome would need to:

  • Reach new customers


  • Add value for existing customers


  • Change perception of the brand

Ideating the what

We came up with a few different directions that we thought could fit the bill of achieving these goals:

  • New co-branded tool via a high-profile partnership (i.e. ‘Yeezy drills’)

  • Modernized ‘legacy product’ that would incite nostalgia

  • Product configurator that would allow users to customize their own tool

  • Culturally relevant limited edition tool that would serve as a must-have collectable.

Given the tie to e-commerce, we set our sights on the product configurator that would inherently have synergy with an equally digital e-commerce user experience. We knew with this idea, new customers would be reached, as it wouldn’t just be avid tool users who would find value in it. We also knew it had the potential to change the perception of the brand from classic and traditional to cutting edge and modern.

 

Defining the who

We conducted in-depth interviews with internal stakeholders and held many team brainstorming sessions to understand existing audiences and which prospective new audiences could be reached with our product configurator. The result? Our two personas:

  • Chris: ‘the gifter,’ who would use the configurator to solve the quandary of what to get his dad for Father’s Day. 


  • Lisa: ‘the avid tool user,’ who would use it to overcome the incessant problem of accidental theft on her work sites from all tools looking the same. 


Before we moved forward with prototype development, it was first imperative to validate these audiences as well as their sentiment towards our product idea.

 
 
 
 
 

Exploring the when & where

Once we had our personas in place, it was time to determine the context in which they would be using our product. Where would they be using it? Would they be able to customize their tool from start to finish in one sitting, or would they need the ability to save and come back to it? What customization options would be most prudent for their situations? These questions helped us develop user journey maps that tracked the activities required in achieving their respective goals, how each persona would feel about those activities, and what features would be required given these actions and emotions. This exercise helped us account for important features like:

  • Live chat to answer questions about both the configurator and, in Chris’ case of being less familiar with tools, the physical products themselves.

  • The option to customize from scratch, or, for those without an eye for design, like Chris, start from ‘inspiration.’

  • The option to share the design at any point, so people like Lisa, can get second opinions on her design before she purchases.

  • Triggered emails reminding users where they left off, for people like Chris who had to leave the experience mid-way through to attend to something else.

 
 
 
 
 

Validating the who, what, when & where

In order to validate our proposed personas and ensure our product idea had legs, we developed a largely quantitative survey sent to over 200 respondents. We asked our respondents a number of questions regarding their demographics and information around their use of tools. We also provided them with the following description of our product concept to gauge their sentient of the idea:

An online experience whereby users can fully customize and purchase any tool of their choice under of the global company’s tools and storage brands. Customization features include color/pattern, engravement, a custom carrying case and the choice to include accessories with the purchase. 

Ultimately, we found that:

  • Amongst avid tool users (those who responded that they use tools in their profession and who do most of their shopping online), 49% were likely to purchase a customize tool. They felt it would be a great way to prevent their tools from being misplaced or stolen. They were particularly interested in adding customized accessories, changing product specs and engraving their tools.

  • Amongst gifters (people of all ages and demographics who do most of their shopping online), 39% were likely to purchase a customized tool. They felt it would be a great gift and were particularly interested in changing product specs, the grip’s texture and adding customized accessories.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Designing the experience through information architecture & wireframing

We had our personas and user flows in place, with hard data to back our assumptions. We also coordinated with the business to learn the actual products they were interested in featuring in our configurator flow. It was now time to develop the organization of our information and wireframe storyboards.

We came up with the name ‘Workshop’ for our digital product experience. It was a double entendre - a word used by avid tool users to describe the space in which they use their tools, and now a digital space where users can actually make their tools.

Our flow was as follows:

  • Workshop homepage: Presents users with all customizable tool categories – as well as interactive examples of how customizations could look.

  • Tool category page: Presents users with all models within the chosen tool category that can be customized. This page features a simple set of filter options with information around model names and base prices.

  • Tool profile page: Presents more information on the chosen model to inspire confidence in the decision, as well as options to customize from scratch or start from an ‘inspiration’ option.

  • The configurator: Features customization options including color, pattern, and engraving and allows users to interact with the tool itself - spin it around, zoom in, etc., and view the price as it updates based on chosen customization options.

  • Storage: Features customization options including storage bag material, embroidery options, and the option to match the bag’s design to the customized tool.

  • Add-ons: Features tools that are often purchased in conjunction with the customized tool, and the option to match their design to that of the customized tool.

  • Check-out: Showcases images of customized tools with the option to zoom in to get a better look at the final products, go back and edit them, and indicate that they are a gift.

 
 
 
 
 

Testing for usability & product sentiment

After our brilliant design team brought our product to life with colors, patterns, typography, depth, and 3D product renders, it was time to test. In our case, this was more than just usability testing. It was both that and in-depth interviews that would serve as another round of proof of concept validation. We conducted 33 remote, moderated interviews, half with users aligned with our ‘avid tool user’ persona, and half with our ‘gifter’ persona. We presented our prototype to each chosen participant and prompted them to move through the full process of customizing a drill. We paused in between tasks to ask them questions regarding their thoughts and preferences. Questions covered everything from basic usability to sentiment around customization choices and pricing.  Important takeaways included:

  • The majority of respondents wanted more engraving options ( the ability to change font size, style, and color, and to engrave in multiple places).

  • Many respondents experienced confusion in our color / pattern picker, including not realizing they needed to scroll to see more colors, not understanding what “classic” meant as our base color, finding it odd that ‘color’ used as an overarching name for both colors and patterns, and not being familiar with how to interact with a color wheel.

  • Many respondents wanted to see more sharing options including share to text, share to email, and share to other messaging platforms (i.e. Whatsapp).

 

The Outcome

Our final test results showed that 88% of Avid Tool Users and 82% of Gifters would be likely to purchase a customized tool if one were available. Testing results were presented to the company’s executive team and the decision was made to move forward with additional testing and iteration in preparation for product launch.

*With a small team on the job and limited resources, I decided to learn Adobe Premiere and splice together this sizzle reel. It was the single most persuasive tool in selling in the positive sentiment built around the product to our brand team.

 

Learnings & improvements for next time

  1. Our quantitative surveys were LONG. Much longer than best practice. Next time I would consolidate/eliminate questions or break surveys into two.

  2. Our quantitative surveys contained a handful of qualitative questions which made raw data difficult to parse through and accurately analyze. Next time I would conduct separate in-depth interviews from fewer respondents to gather this qualitative data.

  3. User testing was a combination of usability testing and in-depth interviews. Next time, I would at least break testing into two parts to handle these testing methods separately, vs. weaving qualitative interview questions throughout usability tasks.

  4. I would have wanted to explore one or two more options for how to present color / pattern options and conduct preference testing. In looking at aspirational configurator examples, this is an area that has been handled in a variety of different ways. It was also an area that presented some confusion during usability testing. It would have been great to put forth different options at the start vs. go down a road with just one that’s harder to change later.

Next
Next

University of Illinois