To answer the research question
“How to build up product readiness through validation testing?”
The author suggests to understand the suggested path and relationship between the key operation parameters as shown below.
Figure 3-1Relationship between the keywords in product readiness through validation testing. Literature suggests the process can get key insights about who the buyer/users are, how do them use/like your product, and identify top opportunities to improve.
Source: From this study.
The figure illustrates the initial part of the product-market vision and how it goes into the Lean Startup build-measure-learn iteration process (The circle in
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page | 28
Figure 3-1). Through validation testing better defined product could be constructed for the next iteration cycle. The author suggests that, this could yield a higher product readiness.
According to the author, the primary objective of activities for Voltset startup is to gain insights and increase product readiness in multiple discipline for the user, the market, and the product.
Cases would be presented in a chronological order with a focus on the ‘before and after’
condition respect to three major aspects. This research would be reflecting the case with the framework below to see how the product validation process was done and if the process increased product readiness with evidence. Stakeholder background/preference, product
specification, and engineering readiness were the three criteria selected to evaluate for each case due to the following reason:
Stakeholder background/ preference: It is suggested by Jelly 1997 that, different types of stakeholders needs to be identified and satisfied at different stages of commercializing new technology. Thus the author suggest to identify the stakeholders in the beginning and in the end of each case of the development of Voltset.
Product specification: McCarthy suggested the 4P theory: product, place, price and promotion in his book Basic Marketing: A managerial approach. (McCarthy E. J., 1978).
The author of this study suggests finding out more information related to each category
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page | 29
would increase the overall product readiness. For instance, learning more about what should the product do for its stakeholder would help defining engineering design specification; finding out the market acceptable price range can directly impact on the engineering design thus effect the best suitable product quality and performance. So product specification is selected as one of the factors to compare between cases.
Engineering readiness: For Voltset startup, a product needs to be constructed from
hardware and software point of view to deliver to its stakeholders in some cases. Thus the author suggests to consider engineering readiness as one of the three factors.
Figure 3-2 Case initial and ending criteria. Focused on: Stakeholder background/preference. Product specification. Engineering readiness. Source: From this study.
3.4 Autoethnography
Autoethnography is a new avant-garde qualitative research method that challenges conventional writing and is becoming more established as a social research method owing to the fact it continues to emerge and evolve in new ways (Wall, 2014). The term has been in use for 35 years, and was first introduced by David Hayano (Sarah, 2006).
According to Andrew Sparks, Autoethnographies “are highly personalized accounts that draw upon the experience of the author/researcher for the purposes of extending sociological understanding”. In essence first hand personal experiences that have the ability to connect culturally and sociologically (Sparkes, 2013).
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page | 30
The method provides a wide range of possibilities. Stems from the possibilities inherent in personal research methods, in essence is an ideal qualitative method to accommodate the
interface of author’s first-hand experience vis-à-vis the theory and practice disciplines in order to compare, contrast and draw conclusions (Wall, 2014).
Autoethnography is also known as and interchangeable with terms “personal narrative”, “critical autobiography” “evocative narrative”, reflexive ethnography, ethnographic autobiography, autobiographical ethnography, personal sociology, and auto-anthropology basically it’s the same work done under different labels although Autoethnography remains the predominantly used term (Ellis & Arthur , 2000).
The underlying values of Autoethnography emerge from post-modern thinking that challenges convention and tradition and positivist ideas in scientific inquiry and it is based on the premise that “Many ways of knowing and inquiring are legitimate and no one way should be privileged”
It is not meant to be a critique or dismissal of convention but a challenge to it that there is room for other ways of knowing and inquiring about things and these more critical alternative ways of knowing and inquiring are ways that are very helpful and supporting work that is normative, emancipatory, transformative in intentions behind knowledge production. Gives voice to those with unique experiences that allow them to contribute to discussions on topics from a
considerably unique perspective of sociological interest, and challenges the traditionalist
“author-evacuated texts”. (Wall, 2014)
A variety of data sources can be used in Autoethnography, essentially the first-hand experiences to collect and understand insights for qualitative analysis, these can be and are not limited to;
Photographs, videos and artwork, artifacts, writing- Journals or diaries kept over time, self-observational data, social maps that layout your position and others position in your social location and relationship within these realms, official documents, interviews with actors or participants related with the journey. This is not necessarily an exhaustive list, more types of sources can be used as long as that data source provides answers to the inquiry, then it is a legitimate source of data in Autoethnography (Wall, 2014).
‧
Page | 31
Data analysis in autoethnography can involve; creating a timeline of events connecting the present with the past and participants, identifying exceptional occurrences, contextualizing broadly and connecting them with academic theories, analyzing relationships between self and others, analyzing inclusion and omission, comparing relevant cases etc. (Chang, 2008).
Autoethnographers can vary in their emphasis on auto-(self), -ethno- (the cultural link), and- graphy (the application of a research process) depending on the context, autoethnographers can emphasize one of these over the other, can also balance all three of them or choose two of them that are important, however autoethnographers decide to emphasize different aspects of the possibilities, it can lead to different kinds of auto ethnographic texts where the word text can be interpreted very broadly. (Reed-Danahay, 1997)
Autoethnographic work is characterized most broadly into two categories (Wall, 2014) :-
● Evocative: Creative, narrative, confessional , therapeutic , unconventional sharing the experience
● Analytic: much more conventional, descriptive, interpretive has a more realistic tone
“accurate” in terms of presenting the facts and findings of the study and academic approach in a more traditional manner.
Although it is important to note that in a lot of cases the work can fall in between the two, due to the very nature of Autoethnography(Wall, 2014). Ultimately as a relatively young and non-traditional qualitative research method, it’s still a bit controversial in the eyes of some critics, while at the same time gaining traction as its proponents argue that the voice of an insider, the person with the experience can really have the true and authentic voice and they can speak on events and relationships in a way that just tells it potentially more factually and accurately than if it is inferred from other sources and should not be judged according to traditional criteria but rather the literary and information criteria and eventually it is the reader that determines the value of the information and if it is useful in terms of the context of analysis (Wall, 2014).
‧
Page | 32