Computers in Industry 65 (2014) 693–705

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Industry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compind

Increasing the consumer-perceived benefits of a mass-customization

experience through sales-configurator capabilities
Alessio Trentin a,*, Elisa Perin b, Cipriano Forza a
a
Università di Padova, Dipartimento di Tecnica e Gestione dei sistemi ind.li, Stradella S. Nicola 3, 36100 Vicenza, Italy
b
PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory SpA, Via Vicenza 4, 35138 Padova, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The consumer’s experience of self-customizing a product with a sales configurator can be a source of
Received 4 September 2013 experience-related benefits for the consumer, above and beyond the traditionally considered utility of
Received in revised form 27 November 2013 possessing a product that better fits his/her idiosyncratic needs. Although such experience-related
Accepted 6 February 2014
benefits have been found by previous studies as increasing consumers’ willingness to pay for mass-
Available online 2 March 2014
customized products, research on what characteristics sales configurators should have to increase such
benefits is still in its infancy. In this paper, we argue that two such benefits (i.e., hedonic and creative-
Keywords:
achievement benefits) increase as a sales configurator deploys, to a greater extent, the following
Mass customization toolkits
capabilities: focused navigation, flexible navigation, user-friendly product space description, easy
Product configuration
Product self-customization comparison and benefit-cost communication. Subsequently, by analyzing 675 self-customization
Consumer value experiences made by 75 engineering students on 30 real Web-based configurators of consumer goods,
we find empirical support for all the hypothesized relationships. We conclude discussing the
contribution of the study to relevant debates, its managerial implications as well as its limitations and
the related opportunities for further research.
ß 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction customers’ needs diverge, as well as the different levels required by

Due to increasingly sophisticated customers and, at the same
time, intensifying competition, companies are paying a growing
attention to mass customization [1,2], with many successful
implementation cases reported in literature [3]. While more
‘‘visionary’’ definitions of mass customization have appeared in
literature since the term was coined in the late 1980s [3,4], the
concept is commonly defined as the dual ability (i) to provide
products and services with enough variety and customization that
nearly every customer finds exactly what he/she wants and, at the
same time, (ii) to avoid substantial trade-offs in cost, delivery and
quality [1,5–7]. In this more ‘‘practical’’ view of mass customiza-
tion [3,4], some compromise, limitations and constraints are
inevitable if product customization is to be combined with the
operational-performance advantages of mass production [8].
Rather than by the use of a particular technology or product mix,
mass customization ‘‘is characterized by focus on customer needs’’
([3], p. 16). First, a manufacturer pursuing mass customization
needs to understand the product attributes along which its target
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0444 998742; fax: +39 0444 998884.
E-mail addresses: alessio.trentin@unipd.it (A. Trentin), elisaperin85@gmail.com
(E. Perin), cipriano.forza@unipd.it (C. Forza).
its target market for each of those attributes and the corresponding
market potentials [3,4,9]. Subsequently, the manufacturer needs to
define the attribute levels it is willing to offer and needs to present
them to its potential customers [3,4,9]. Finally, it needs to collect
each customer’s choices and translate them into manufacturing
instructions [3,4,9]. All these activities necessitate intense custom-
er–manufacturer interaction [3] and, in this interaction, an
increasingly important role is played by sales configurators [3].
Sales configurators are software applications that support custo-
mers, or salespeople interacting with customers, in completely
and correctly specifying a product solution within a company’s
product offer [9,10]. In particular, with the advent of the Internet,
many companies pursuing mass customization have started to
use Web-based sales configurators that enable customers to self-
customize their own product solutions online [3,11]. The tight
linkage existing between mass customization and sales config-
urators is further evidenced by the fact that the customer’s
experience of self-customizing a product with a sales configurator
has been referred to by Merle et al. [12] as mass-customization
experience.
From the manufacturer’s perspective, the value of mass
customization depends on various factors, including the maximum
price that potential customers are willing to pay for mass-
customized products [3,13,14]. In turn, willingness to pay [15] for

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2014.02.004
0166-3615/ß 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
694 A. Trentin et al. / Computers in Industry 65 (2014) 693–705
mass-customized products depends on the value implications of
mass customization to individual customers [14]. While the earlier
literature emphasized the utilitarian benefit of possessing a
product that better fits one’s idiosyncratic needs, the recent
literature has developed more sophisticated knowledge of the
value implications of mass customization to individual customers
[3]. In particular, it has recently been acknowledged that, in
addition to the benefits deriving from the possession of a mass-
customized product, a consumer can also enjoy benefits resulting
from the experience of self-customizing such a product with a sales
configurator [12,16]. Increasing the benefits deriving from a mass-
customization experience is, therefore, one key in augmenting the
consumer’s willingness to pay and, ultimately, the value of mass
customization on the manufacturer’s side. Limited research,
however, has been devoted to the question of how sales
configurators should be designed to increase the consumer-
perceived benefits of mass-customization experiences [11,14,17].
The present paper aims to narrow this research gap by
considering two mass-customization experience-related benefits
that are grounded in consumer research: namely, hedonic and
creative-achievement benefits. Consistent with the theoretical
grounding of these constructs, we pursue the objective of the paper
with a focus on consumer goods. First, we develop hypotheses
concerning how hedonic and creative-achievement benefits are
influenced by five sales-configurator capabilities that have
recently been defined in literature: namely, focused navigation,
flexible navigation, user-friendly product space description, easy
comparison and benefit-cost communication. Subsequently, we
test the hypothesized positive relationships and find empirical
support for all of them by analyzing 675 mass-customization
experiences made by 75 engineering students on 30 real Web-
based configurators of consumer goods.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
reviews the relevant literature. Section 3 develops the research
hypotheses. Sections 4 and 5, respectively, present the method and
results of the hypothesis-testing portion of the study. Section 6,
finally, discusses the theoretical and managerial implications of
the present work as well as its limitations and associated directions
for future research.
2. Literature review
2.1. Sales configurators
Since the 1980s, an increasing number of studies have dealt
with sales configurators, also known in literature by other terms
[11,18], such as choice boards/menus [19,20], user toolkits for
innovation and design [21,22] and mass customization toolkits
[11], to name but a few. Based on previous research [9,10,23], we
define sales configurators as knowledge-based software applica-
tions that support a potential customer, or a sales-person
interacting with the customer, in completely and correctly
specifying a product solution within a company’s product offer.
A fundamental function of a sales configurator is to present the
options that are available within a company’s product offer [18,19],
also known as product space [24] or solution space [25]. Usually,
the product space modeled within a sales configurator is fully
predefined, but sales configurators can also be adopted for
products that still involve some custom design [10]. In addition
to presenting a company’s product space, a sales configurator lets
the user browse that space and specify, within it, the solution that
is most appropriate to the customer’s needs [9,19]. At the same
time, the sales configurator ensures that the solution specified by
the user is complete (i.e., all the necessary product features have
been specified) and valid (i.e., no unfeasible or inconsistent product
features have been specified) [9,10,18]. To help identify the
solution that best fits the customer’s needs, the sales configurator
can also provide the user with real-time feedback about the
specified solution [18], such as drawings, photos, animation or
other simulations of the real product on a computer, price
information, and delivery terms [18,26,27]. Sales configurators
are not necessarily stand-alone software applications, but may be
modules of other applications, usually called product configura-
tors, which are increasingly offered nowadays as an add-on to
enterprise resource planning systems [28]. Product configurators
support not only the creation of sales specifications, but also the
creation of technical specifications, such as bills of materials,
production sequences or technical drawings, which are necessary
to build the product solution requested by a customer [10,29].
Indeed, the integration of all configuration activities, from sales
specification up to production and outbound logistics, has recently
been advocated as one key in achieving mass customization, and
enabling approaches, models and tools have accordingly been
proposed [30–32].
Many available studies in literature provide insight into
relevant technical or application development issues for sales
configurators (e.g., [30,33–42]). At the same time, numerous
studies also shed light on the benefits and challenges of
implementing and using sales configurators (e.g., [23,43–51]). A
review of the results of these studies is beyond the scope of the
present paper and we refer the interested reader to Heiskala et al.
[10] and Falkner et al. [52] for further information.
More relevant to the present paper is the review of another,
relatively less-developed research stream [10,14,53,54], which
addresses the question of how sales configurators should be
designed to increase their benefits and overcome or alleviate the
related challenges. A number of empirically tested recommenda-
tions come from experimental studies focusing on one or a limited
number of sales-configurator characteristics. Huffman and Kahn
[55], Kamis et al. [17] and Valenzuela et al. [54] recommend an
attribute-based, rather than alternative-based, presentation of a
company’s product space. This means that customers should be
asked what level they prefer within each attribute of the product,
rather than having to choose among fully specified product
alternatives. This recommendation particularly applies to the cases
in which the number of product alternatives is high [17], provided
that trade-offs among attractive attributes are not made explicitly
known [54,55]. Randall et al. [56] suggest that the product
attributes presented to a potential customer should be product
functions and product performance characteristics if the customer
is inexperienced with the product, whereas they should be design
parameters, such as specifications of product components, if the
customer is an expert. Dellaert and Stremersch [57] recommend
pricing at full-configuration level, rather than at the level of
individual options. Chang and Chen [58] suggest that, depending
on the type of product (search products vs. experience products),
potential customers should be given different types of pre-
purchase information (intrinsic cues reflecting objective charac-
teristics of the product vs. extrinsic cues such as expert reviews
and word of mouth). Chang et al. [59], finally, recommend that
potential customers should be provided with examples of
configured products, in order to offer guidance about what to
do. At the same time, such examples should be realistically
achievable and not exceed the customers’ abilities of performing
the self-customization task [59].
A broader set of recommendations comes from a few conceptual
papers [21,26,60–63], including tailoring the mass-customization
experience according to the customer’s expertise with the product,
providing an initial configuration that the customer can subse-
quently alter, and communicating the benefits and costs of the
configuration choices made by the customer. To advance theory
testing on the effectiveness of these recommendations, Trentin et al.
 A. Trentin et al. / Computers in Industry 65 (2014) 693–705
[64] conceptualize five sales-configurator capabilities rooted in
many of these recommendations and develop and validate multi-
item measurement scales for such capabilities. Finally, a few
empirical studies, though not addressing the question of how sales
configurators should be designed, nonetheless offer relevant
suggestions in the form of managerial implications and/or further
research directions [11,14,65–67]. For example, Moreau et al. [66]
suggest that a mass-customization experience should be tailored to
the purpose of the customer’s visit: namely, purchase for others vs.
purchase for oneself.
Underlying most of the above-mentioned recommendations is
one or both of the following objectives [11,64]: (i) increasing
the perceived preference fit of the configured product, that is the
customer’s subjective evaluation of the extent to which the
configured product fits his/her needs and (ii) alleviating
the difficulty experienced by the customer in self-customizing a
product and making a purchase decision, including both compu-
tational and non-computational sources of decision difficulty [68].
Most of these studies, in other terms, focus on the customer’s
benefit of possessing a product that better fits his/her idiosyncratic
needs and on the customer’s costs represented both by the time
and cognitive effort invested in the mass-customization experi-
ence and by any negative emotions elicited by such an experience.
This means that the mass-customization experience is often
implicitly regarded merely as a source of costs for the customer (in
terms of time spent, cognitive effort required and possible
unpleasant emotional outcomes), which negatively impact his/
her willingness to use a sales configurator as well as the likelihood
that he/she completes the self-customization task and makes a
purchase [11]. The mass-customization experience, however, can
also be a source of benefits for the customer, above and beyond
those deriving from the possession of a mass-customized product,
as discussed at length in the following subsection. How to design
sales configurators to increase such benefits is therefore a question
that deserves additional research, as previously pointed out by
Kamis et al. [17], Franke and Schreier [14] and Franke et al. [11].
2.2. Consumer perceived benefits of a mass-customization experience
Previous mass-customization research (e.g., [11,12,14,16]) has
identified two benefits that a consumer can derive not from the
possession of a mass-customized product, but from the experience
of self-customizing such a product using a sales configurator.
Based on that research stream, we respectively refer to these two
potential benefits of a mass-customization experience as creative-
achievement benefit and hedonic benefit.
Creative-achievement benefit derives from the capacity of the
mass-customization experience to arouse pride of authorship [16].
In general, pride is a positive emotion of self-reward that follows
the assessment of one’s competences in a situation that is, in some
measure, challenging [69–71], such as an exam or climbing a
mountain. Pride of authorship, in particular, is the feeling of pride
that an individual experiences whenever he/she creates, or at least
has a sense of being the creator of an artifact that constitutes
positive feedback on his/her own competences [16]. This definition
implies that two conditions must be satisfied in order for an
individual to feel pride of authorship. First, the individual must
have perceived some degree of control over the characteristics of
an artifact, thus experiencing the artifact as an extension of oneself.
This condition clearly includes building something with one’s own
hands, but may also mean selecting the features of a product or
coming up with new product feature combinations using a sales
configurator [11,16,21,65]. When self-customizing a product, the
individual invests personal effort, time and attention in defining
the characteristics of the product and, hence, psychic energy is
transferred from the self to the product [16,72,73]. As a result, the
695
product is regarded as part of oneself and is incorporated into the
extended self [16,73,74]. Franke et al.’s [11] empirical study
supports the idea that the experience of self-customizing a product
with a sales configurator, despite the relatively limited investment
involved, gives the configurator user a sense of being the creator of
the configured product. This is insufficient, however, to arouse
pride of authorship. The second condition for the existence of pride
of authorship is that the artifact an individual has created in some
measure, elicits positive feedback on his/her competences.
Otherwise, the artifact could, rather, give a negative feeling of
incompetence and the impression of having wasted time and effort
[75,76]. This latter condition implies that, for a mass-customiza-
tion experience to yield creative-achievement benefit, the sales
configurator user must perceive the configured product as fitting,
at least to some degree, his/her requirements [11]. To stress that
the creative-achievement benefit derives not only from the ability
of the mass-customization experience to give a potential customer
a sense of being the creator of the configured product, but also from
the perceived preference fit of the product, this experiential benefit
is characterized as being ‘‘output-oriented’’ [16], where the term
‘‘output’’ refers to the configured product.
Unlike creative-achievement benefit, hedonic benefit stems
only from the characteristics of the mass-customization experi-
ence and, therefore, may be enjoyed even though a potential
customer does not complete the configuration task. Hedonic
benefit derives from the capacity of the mass-customization
experience to be intrinsically rewarding [16]. There may be various
reasons why a generic activity can be an end in itself, thus implying
the actor’s positive affect (enjoyment, contentment, satisfaction,
etc.) [77]. The activity of self-customizing a product with a sales
configurator, in particular, may be perceived as intrinsically
rewarding because it is entertaining like a game [12] or because
it gives continuous visual feedback about the configuration choices
made by a potential customer [17]. Unsurprisingly, the desire to
have an exciting experience is found by Fiore et al. [78] as
predicting customers’ willingness to engage in mass-customiza-
tion experiences. To emphasize that hedonic benefit derives only
from the characteristics of the mass-customization experience,
and not also from those of the configured product, this experiential
benefit is characterized as being ‘‘process-oriented’’ as opposed to
‘‘output-oriented’’ [16].
Be it gratifying per se or because, in combination with the
configured product, it arouses pride of authorship, a rewarding
mass-customization experience ‘‘creates a positive ‘mood’, which
is carried over to the assessment of product value’’ ([14], p. 1029).
As a result, willingness to pay for the mass-customized product
rises [11,14]. This finding is consistent with consumer research
results concerning shopping experiences in general, which do not
necessarily involve mass-customized products. For example,
Mochon et al. [76] find that feelings of pride associated with
assembling a LEGO car elevate potential customers’ moods and
positively impact on their willingness to pay for the car. Designing
mass-customization experiences that trigger positive emotional
responses among potential customers is therefore one way mass
customizers can command a higher price premium for their
products. Additionally, by designing gratifying mass-customiza-
tion experiences, mass customizers may increase their sales
volumes, as rewarding shopping experiences lead to unplanned
shopping decisions [79], longer time spent while shopping [80] and
higher repurchase intentions [17,81,82]. Larger sales volumes and
consumers’ augmented willingness to pay translate into higher
sales revenues and, all other things being equal, greater
profitability of mass customizers. This means that increasing
consumer-perceived hedonic and creative-achievement benefits is
one key in augmenting the value of mass customization on the
manufacturer’s side as well.
696 A. Trentin et al. / Computers in Industry 65 (2014) 693–705
3. Research hypotheses
To improve the current understanding of what characteristics of
a sales configurator increase the consumer-perceived benefits of a
mass-customization experience, we draw upon the five sales
configurator capabilities conceptualized by Trentin et al. [64]
based on previous research on sales configurators. For each of these
capabilities, hypotheses about their effects on both hedonic and
creative-achievement benefits are developed in the following
subsections.
3.1. Flexible navigation capability effects on hedonic and creative-
achievement benefits
Flexible navigation capability is the ability of a sales config-
urator to let its users easily and quickly modify a product
configuration they have previously created or the one they are
currently creating [64]. This capability implies allowing the user to
change, at any stage of the configuration process, the choice he/she
made at any previous stage without having to begin the process all
over again [26,64]. This capability also implies enabling the user to
bookmark his/her work and, therefore, to immediately recover a
previous configuration in case he/she decides to reject the newly
created one [26,64].
By allowing the user to make and undo changes to a current or
previously created configuration more easily and more quickly, a
sales configurator with a higher level of flexible navigation
capability facilitates the exploration of a company’s product space
[64]. By doing so, the sales configurator helps fulfill individuals’
intrinsic need for exploration. A desire for exploration, where
exploration is seen as an end in itself because it provides
individuals with a satisfactory level of stimulation from the
environment [83–85], has been well documented in literature
[83,86]. Individuals’ desire for exploration is evidenced by a variety
of consumer behaviors, such as the early adoption of new products
or the search for information about different product solutions out
of curiosity. These behaviors are all, at least in part, intrinsically
motivated by the desire to maintain stimulation at a satisfactory
level [83,84]. By easing intrinsically driven exploration of a
company’s product space, a sales configurator with a higher level of
flexible navigation capability makes the user’s mass-customiza-
tion experience more intrinsically rewarding. Based on the above
argument and recalling that the capacity of a mass-customization
experience to be gratifying per se leads to hedonic benefit, we posit
that:
H1. The higher the level of flexible navigation capability deployed
by a sales configurator, the greater the hedonic benefit that a
consumer derives from a mass-customization experience relying
on that configurator.
Intrinsically motivated exploration, which Raju and Venkatesan
[87] call intrinsic exploration, is to be distinguished from extrinsic
exploration, which serves as a means to some other goal [87]. The
exploration of a company’s product space, for instance, may be
intrinsically driven by curiosity, or may be extrinsically prompted
by the desire to make better purchase decisions, or both. A sales
configurator with a higher level of flexible navigation capability
facilitates product space exploration in general [64], including
extrinsic exploration. Making extrinsic exploration easier means
allowing the sales configurator user to conduct more trial-and-
error tests to evaluate the effects of his/her initial choices and to
improve upon them. By doing so, the consumer learns about the
available options and the value he/she would derive from them
[21,60]. When finally opting for a certain configuration, the
consumer is therefore more confident that the selected solution is
the one that best fits his/her needs within the company’s product
space [64]. In other terms, by easing extrinsic exploration of the
company’s product space, a higher level of flexible navigation
capability leads to better perceived fit of the configured product
with the consumer’s preferences.
Besides perceived preference fit, this sales configurator
capability also promotes the consumer’s feeling of being the
creator of the configured product. A higher level of flexible
navigation capability makes it easier for a consumer to move
through the available options in a self-directed, non-sequential
manner, which makes the mass-customization experience more
interactive [61,88,89]. This nonlinear, trial-and-error process
provides greater control for the consumer [88], meaning that
the consumer perceives higher freedom of action [17]. A larger
degree of control over the mass-customization experience makes
the consumer attribute the outcome of that experience (i.e., the
configured product) more to his/her own accomplishment [11].
Based on the above arguments and recalling that both the
consumer’s perceived contribution to the configured product and
its perceived fit with the consumer’s preferences drive creative-
achievement benefit, we posit that:
H2. The higher the level of flexible navigation capability deployed
by a sales configurator, the greater the creative-achievement
benefit that a consumer derives from a mass-customization expe-
rience relying on that configurator.
3.2. Focused navigation capability effects on hedonic and creative-
achievement benefits
Focused navigation capability is the ability of a sales config-
urator to quickly focus a potential customer’s search on those
solutions of a company’s product space that are most relevant to
the customer himself/herself, such as those that are most likely to
satisfy his/her idiosyncratic needs [64]. This capability implies
presenting the product space by product attributes and enabling
the sales configurator user to freely prioritize his/her choices
regarding the various attributes. A user looking for the solution
that best fits his/her needs, for example, would be allowed to start
from those attributes for which his/her preferences are most well-
defined [61,64]. Instead, a user characterized by variety-seeking
behavior [90], just to make another example, would be enabled to
start from those attributes that offer more possibilities of choice. It
is also noteworthy that, while requiring that the product space be
presented by product attributes, this capability does not exclude
the possibility that complete product alternatives are shown as
well. This could be shown, for example at the beginning of the
configuration process [26] to give the customer practice at
evaluating alternatives and to provide anchors for the evaluative
process [55].
A sales configurator with a higher level of focused navigation
capability enables the consumer to more quickly eliminate options
he/she regards as certainly inappropriate or uninteresting from
further consideration. Consequently, the consumer can invest
more time and effort in exploring that subset of a company’s
product space that he/she perceives as most relevant to his/her
interests or needs [64]. As perceived personal relevance based on
one’s needs, values and interests is the essential characteristic of
involvement [91,92], this means that focused navigation capability
allows the consumer to focus his/her search on the part of a firm’s
product space that he/she is most involved with. Involvement, in
the context of an online experience, is an important precursor to
attaining flow [93]. Flow, in that context, is defined as a seamless,
deeply absorbing, self-reinforcing and intrinsically enjoyable
interaction between the individual and the computer-mediated
environment [88,93]. By increasing involvement and thus
 A. Trentin et al. / Computers in Industry 65 (2014) 693–705
facilitating the experience of flow, a sales configurator with a
higher level of focused navigation capability makes the mass-
customization experience more intrinsically satisfying, as also
suggested by research on entertaining shopping experiences [94].
Based on the above argument and recalling that the capacity of a
mass-customization experience to be gratifying per se leads to
hedonic benefit, we posit that:
H3. The higher the level of focused navigation capability deployed
by a sales configurator, the greater the hedonic benefit that a
consumer derives from a mass-customization experience relying
on that configurator.
By facilitating the experience of flow, focused navigation
capability also promotes the consumer’s feeling of being the
originator of the configured product. This is because one of the
key consequences of the flow experience for a consumer interacting
with a computer-mediated environment is a perceived sense of
control over his/her interaction [88,95]. Perceived control is meant
here as the emotional response of dominance in environmental
psychology [17] and, therefore, captures ‘‘the extent to which he [the
individual] feels unrestricted or free to act in a variety of ways’’ ([96],
p. 19). Therefore, a consumer using a sales configurator with a higher
level of focused navigation capability perceives greater freedom of
action during his/her mass-customization experience. In turn, the
greater freedom perceived by the consumer makes him/her attribute
the outcome of the mass-customization experience, that is
the configured product, more to his/her own accomplishment [11].
In addition to greater subjective contribution, the user
perceives better fit of the configured product with his/her
preferences. This is because a sales configurator with a higher
level of focused navigation capability enables the consumer to
sequence his/her choices about the various attributes of the
product by starting with those for which his/her preferences are
most well-defined [64]. As lower preference uncertainty implies
lower anticipated regret1 [98,99], and the anticipation of post-
decisional regret promotes decision aversion [100], this means that
focused navigation capability prevents the consumer from getting
stuck with his/her early decisions. Conversely, the consumer can
quickly reduce the size of his/her search problem [64]. Once the
available solutions have been screened to a relevant set, called the
consideration set [101], the consumer can analyze the remaining
options in greater detail [101–103]. For example, the consumer
may conduct more trial-and-error experimentation to learn about
the remaining options, for which his/her preferences are less
certain, and can rely on more time-consuming decision strategies
that enable rational resolution of any trade-offs between attractive
attributes. As a result, the consumer is more confident, at the end of
the configuration process, that the chosen solution is the one that
best fits his/her needs within the company’s product space [64]. In
accord with this argument, Huffman and Kahn [55] find that
presenting a company’s product space by product attributes, rather
than by product alternatives, significantly increases the consu-
mer’s feeling of being ready to make a choice at the end of the
mass-customization experience.
Based on the above arguments and recalling that both the
consumer’s perceived contribution to the configured product and
its perceived fit with the consumer’s preferences drive creative-
achievement benefit, we posit that:
H4. The higher the level of focused navigation capability deployed
by a sales configurator, the greater the creative-achievement
1 3
Regret is a negative, cognitively determined emotion that individuals
experience when realizing or imagining that their present situation would have
been better, had they acted differently [97].
697
benefit that a consumer derives from a mass-customization expe-
rience relying on that configurator.
3.3. Benefit-cost communication capability effects on hedonic and
creative-achievement benefits
Benefit-cost communication capability is the ability of a sales
configurator to effectively communicate the consequences of the
configuration choices made by a potential customer both in terms
of what he/she would get and in terms of what he/she would give
[64]. On the one hand, this capability implies effectively explaining
the benefits the customer would derive from consumption of the
configured product, including what the product can do, how well
the product implements its functions, how well the product
appeals to the five senses, etc., depending on the product category
[12]. On the other hand, this capability implies clearly communi-
cating the monetary and nonmonetary sacrifices that the customer
would bear for obtaining the configured product, for example, by
warning the customer that certain options entail longer delivery
lead-times [61]. It is noteworthy that this capability implies
communicating the benefits and costs associated with the entire
set of configuration choices made by a potential customer,
collectively considered,2 as well as the consequences of each of
those choices [64]. This means, for example, explaining the way in
which different options influence the functions and performance
levels of the product and displaying the prices of the individual
options [61].
A sales configurator with higher benefit-cost communication
capability better supports potential customers in anticipating,
during their mass-customization experiences, the value they will
perceive from consumption of their configured products [64].3 In
particular, higher benefit-cost communication capability leads to
mass-customization experiences that more closely simulate
consumers’ real-world interactions with their configured products,
for example, through three-dimensional Web and virtual try-on
technologies [106,107]. In other terms, a sales configurator with
higher benefit-cost communication capability is more effective in
transporting potential customers in a virtual environment where
they can interact with their configured products as they do in the
real world. This sensation of being present in a computer-mediated
environment is known in literature as telepresence [89,108]. By
giving potential customers a stronger sense of telepresence, a sales
configurator with higher benefit-cost communication capability
makes the mass-customization experience more intrinsically
rewarding [89,106]. This is because ‘‘the experience of telepre-
sence involves consumer fantasy, imagination and suspension of
disbelief, suggesting elements of fun and playfulness (much akin to
playing games)’’ ([89], p. 659). Accordingly, telepresence is
acknowledged in literature as a contributor to the intrinsically
enjoyable experience of flow [88,95]. Based on the above argument
and recalling that the capacity of a mass-customization experience
to be gratifying per se leads to hedonic benefit, we posit that:
H5. The higher the level of benefit-cost communication capability
deployed by a sales configurator, the greater the hedonic benefit
that a consumer derives from a mass-customization experience
relying on that configurator.
2
Product performance characteristics such as esthetics, power consumption or
noise arise from the physical properties of most, if not all of the components of a
product [104] and, therefore, are typically associated with the whole set of
configuration choices made by a potential customer.
Perceived product value is defined as the customer’s ‘‘overall assessment of the
utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given’’
([105], p. 14).
698 A. Trentin et al. / Computers in Industry 65 (2014) 693–705
Since benefit-cost communication capability, like focused
navigation, contributes to the experience of flow, it also promotes
the consumer’s feeling of being the creator of the configured
product, as previously explained in Section 3.2. Furthermore,
benefit-cost communication capability increases perceived pref-
erence fit of the configured product. By delivering clearer pre-
purchase feedback on the effects of the configuration choices made
by a potential customer, a sales configurator with higher benefit-
cost communication capability facilitates the user’s learning about
the complex relationships linking the available options with the
functions and performance levels of the product [61]. Better
knowledge of such links gives the consumer a sounder basis upon
which to make his/her purchase decision [61], thus increasing his/
her confidence that the product configuration eventually pur-
chased is the one that best fits his/her needs within the company’s
product space [64]. Based on the above arguments and recalling
that both the consumer’s perceived contribution to the configured
product and its perceived fit with the consumer’s preferences drive
creative-achievement benefit, we posit that:
H6. The higher the level of benefit-cost communication capability
deployed by a sales configurator, the greater the creative-achieve-
ment benefit that a consumer derives from a mass-customization
experience relying on that configurator.
3.4. User-friendly product space description capability effects on
hedonic and creative-achievement benefits
User-friendly product space description capability is the ability of
a sales configurator to adapt the description of a company’s product
space to the individual characteristics of a potential customer as well
as to the situational characteristics of his/her using of the sales
configurator [64]. This capability implies adapting the information
content presented to the potential customer, for example, by
offering different types of choices according to his/her prior
knowledge about the product. Expert customers should be
presented choices involving alternative product components, while
inexpert customers, who are unable to relate product components
specifications to satisfaction of their needs, should be offered choices
involving functions and performance levels of the product
[26,61,64]. Furthermore, this capability ensures that the provision
of information about an option that matters only to a few potential
customers does not impose research costs on the majority of them
[102]. Besides information type and quantity, this capability implies
adapting information format as well, for example, by presenting the
same content through different media (texts, images, animation,
etc.) in order to satisfy sales configurator users varying in skill level,
cognitive style, age, etc. [64,109].
By tailoring both information content and information format
to the characteristics of different potential customers as well as to
different usage contexts, a sales configurator with user-friendly
product space description capability reduces the risk of informa-
tion overload [110–112]. On the one hand, the user is not forced to
process information content he/she does not value [113]. On the
other end, the modality of presentation of the same information
content is switched, or augmented, in such a way that the user’s
information processing is enhanced [114]. As a result of these two
combined mechanisms, the user perceives his/her skills as equal to
the challenges of the configuration task. Perceived congruence
between the challenges of a task and an individual’s ability to
perform it is an important antecedent of the flow experience,
provided the challenges exceed the level that is typical for the day-
to-day experiences of the individual [88]. As the challenges of the
configuration task tend to exceed such a critical threshold, unless
the set of available choice options is very small [17], this means
that user-friendly product space description capability facilitates
the experience of flow, thus making the mass-customization
experience more intrinsically satisfying [88]. Based on the above
argument and recalling that the capacity of a mass-customization
experience to be gratifying per se leads to hedonic benefit, we posit
that:
H7. The higher the level of user-friendly product-space descrip-
tion capability deployed by a sales configurator, the greater the
hedonic benefit that a consumer derives from a mass-customiza-
tion experience relying on that configurator.
Since user-friendly product space description capability, like
the ones of benefit-cost communication and focused navigation,
facilitates the experience of flow, it also promotes the consumer’s
feeling of being the creator of the configured product, as previously
explained in Section 3.2. Furthermore, user-friendly product space
description capability increases perceived preference fit of the
configured product. This is because the product space is presented
to the consumer exactly in the way he/she is able or willing to
express his/her needs [64]. This makes it easier for the consumer to
assess the fit of the configured product with his/her needs [56].
Consequently, at the end of the configuration process, the
consumer is more confident that the chosen solution is the one
that best fits his/her needs within the company’s product
space [64]. Based on the above arguments and recalling that both
the consumer’s perceived contribution to the configured product
and its perceived fit with the consumer’s preferences drive
creative-achievement benefit, we posit that:
H8. The higher the level of user-friendly product-space descrip-
tion capability deployed by a sales configurator, the greater the
creative-achievement benefit that a consumer derives from a
mass-customization experience relying on that configurator.
3.5. Easy comparison capability effects on hedonic and creative-
achievement benefits
Easy comparison capability is the ability of a sales configurator
to support its users in comparing product configurations they have
previously created [64]. This capability implies allowing the user to
save a product solution he/she has just configured and then
compare previously saved configurations on the same screen
[26,64]. This capability also implies highlighting commonalities
and differences among previously saved configurations as well as
rank-ordering them based on some criterion that is meaningful to
the user [64].
A sales configurator with a higher level of easy comparison
capability unburdens the user from the weight of mentally or
manually recording information about the product solution he/she
is creating, in order to subsequently compare it with other
configurations. It also compensates for the user’s limited computa-
tional abilities whenever the number of customizable product
attributes is high and the user needs to delineate previously created
configurations into their attributes to find out similarities and
differences among them [64]. Unless a company’s product space is
very simple, therefore, higher levels of this capability are important
to help the user grasp the differences between the product solutions
he/she is comparing. By making such differences more salient, a
sales configurator with a higher level of easy comparison capability
supports intrinsically motivated exploration of a company’s product
space, that is exploration primarily for the pleasure inherent in
changing the stimulus field [83,87]. By helping the user perceive the
amount of change and novelty he/she has effected in the stimulus
field, such a sales configurator makes the user’s mass-customization
experience more intrinsically rewarding. Based on the above
argument and recalling that the capacity of a mass-customization
 A. Trentin et al. / Computers in Industry 65 (2014) 693–705
experience to be gratifying per se leads to hedonic benefit, we posit
that:
H9. The higher the level of easy comparison capability deployed
by a sales configurator, the greater the hedonic benefit that a
consumer derives from a mass-customization experience relying
on that configurator.
A sales configurator with a higher level of easy comparison
capability also promotes the user’s feeling of dominance in his/her
mass-customization experience. This feeling is enhanced by settings
that facilitate a greater variety of behaviors [96]. When using a sales
configurator with higher levels of this capability, consumers are not
restricted by their limited working memory, or by their limited time
availability for manually recording information, to compare only
two solutions at a time. Furthermore, consumers are free to control
the basis for comparison, an opportunity that is typical of in-store
shopping but must not be taken for granted when on-line shopping
[102]. As a consumer is offered a larger degree of control over his/her
mass-customization experience, he/she attributes the outcome of
such an experience, that is the configured product, more to his/her
own accomplishment [11].
In addition to greater subjective contribution, the consumer
perceives better fit of the configured product with his/her
preferences. This is because comparisons of complete product
solutions play an important role in the consumer’s assessment of
the value of a particular product solution [115,116]. By supporting
such evaluations, a higher level of easy comparison capability
fosters the consumer’s learning about the value he/she would
derive from consumption of the product being configured [64]. In
turn, this learning process makes the consumer more confident
that the configuration for which he/she finally opts is the one that
best fits his/her needs within the company’s product space [64].
Based on the above arguments and recalling that both the
consumer’s perceived contribution to the configured product and
its perceived fit with the consumer’s preferences drive creative-
achievement benefit, we posit that:
H10. The higher the level of easy comparison capability deployed
by a sales configurator, the greater the creative-achievement
benefit that a consumer derives from a mass-customization expe-
rience relying on that configurator.
An overview of the hypothesized relationships between the five
sales configurator capabilities of interest and the hedonic and
creative-achievement benefits of a mass-customization experi-
ence is provided by Fig. 1.
Flexible
navigaon
Focused Hedonic
navigaon benefit
Benefit-cost
communicaon
Creave-
achievement
User-friendly benefit
product space
descripon
Easy
comparison
Fig. 1. Hypothesized relationships.
699
4. Method
To test the hypothesized links, we designed an empirical study
replicating the data collection procedure adopted by Trentin et al.
[64] for large-scale validation of their measures of the focal sales-
configurator capabilities. The participants in the study were 75
engineering students (30% females) with ages ranging from 24 to
27 years. As a consequence, our data are biased in favor of young
males. Each participant was asked to make one mass-customiza-
tion experience on each of nine pre-assigned Web-based sales
configurators, for a total of 675 mass-customization experiences.
Each experience involved browsing the sales configuration website
and configuring one product from start to finish, on that website,
according to one’s own preferences. For each experience,
participants filled out a questionnaire covering the constructs of
interest. The five sales-configurator capabilities were measured
using the multi-item scales proposed and validated by Trentin
et al. [64], while the measures of hedonic and creative-
achievement benefits were adapted from Merle et al.’s [12] scales
(see Appendix A). Adaptation was motivated by an acknowledged
limitation of Merle et al.’s [12] instrument: namely, the fact that
discriminant validity between the measures of hedonic benefit and
creative-achievement benefit was supported by the chi-square
difference test proposed by Bagozzi and Philipps [117] but not by
Fornell and Larcker’s [118] procedure, which Hatcher [119]
considers quite conservative [12]. The nine sales configurators
assigned to each participant were chosen from a set of 30 real Web-
based configurators of consumer goods for which the participants,
on average, had sufficient preference insight and ability to express
their preferences, as defined by Franke et al. [120]. The set included
ten configurators of notebooks/laptops, nine configurators of
sports shoes/sneakers and eleven configurators of economy cars.
Preference insight and ability to express preferences were
measured on a seven-point Likert scale (7 = completely agree,
1 = completely disagree) using the items proposed by Franke et al.
[120]. The average scores of the two constructs across participants
were, respectively: 4.24 (standard deviation: 1.64) and 4.16
(standard deviation: 1.56) for notebooks/laptops, 5.36 (standard
deviation: 1.34) and 4.69 (standard deviation: 1.52) for sports
shoes/sneakers, and 4.53 (standard deviation: 1.28) and 4.77
(standard deviation: 1.13) for economy cars.4 The inclusion of
multiple product categories, ranging from relatively simple
products with relatively few configuration steps to more complex
products with more configuration steps, was motivated by the aim
of increasing the variation ranges of the independent variables
within our sample.5 To further increase the differences among
the mass-customization experiences comprising our sample, we
assigned sales configurators to participants according to the
following rules: (i) no pairs of participants were assigned the same
combination of configurators, (ii) each participant was assigned
three configurators for each product category, and (iii) each of the
triples assigned to each participant included at least one
configurator with a high mean score of the five capabilities within
4
For both constructs, only one factor with eigenvalue greater than one was
extracted using principal component analysis (variance explained: 86% and 85%,
respectively). Cronbach’s alfas were 0.91 and 0.94, respectively.
5
Based on our previous studies on sales configurators, we were concerned about
the risk of having insufficient variation in one or more of the five capabilities of
interest in case of selection of real configurators for only one product category. The
data collected in the present study indicate that our concern for that risk was not
unwarranted. Within the subsample of mass-customization experiences made on
the sports shoes/sneakers configurators, for instance, the standard deviation of
benefit-cost communication capability – measured on a seven-point Likert scale – is
as low as 0.35, while it reaches 1.01 within the entire sample. Likewise, within the
subsample of mass-customization experiences made on the economy car
configurators, flexible navigation capability – measured on the same seven-point
Likert scale – is as low as 0.37, while it reaches 0.97 within the entire sample.
700 A. Trentin et al. / Computers in Industry 65 (2014) 693–705

Table 1
Discriminant validity.

Square root of AVE Correlationsa

BCC EC FlexN FocN UFD HE CA

BCC 0.835 –
EC 0.892 0.312 –
FlexN 0.784 0.369 0.437 –
FocN 0.851 0.734 0.408 0.455 –
UFD 0.854 0.705 0.327 0.415 0.719 –
HE 0.936 0.588 0.402 0.483 0.673 0.586 –
CA 0.853 0.512 0.458 0.485 0.571 0.520 0.847 –

Note: AVE, average variance extracted; BCC, benefit-cost communication capability; EC, easy comparison capability; FlexN, flexible navigation capability; FocN, focused
navigation capability; UFD, user-friendly product space description capability; HE, hedonic benefit; CA, creative-achivement benefit.
a
All correlations are significant at p < 0.001.

the corresponding product category and at least one configurator constructs, was assessed using Fornell and Larcker’s [118]
with a low mean score of the five capabilities within the same procedure. For each of our seven constructs, the square root of
product category.6 the AVE exceeded the correlations with the other constructs in the
Following data collection, we used structural equation model- model (see Table 1), thus indicating good discriminant validity of
ing to test the hypotheses and LISREL 9.1 to conduct the analyses. our measurement scales [118].
Based on Anderson and Gerbing’s [121] two-step approach, we first
assessed the psychometric properties of the measures of the focal 5. Results
constructs and subsequently estimated the full model, which also
includes the hypothesized relationships. Since our variables did After establishing measurement scale reliability and validity for
not meet the assumption of multivariate normal distribution the focal constructs, we estimated the full model including also the
(Mardia’s test significant at p < 0.001), in both phases we applied hypothesized relationships among those constructs. The model
the Satorra-Bentler correction to produce robust maximum demonstrated acceptable fit across the typical fit indices (see
likelihood estimates of standard errors and chi-square (x2). Prior Table 2). The normalized x2 (i.e., the x2 divided by the degrees of
to conducting the analyses, we also controlled for possible effects freedom) was within the suggested 1–3 range for acceptability
of participants’ characteristics by regressing the items used as [127]. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was
observed indicators of the focal constructs on 75 dummies very close to 0.05 and lower than 0.08, thus suggesting good fit
representing the participants in our study. The standardized [128]. Finally, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit
residuals from this linear, ordinary least square regression model Index (CFI) were both greater than the recommended level of 0.90
were subsequently used as our data in both steps of the analysis (cf. [129,130]. Furthermore, all the estimated path coefficients were
[6,64,122]). In the first phase, we employed confirmatory factor positive, as hypothesized, and statistically significant at conven-
analysis to assess measurement scale unidimensionality, conver- tional levels (p < 0.05). Overall, these results indicated that the
gent validity, discriminant validity and reliability for the seven structural model reproduced the data well and that our hypotheses
constructs of interest. Unidimensionality and convergent validity were all supported.
were evaluated by estimating an a priori measurement model in
which each of our items was restricted to load on the construct it
was intended to measure and the seven latent constructs were free
to correlate. This model well reproduced our sample data, as Table 2
Results of hypotheses tests.
indicated by the values of the typical fit indices (RMSEA = 0.0528,
x2/df (df) = 2.49 (209), CFI = 0.991, GFI = 0.928). Furthermore, all Hypothesized path Hypothesis Std. path coefficient t-Value
standardized factor loadings were positive and greater than 0.50 FlexN ! HE H1 0.174 4.217***
(see Appendix A). Altogether, these results suggested that, for FlexN ! CA H2 0.199 4.851***
each scale, its items measured a single construct (unidimension- FocN ! HE H3 0.364 5.462***
FocN ! CA H4 0.209 3.002***
ality) and the various items, seen as different methods of
BCC ! HE H5 0.140 2.431*
measuring the same construct, provided the same results BCC ! CA H6 0.132 2.041*
(convergent validity) [121,123,124]. Reliability, which indicates UFD ! HE H7 0.122 2.199*
the degree to which a measure is free from random error, was UFD ! CA H8 0.128 2.056*
assessed using both the average variance extracted (AVE) and the EC ! HE H9 0.094 2.600**
EC ! CA H10 0.203 4.913***
Werts, Linn, and Joreskog (WLJ) composite reliability (CR) method
[125]. All AVE scores largely exceeded 0.50 and all WLJ CR values Fit statistics
were greater than 0.70 (see Appendix A), indicating good Normalized x2 = 2.49 (df = 209)
RMSEA = 0.0528
reliability of our measurement scales [118,126]. Finally, discrimi- GFI = 0.928
nant validity, which refers to the extent to which measures CFI = 0.991
intended to capture different constructs actually reflect separate
Note: BCC, benefit-cost communication capability; EC, easy comparison capability;
FlexN, flexible navigation capability; FocN, focused navigation capability; UFD,
user-friendly product space description capability; HE, hedonic benefit; CA,
6
To apply this rule, one of the authors assessed the 30 sales configurators with creative-achivement benefit; RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation;
respect to the five capabilities of interest, using the same measures included in the GFI, Goodness-of-Fit Index; CFI, Comparative Fit Index.
questionnaire. Subsequently, for each product category, the corresponding Significant at:
*
configurators were ranked by the average score of the five capabilities and, finally, p < 0.05.
**
were divided into three equal-size (or approximately equal-size) groups by rank p < 0.01.
***
(high, medium and low). p < 0.001.
 A. Trentin et al. / Computers in Industry 65 (2014) 693–705
6. Discussion and conclusion
The present paper contributes to the debate as to the role sales
configurators can play in business-to-consumer mass-customiza-
tion strategies. This debate has typically viewed the consumer’s
experience of self-customizing a product with a sales configurator
as a cost for the consumer himself/herself in terms of time spent,
cognitive effort required and possible unpleasant emotional
outcomes. Accordingly, this debate has typically focused on what
characteristics a sales configurator should have to reduce both
these costs on the consumer’s side and their negative repercus-
sions on the company’s revenues due to lost sales and consumers’
lower willingness to pay [11,64]. The present paper complements
this important perspective by considering the consumer’s mass-
customization experience as a potential source of positive
emotional responses that a sales configurator should promote to
increase sales volumes and consumers’ willingness to pay, thus
ultimately boosting the company’s revenues.7
Consistent with recent studies [12,16], our paper focuses on
two potential benefits of a mass-customization experience:
hedonic benefit, which derives from the capacity of the experience
to be gratifying per se, regardless of the completion of the
configuration task, and creative-achievement benefit, which stems
from the capacity of the experience to arouse, in combination with
the configured product, the positive emotion of pride of author-
ship. For each of these two potential benefits, we conceptually and
empirically examine how it is influenced by the five sales
configurator capabilities recently defined by Trentin et al. [64]:
the ability to quickly focus customer research on those solutions of
a company’s product offer that are most relevant to the customer
himself/herself (focused navigation capability); the ability to adapt
the description of the product offer to the individual characteristics
of the potential customer as well as to the situational character-
istics of his/her using of the sales configurator (user-friendly
product space description capability); the ability to effectively
communicate what the potential customer would get and what he/
she would give as a consequence of his/her configuration choices
(benefit-cost communication capability); the ability to support the
potential customer in comparing product configurations he/she
has previously created (easy comparison capability); finally, the
ability to let the potential customer easily and quickly modify a
product solution he/she has previously configured or the one he/
she is currently configuring (flexible navigation capability). These
five sales-configurator capabilities have been proposed by Trentin
et al. [64] as one key in preventing product customization from
backfiring, as they alleviate the cognitive and emotive difficulty
experienced by a potential customer in configuring a product and
making a purchase decision.
In this paper, we hypothesize that the same sales configurator
capabilities mentioned above increase consumer-perceived he-
donic benefit because they help fulfill the individual’s intrinsic
need for exploration and facilitate the intrinsically enjoyable
online flow experience. In particular, we argue that they promote
flow by matching the challenges of the configuration task with the
individual’s ability to perform it, by giving the individual a stronger
sense of presence in the computer-mediated environment and by
increasing his/her perceived involvement with the explored product
solutions. Furthermore, we hypothesize that the same five
capabilities increase creative-achievement benefit for two reasons.
First, they enhance the individual’s feeling of dominance in the
mass-customization experience, thus promoting his/her sense of
being the creator of the configured product. Second, they increase
7
Positive affect and lack of negative affect are considered as separate
contributors to subjective well-being in general and consumer happiness in
particular [131–134].
701
perceived preference fit of the configured product and, therefore, the
individual attributes a more favorable outcome to oneself.
In addition to the development of the theoretical arguments for
the abovementioned hypotheses, another contribution of the
present paper lies in the empirical test of such hypotheses, which
provides empirical support for all of them. This is among the first
studies that empirically investigate the question of how sales
configurators should be designed to trigger positive affective
reactions on their users. It is noteworthy that the few findings
available in literature on this issue are echoed by our results.
Specifically, Kamis et al. [17] find empirical support for the
hypothesis that a mass-customization experience is more intrin-
sically enjoyable as a sales configurator presents a company’s offer
by product attributes and gives continuous interactive feedback
through a visual representation of the chosen attribute levels. This
finding is echoed by our result that hedonic benefit increases both
with focused navigation capability, which implies presenting the
product space by product attributes, and with benefit-cost
communication capability, which implies delivering clear pre-
purchase feedback on the effects of the configuration choices
made. Our paper adds to Kamis et al.’s [17] finding by considering
the creative-achievement benefit, besides the hedonic one, and by
indicating a broader set of sales configurator characteristics that
predict each of these two benefits.
While focusing on sales configurators, the present paper also
contributes to the wider debate on the role that product
configurators, which include sales configurator functionalities,
can play in business-to-consumer mass-customization strategies.
Several prior studies have shown that product configurators can
help manufacturers mitigate the negative effects of product
customization on cost, time and quality performance (e.g.,
[10,47,49]). Likewise, it is acknowledged in literature that product
configurators can support consumers in identifying their own
solutions while reducing computational and non-computational
sources of decision difficulty (e.g., [25,26,64]). The present paper is
among the few studies to show that product configurators can
deliver additional benefits to consumers, by triggering positive
emotional responses to their mass-customization experiences.
Since these benefits lead to higher consumer willingness to pay
[11,14] as well as to unplanned shopping decisions and higher
repurchase intentions [79,82], this means that product config-
urators have a broader potential for augmenting mass customizers’
profitability than often recognized in literature. On the one hand,
this conclusion reinforces the importance of information technol-
ogy as an enabler of successful mass-customization strategies (e.g.,
[3,9,10,135–137]). On the other hand, this conclusion calls for
future studies on technological solutions that reduce the costs of
implementing the five capabilities in a product configurator. This is
because, for the profitability improvement potential to materialize,
any incremental revenues due to the five capabilities must not be
negatively offset by the incremental costs of their implementation.
While contributing to the academic debate as to the role of
sales/product configurators in mass-customization strategies, this
study is not without its limitations, which might be addressed in
future research. First, we have developed our hypotheses with
reference to mass-customization experiences involving consumer
goods and, accordingly, have focused the hypothesis-testing
portion of the study on sales configurators of consumer goods.
Even though prior research has suggested that hedonic and
creative-achievement benefits are more relevant in a business-to-
consumer context [12,17], their definitions do not rule out the
possibility of buyers of mass-customized industrial goods
experiencing such benefits. Likewise, the definitions of the five
focal capabilities do not rule out the possibility of sales/product
configurators of industrial goods deploying them. Consequently,
future research should examine to what extent our findings can be
702 A. Trentin et al. / Computers in Industry 65 (2014) 693–705

extended to mass-customization experiences involving buyers of
industrial goods.
A second limitation of our study lies in its using of engineering
students as subjects for the research, which makes our data biased
in favor of young males. Though most of the users of business-to-
consumer sales configurators are young people adept at using the
Internet [14,138], undeniably the participants in our study do not
constitute a representative sample of the potential customers of
the considered products. Consequently, future research should
seek to replicate our findings in truly representative samples of
potential customers.
A third limitation of the present study is its focus on the main
effects [139] of the five capabilities on the two benefits of interest.
In line with this focus, we neglect possible interaction effects
between the five capabilities as well as possible contingency
effects of variables such as product complexity, the number of
configuration steps, an individual’s optimum stimulation level [84]
or his/her perceived involvement with the product category [92].
While our focus is consistent with the fact that the research on this
topic is in its infancy, future studies should be designed to
overcome this limitation.
Another limitation of the present study lies in the lack of
explanation for the differences we find in the individual impacts of
the five capabilities on the two considered benefits. The differences
we find in the magnitude of the estimated path coefficients
indicate that some capabilities contribute more than others to the
two benefits. Such differences are wider with respect to hedonic
benefit, with focused navigation capability contributing the most
and easy comparison capability contributing the least. On the other
hand, the differences are smaller regarding creative-achievement
benefit, with benefit-cost communication and user-friendly
product space description capabilities contributing relatively less
than the others. We did not develop hypotheses about the relative
contributions of the five capabilities, however. Furthermore,
because of the limitations mentioned above, we hesitate to
generalize these findings. Additional conceptual and empirical
research is needed, in our view, before conclusions about the
relative contributions of the five capabilities to hedonic and
creative-achievement benefits can be drawn.
A final limitation of our research is its lack of analysis of the
costs for implementing the five capabilities. Further research
should address this limitation, focusing on the enablers of the five
capabilities. It is noteworthy that studies are multiplying on
technological solutions, such as advances in body modeling [140],
virtual reality [141], mixed-reality [142] and augmented reality
[143], which promise to considerably enhance capabilities of
prospective sales/product configurators such as benefit-cost
communication or easy comparison. Our paper further reinforces
the importance of such research endeavors and calls for additional
studies in this direction.
While relying on only three categories of consumer goods
and on a non-representative sample of their potential custo-
mers, the present paper has a number of managerial implica-
tions, at least for those companies that offer those types of
products. First, our paper increases practitioners’ awareness that
sales/product configurators can be an effective tool to augment
the consumer-perceived benefits of mass-customization experi-
ences. Nowadays, mass-customization strategies are more
and more widespread and, therefore, mass customizers may
need to identify unexploited sources of differentiation advan-
tage [144]. In such a context, increasing the hedonic and
creative-achievement benefits of consumers’ mass-customiza-
tion experiences can be one key in delivering benefits that
exceed those of competing mass customizers’ offerings. This
may sound particularly attractive to mass customizers produc-
ing in higher-labor-cost countries. These companies may have a
difficult time competing only on efficient customization as
mass-customization strategies are increasingly adopted in lower
labor-cost countries as well [145]. Secondly, the present paper
indicates specific sales/product configurator capabilities that
augment the hedonic and creative-achievement benefits of
consumers’ mass-customization experiences. These capabilities
represent clear objectives that companies should pursue in
selecting or building their sales/product configurators if they
decide to deliver such benefits. However, before such manage-
rial indications can be generalized to industrial goods and
professional users of sales/product configurators such as buyers,
further research is needed.

Appendix A. Measures of the constructs of interest

For each item, respondents indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement on a seven-point Likert scale
(7 = completely agree,. . ., 1 = completely disagree).
Standardized factor
loadinga

Benefit-cost communication capability (BCC) b (AVE: 0.697; CR: 0.873)

BCC1 Thanks to this system, I understood how the various choice options influence the value that this product has for me 0.858
BCC2 Thanks to this system, I realized the advantages and drawbacks of each of the options I had to choose from 0.792
BCC3 This system made me exactly understand what value the product I was configuring had for me 0.853
Easy comparison capability (EC) b (AVE: 0.796; CR: 0.939)
EC1 The system enables easy comparison of product configurations previously created by the user 0.894
EC2 The system lets you easily understand what previously created configurations have in common 0.948
EC3 The system enables side-by-side comparison of the details of previously saved configurations 0.807
EC4 The systems lets you easily understand the differences between previously created configurations 0.913
Flexible navigation capability (FlexN) b (AVE: 0.614; CR: 0.826)
FlexN1 The system enables you to change some of the choices you have previously made during the configuration process 0.738
without having to start it over again
FlexN2 With this system, it takes very little effort to modify the choices you have previously made during the configuration process 0.789
FlexN3 Once you have completed the configuration process, this system enables you to quickly change any choice made during that 0.822
process
Focused navigation capability (FocN) b (AVE: 0.724; CR: 0.913)
FocN1 The system made me immediately understand which way to go to find what I needed 0.857
FocN2 The system enabled me to quickly eliminate from further consideration everything that was not interesting to me at all 0.791
FocN3 The system immediately led me to what was more interesting to me 0.893
FocN4 This system quickly leads the user to those solutions that best meet his/her requirements 0.860
 A. Trentin et al. / Computers in Industry 65 (2014) 693–705
Appendix A (Continued )
User-friendly product space description capability (UFD) b (AVE: 0.729; CR: 0.890)
UFD1 The system gives an adequate presentation of the choice options for when you are in a hurry, as well as when you have enough
time to go into the details
UFD2 The product features are adequately presented for the user who just wants to find out about them, as well as for the user who
wants to go into specific details
UFD3 The choice options are adequately presented for both the expert and inexpert user of the product
Hedonic benefit (HE) c (AVE: 0.876; CR: 0.955)
HE1 I found it fun to customize this product
HE2 Customizing this product was a real pleasure
HE3 Customizing this product was like a game
Creative-achievement benefit (CA) c (AVE: 0.727; CR: 0.900)
CA1 I felt really creative while configuring this product
CA2 The company gave me a lot of freedom while creating this product
CA3 By personalizing this product, I had the impression of creating something
a
All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001.
b
Trentin et al. [64].
c
Adapted from Merle et al. [12].
References
[1] B. Squire, S. Brown, J. Readman, J. Bessant, The impact of mass customisation on
manufacturing trade-offs, Production & Operations Management 15 (1) (2006)
10–21.
[2] X. Huang, M.M. Kristal, R.G. Schroeder, Linking learning and effective process
implementation to mass customization capability, Journal of Operations Man-
agement 26 (6) (2008) 714–729.
[3] F.S. Fogliatto, G.J.C. da Silveira, D. Borenstein, The mass customization decade: an
updated review of the literature, International Journal of Production Economics
138 (1) (2012) 14–25.
[4] G. Da Silveira, D. Borenstein, F.S. Fogliatto, Mass customization: literature review
and research directions, International Journal of Production Economics 72 (1)
(2001) 1–13.
[5] B.J. Pine II, Mass Customization – The New Frontier in Business Competition,
Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993.
[6] A. Trentin, C. Forza, E. Perin, Organisation design strategies for mass customisa-
tion: an information-processing-view perspective, International Journal of Pro-
duction Research 50 (14) (2012) 3860–3877.
[7] M.M. Tseng, J. Jiao, Mass customization, in: G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial Engineering: Technology and Operations Management, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 2001, pp. 684–709.
[8] B. MacCarthy, P.G. Brabazon, J. Bramham, Fundamental modes of operation for
mass customization, International Journal of Production Economics 85 (3) (2003)
289–304.
[9] C. Forza, F. Salvador, Application support to product variety management,
International Journal of Production Research 46 (3) (2008) 817–836.
[10] M. Heiskala, J. Tiihonen, K.-S. Paloheimo, T. Soininen, Mass customization with
configurable products and configurators: a review of benefits and challenges, in:
T. Blecker, G. Friedrich (Eds.), Mass Customization Information Systems in
Business, IGI Global, London, UK, 2007, pp. 1–32.
[11] N. Franke, M. Schreier, U. Kaiser, The ‘‘I designed it myself’’ effect in mass
customization, Management Science 56 (1) (2010) 125–140.
[12] A. Merle, J.-L. Chandon, E. Roux, F. Alizon, Perceived value of the mass-custom-
ized product and mass customization experience for individual consumers,
Production & Operations Management 19 (5) (2010) 503–514.
[13] F.T. Piller, K. Moeslein, C.M. Stotko, Does mass customization pay? An economic
approach to evaluate customer integration, Production Planning & Control 15 (4)
(2004) 435–444.
[14] N. Franke, M. Schreier, Why customers value self-designed products: the im-
portance of process effort and enjoyment, Journal of Product Innovation Man-
agement 27 (7) (2010) 1020–1031.
[15] K. Wertenbroch, B. Skiera, Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point
of purchase, Journal of Marketing Research 39 (2) (2002) 228–241.
[16] M. Schreier, The value increment of mass-customized products: an empirical
assessment, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5 (4) (2006) 317–327.
[17] A. Kamis, M. Koufaris, T. Stern, Using an attribute-based decision support system
for user-customized products online: an experimental investigation, MIS Quar-
terly 32 (1) (2008) 159–177.
[18] N. Franke, F.T. Piller, Key research issues in user interaction with configuration
toolkits in a mass customization system, International Journal of Technology
Management 26 (5–6) (2003) 578–599.
[19] J. Liechty, V. Ramaswamy, S.H. Cohen, Choice menus for mass customization: an
experimental approach for analyzing customer demand with an application to a
Web-based information service, Journal of Marketing Research 38 (2) (2001)
183–196.
[20] A.J. Slywotzky, The age of the choiceboard, Harvard Business Review 78 (1)
(2000) 40–41.
[21] E. von Hippel, Perspective: user toolkits for innovation, Journal of Product
Innovation Management 18 (4) (2001) 247–257.
703
Standardized factor
loadinga
0.883
0.907
0.766
0.961
0.956
0.888
0.923
0.762
0.865
[22] N. Franke, F. Piller, Value creation by toolkits for user innovation and design: the
case of the watch market, Journal of Product Innovation Management 21 (6)
(2004) 401–415.
[23] A. Haug, L. Hvam, N.H. Mortensen, Definition and evaluation of product con-
figurator development strategies, Computers in Industry 63 (5) (2012) 471–481.
[24] M.M. Tseng, F.T. Piller, The Customer Centric Enterprise: Advances in Mass
Customization and Personalization, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2003.
[25] F. Salvador, P.M. De Holan, F. Piller, Cracking the code of mass customization, MIT
Sloan Management Review 50 (3) (2009) 71–78.
[26] T. Randall, C. Terwiesch, K.T. Ulrich, Principles for user design of customized
products, California Management Review 47 (4) (2005) 68–85.
[27] J. Vanwelkenhuysen, The tender support system, Knowledge-Based Systems 11
(5–6) (1998) 363–372.
[28] B. Aslan, M. Stevenson, L.C. Hendry, Enterprise resource planning systems: an
assessment of applicability to make-to-order companies, Computers in Industry
63 (7) (2012) 692–705.
[29] C. Forza, F. Salvador, Product Information Management for Mass Customization,
Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK, 2007.
[30] P.T. Helo, Q.L. Xu, S.J. Kyllönen, R.J. Jiao, Integrated vehicle configuration system –
connecting the domains of mass customization, Computers in Industry 61 (1)
(2010) 44–52.
[31] L. Zhang, E. Vareilles, M. Aldanondo, Generic bill of functions, materials, and
operations for SAP2 configuration, International Journal of Production Research
51 (2) (2013) 465–478.
[32] P. Pitiot, M. Aldanondo, E. Vareilles, P. Gaborit, M. Djefel, S. Carbonnel, Con-
current product configuration and process planning, towards an approach
combining interactivity and optimality, International Journal of Production
Research 51 (2) (2013) 524–541.
[33] T. Soininen, J. Tiihonen, T. Männistö, R. Sulonen, Towards a general ontology of
configuration, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and
Manufacturing 12 (4) (1998) 357–372.
[34] A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, D. Jannach, Conceptual modeling for configuration of
mass-customizable products, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 15 (2) (2001)
165–176.
[35] D. Yang, R. Miao, H. Wu, Y. Zhou, Product configuration knowledge modeling
using ontology web language, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (3, Part 1)
(2009) 4399–4411.
[36] S.M. Fohn, J.S. Liau, A.R. Greef, R.E. Young, P.J. O’Grady, Configuring computer
systems through constraint-based modeling and interactive constraint satisfac-
tion, Computers in Industry 27 (1) (1995) 3–21.
[37] P.J.P. Slater, Pconfig: a Web-based configuration tool for configure-to-order
products, Knowldge-Based Systems 12 (5–6) (1999) 223–230.
[38] H. Xie, P. Henderson, M. Kernahan, Modelling and solving engineering product
configuration problems by constraint satisfaction, International Journal of Pro-
duction Research 43 (20) (2005) 4455–4469.
[39] S.K. Ong, Q. Lin, A.Y.C. Nee, Web-based configuration design system for product
customization, International Journal of Production Research 44 (2) (2006)
351–382.
[40] X. Luo, Y. Tu, J. Tang, C.K. Kwong, Optimizing customer’s selection for config-
urable product in B2C e-commerce application, Computers in Industry 59 (8)
(2008) 767–776.
[41] G. Hong, D. Xue, Y. Tu, Rapid identification of the optimal product configuration
and its parameters based on customer-centric modeling for one-of-a-kind
production, Computers in Industry 61 (3) (2010) 270–279.
[42] A. Felfernig, Standardized configuration knowledge representations as techno-
logical foundation for mass customization, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management 54 (1) (2007) 41–56.
[43] J.R. Wright, E.S. Weixelbaum, G.T. Vesonder, K.E. Brown, S.R. Palmer, J.I. Berman,
H.H. Moore, A knowledge-based configurator that supports sales, engineering,
and manufacturing at AT&T network systems, AI Magazine 14 (3) (1993) 69–80.
704 A. Trentin et al. / Computers in Industry 65 (2014) 693–705
[44] B. Yu, J. Skovgaard, A configuration tool to increase product competitiveness,
IEEE Intelligent Systems 13 (4) (1998) 34–41.
[45] C. Forza, F. Salvador, Product configuration and inter-firm co-ordination: an
innovative solution from a small manufacturing enterprise, Computers in In-
dustry 49 (1) (2002) 37–46.
[46] F. Salvador, C. Forza, Configuring products to address the customization-respon-
siveness squeeze: a survey of management issues and opportunities, Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 91 (3) (2004) 273–291.
[47] A. Trentin, E. Perin, C. Forza, Overcoming the customization-responsiveness
squeeze by using product configurators: Beyond anecdotal evidence, Computers
in Industry 62 (3) (2011) 260–268.
[48] L. Hvam, S. Pape, M.K. Nielsen, Improving the quotation process with product
configuration, Computers in Industry 57 (7) (2006) 607–621.
[49] A. Trentin, E. Perin, C. Forza, Product configurator impact on product quality,
International Journal of Production Economics 135 (2) (2012) 850–859.
[50] A. Haug, L. Hvam, H.N. Mortensen, The impact of product configurators on lead-
times in engineering-oriented companies, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering
Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 25 (2) (2011) 197–206.
[51] J. Tiihonen, T. Soininen, T. Männistö, R. Sulonen, State-of-the-practice in product
configuration – a survey of 10 cases in the Finnish industry, in: T. Tomiyama, M.
Mäntylä, S. Finger (Eds.), Knowledge intensive CAD, Chapman & Hall, London,
UK, 1996, pp. 95–114.
[52] A. Falkner, A. Haselböck, G. Schenner, H. Schreiner, Modeling and solving
technical product configuration problems, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering
Design Analysis and Manufacturing 25 (2) (2011) 115–129.
[53] F.S. Fogliatto, G.J.C. da Silveira, Mass customization: a method for market
segmentation and choice menu design, International Journal of Production
Economics 111 (2) (2008) 606–622.
[54] A. Valenzuela, R. Dhar, F. Zettelmeyer, Contingent response to self-customization
procedures: implications for decision satisfaction and choice, Journal of Mar-
keting Research 46 (6) (2009) 754–763.
[55] C. Huffman, B.E. Kahn, Variety for sale: mass customization or mass confusion?
Journal of Retailing 74 (4) (1998) 491–513.
[56] T. Randall, C. Terwiesch, K.T. Ulrich, User design of customized products,
Marketing Science 26 (2) (2007) 268–280.
[57] B.G.C. Dellaert, S. Stremersch, Marketing mass-customized products: striking a
balance between utility and complexity, Journal of Marketing Research 17
(2005) 219–227.
[58] C.-C. Chang, H.-Y. Chen, I want products my own way, but which way? The
effects of different product categories and cues on customer responses to Web-
based customizations, CyberPsychology & Behavior 12 (1) (2009) 7–14.
[59] C.-C. Chang, H.-Y. Chen, I.-C. Huang, The interplay between customer participa-
tion and difficulty of design examples in the online designing process and its
effects on customer satisfaction: mediational analyses, CyberPsychology &
Behavior 12 (2) (2009) 147–154.
[60] E. von Hippel, R. Katz, Shifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits, Management
Science 48 (7) (2002) 821–833.
[61] F. Salvador, C. Forza, Principles for efficient and effective sales configuration
design, International Journal of Mass Customisation 2 (1–2) (2007) 114–127.
[62] G. Kreutler, D. Jannach, Personalized needs acquisition in Web-based configu-
ration systems, in: T. Blecker, G. Friedrich (Eds.), Proceedings of the International
Mass Customization Meeting 2005 (IMCM’05), GITO-Verlag, Berlin, 2005, pp.
293–302.
[63] D. Jannach, A. Felfernig, G. Kreutler, M. Zanker, G. Friedrich, Research issues
in knowledge-based configuration, in: T. Blecker, G. Friedrich (Eds.), Mass
Customization Information Systems in Business, IGI Global, London, UK, 2007,
pp. 221–236.
[64] A. Trentin, E. Perin, C. Forza, Sales configurator capabilities to avoid the product
variety paradox: construct development and validation, Computers in Industry
64 (4) (2013) 436–447.
[65] C.P. Moreau, Herd B. Kelly, To each his own? How comparisons with others
influence consumers’ evaluations of their self-designed products, Journal of
Consumer Research 36 (5) (2010) 806–819.
[66] C.P. Moreau, L. Bonney, K.B. Herd, It’s the thought (and the effort) that counts:
how customizing for others differs from customizing for oneself, Journal of
Marketing 75 (5) (2011) 120–133.
[67] D.M. Hunt, S.K. Radford, K.R. Evans, Individual differences in consumer value
for mass customized products, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 12 (4) (2013)
327–336.
[68] S. Chatterjee, T.B. Heath, Conflict and loss aversion in multiattribute choice: the
effects of trade-off size and reference dependence on decision difficulty, Orga-
nizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 67 (2) (1996) 144–155.
[69] D.J. Stipek, A developmental analysis of pride and shame, Human Development
26 (1) (1983) 42–54.
[70] B. Weiner, An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion,
Psychological Review 92 (4) (1985) 548–573.
[71] S.E.G. Lea, P. Webley, Pride in economic psychology, Journal of Economic
Psychology 18 (2–3) (1997) 323–340.
[72] M. Csikszentmihalyi, E. Rochberg-Halton, The Meaning of Things: Domestic
Symbols and the Self, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [Eng.]/New York,
1981.
[73] R.W. Belk, Possessions and the extended self, Journal of Consumer Research 15
(2) (1988) 139–168.
[74] R.W. Belk, G.S. Coon, Gift giving as agapic love: an alternative to the exchange
paradigm based on dating experiences, Journal of Consumer Research 20 (3)
(1993) 393–417.
[75] M.I. Norton, D. Mochon, D. Ariely, The IKEA effect: when labor leads to love,
Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (3) (2012) 453–460.
[76] D. Mochon, M.I. Norton, D. Ariely, Bolstering and restoring feelings of compe-
tence via the IKEA effect, International Journal of Research in Marketing 29 (4)
(2012) 363–369.
[77] A.W. Kruglanski, The endogenous-exogenous partition in attribution theory,
Psychological Review 82 (6) (1975) 387.
[78] A.M. Fiore, S.-E. Lee, G. Kunz, Individual differences, motivations, and willingness
to use a mass customization option for fashion products, European Journal of
Marketing 38 (7) (2004) 835–849.
[79] B.J. Babin, W.R. Darden, M. Griffin, Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic
and utilitarian shopping value, Journal of Consumer Research 20 (4) (1994)
644–656.
[80] R.J. Donovan, J.R. Rossiter, G. Marcoolyn, A. Nesdale, Store atmosphere and
purchasing behavior, Journal of Retailing 70 (3) (1994) 283–294.
[81] M.A. Jones, K.E. Reynolds, M.J. Arnold, Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value:
Investigating differential effects on retail outcomes, Journal of Business Research
59 (9) (2006) 974–981.
[82] D. Scarpi, Work and fun on the Internet: the effects of utilitarianism and
hedonism online, Journal of Interactive Marketing 26 (1) (2012) 53–67.
[83] H. Baumgartner, J.-B.E.M. Steenkamp, Exploratory consumer buying behavior:
conceptualization and measurement, International Journal of Research in Mar-
keting 13 (2) (1996) 121–137.
[84] P.S. Raju, Optimum stimulation level: its relationships to personality, demo-
graphics, and exploratory behavior, Journal of Consumer Research 7 (3) (1980)
272–282.
[85] J.-B.E.M. Steenkamp, H. Baumgartner, The role of optimum stimulation level in
exploratory consumer behavior, Journal of Consumer Research 19 (3) (1992)
434–448.
[86] P. Chandon, B. Wansink, G. Laurent, A benefit congruency framework of sales
promotion effectiveness, Journal of Marketing 64 (4) (2000) 65–81.
[87] P.S. Raju, M. Venkatesan, Exploratory behavior in the consumer context: a state
of the art review, in: J.C. Olson (Ed.), NA – Advances in Consumer Research,
Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, 1980, pp. 258–263.
[88] D.L. Hoffman, T.P. Novak, Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated envir-
onments: conceptual foundations, Journal of Marketing 60 (3) (1996) 50.
[89] C.-F. Shih, Conceptualizing consumer experiences in cyberspace, European
Journal of Marketing 32 (7) (1998) 655–663.
[90] B.E. Kahn, Consumer variety-seeking among goods and services: an integrative
review, Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services 2 (3) (1995) 139–148.
[91] J.L. Zaichkowsky, Measuring the involvement construct, Journal of Consumer
Research 12 (3) (1985) 341–352.
[92] R.C. Celsi, J.C. Olson, The role of involvement in attention and comprehension
processes, Journal of Consumer Research 15 (2) (1988) 210–224.
[93] W. Tung, R. Moore, B. Engelland, Exploring attitudes and purchase intentions in a
brand-oriented, highly interactive Web site setting, The Marketing Management
Journal 16 (2) (2006) 94–106.
[94] M.A. Jones, Entertaining shopping experiences: an exploratory investigation,
Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services 6 (3) (1999) 129–139.
[95] D.L. Hoffman, T.P. Novak, Flow online: lessons learned and future prospects,
Journal of Interactive Marketing 23 (1) (2009) 23–34.
[96] A. Mehrabian, J.A. Russel, An approach to Environmental Psychology, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1974.
[97] M. Zeelemberg, W.W. van Dijk, A.S.R. Manstead, Reconsidering the relation
between regret and responsibility, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes 74 (3) (1998) 254–272.
[98] N. Syam, P. Krishnamurthy, J.D. Hess, That’s what I thought I wanted? Miswant-
ing and regret for a standard good in a mass-customized world, Marketing
Science 27 (3) (2008) 379–397.
[99] J. Nasiry, I. Popescu, Advance selling when consumers regret, Management
Science 58 (6) (2012) 1160–1177.
[100] M. Zeelemberg, Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision
making, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12 (2) (1999) 93–106.
[101] J.R. Hauser, B. Wernerfelt, An evaluation cost model of consideration sets,
Journal of Consumer Research 16 (4) (1990) 393–408.
[102] J. Alba, J. Lynch, B. Weitz, C. Janiszewski, R. Lutz, A. Sawyer, S. Wood, Interactive
home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate
in electronic marketplaces, Journal of Marketing 61 (3) (1997) 38–53.
[103] J.R. Bettman, M.F. Luce, J.W. Payne, Constructive consumer choice processes,
Journal of Consumer Research 25 (3) (1998) 187–217.
[104] K. Ulrich, The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm, Research
Policy 24 (3) (1995) 419–440.
[105] V.A. Zeithaml, Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end
model and synthesis of evidence, Journal of Marketing 52 (3) (1988) 2–22.
[106] A.M. Fiore, J. Kim, H.-H. Lee, Effect of image interactivity technology on con-
sumer responses toward the online retailer, Journal of Interactive Marketing 19
(3) (2005) 38–53.
[107] K. Dai, Y. Li, J. Han, X. Lu, S. Zhang, An interactive web system for integrated
three-dimensional customization, Computers in Industry 57 (8–9) (2006)
827–837.
[108] J. Steuer, Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence, Journal
of Communication 42 (4) (1992) 73–93.
[109] J.H. Gerlach, F.-Y. Kuo, Understanding human–computer interaction for infor-
mation systems design, MIS Quarterly 15 (4) (1991) 527–549.
[110] H. Berghel, Cyberspace 2000: dealing with information overload, Communica-
tions of the ACM 40 (2) (2000) 19–24.
 A. Trentin et al. / Computers in Industry 65 (2014) 693–705
[111] A. Ansari, C.F. Mela, E-customization, Journal of Marketing Research 40 (2)
(2003) 131–145.
[112] T.-P. Liang, H.-J. Lai, Y.-C. Ku, Personalized content recommendation and user
satisfaction: theoretical synthesis and empirical findings, Journal of Manage-
ment Information Systems 23 (3) (2006–2007) 45–70.
[113] S. Spiekermann, C. Parashiv, Motivating human–agent interaction: transferring
insights from behavioral marketing to interface design, Electronic Commerce
Research 2 (3) (2002) 255–285.
[114] K. Stanney, S. Samman, L. Reeves, K. Hale, W. Buff, C. Bowers, B. Goldiez, D.
Nicholson, S. Lackey, A paradigm shift in interactive computing: deriving
multimodal design principles from behavioral and neurological foundations,
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 17 (2) (2004) 229–257.
[115] I. Simonson, A. Tversky, Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness
aversion, Journal of Marketing Research 29 (3) (1992) 281–295.
[116] I. Simonson, Determinants of customers’ responses to customized offers: con-
ceptual framework and research propositions, Journal of Marketing 69 (1)
(2005) 32–45.
[117] R.P. Bagozzi, L.W. Phillips, Representing and testing organizational theories: a
holistic construal, Administrative Science Quarterly 27 (3) (1982) 459–489.
[118] C. Fornell, D.F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv-
able variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)
(1981) 39–50.
[119] L. Hatcher, A Step-by-step Approach to Using SAS1 for Factor Analysis and
Structural Equation Modeling, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA, 1994.
[120] N. Franke, P. Keinz, C.J. Steger, Testing the value of customization: when do
customers really prefer products tailored to their preferences? Journal of
Marketing 73 (5) (2009) 103–121.
[121] J.C. Anderson, D.W. Gerbing, Structural equation modeling in practice: a review
and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin 103 (3) (1988)
411–423.
[122] G. Liu, R. Shah, R.G. Schroeder, Linking work design to mass customization:
a sociotechnical systems perspective, Decision Sciences 37 (4) (2006)
519–545.
[123] D.W. Gerbing, J.C. Anderson, An weupdated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment, Journal of Marketing Re-
search 25 (2) (1988) 186–192.
[124] L. Menor, A.V. Roth, New service development competence in retail banking:
Construct development and measurement validation, Journal of Operations
Management 25 (4) (2007) 825–846.
[125] C.E. Werts, R.L. Linn, K.G. Jöreskog, Intraclass reliability estimates: testing
structural assumptions, Educational & Psychological Measurement 34 (1)
(1974) 25–33.
[126] S.W. O’Leary-Kelly, R.J. Vokurka, The empirical assessment of construct validity,
Journal of Operations Management 16 (4) (1998) 387–405.
[127] E. Carmines, J. McIver, Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of
covariance structures, in: G.W. Bohrnstedt, E.F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measure-
ment: Current issues,, Sage Publications, Inc, Beverly Hills, 1981, pp. 65–115.
[128] R.C. MacCallum, M.W. Browne, H.M. Sugawara, Power analysis and determina-
tion of sample size for covariance structure modeling, Psychological Methods 1
(2) (1996) 130–149.
[129] P.M. Bentler, Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological Bulle-
tin 107 (2) (1990) 238–246.
[130] K.G. Jöreskog, D. Sörbom, LISREL 8, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL,
1993.
[131] E. Diener, R.A. Emmons, The independence of positive and negative affect,
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 47 (5) (1984) 1105–1117.
[132] R.E. Lucas, E. Diener, E. Suh, Discriminant validity of well-being measures,
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 71 (3) (1996) 616–628.
[133] A.C. Ahuvia, D.C. Friedman, Income, consumption and subjective well-being:
toward a composite macromarketing model, Journal of Macromarketing 18 (2)
(1998) 153–168.
[134] R. Desmueles, The impact of variety on consumer happiness: marketing and the
tyranny of freedom, Academy of Marketing Science Review 12 (2002) 1–18.
[135] K. Steger-Jensen, C. Svensson, Issues of mass customisation and supporting IT-
solutions, Computers in Industry 54 (1) (2004) 83–103.
[136] T. Blecker, G. Friedrich, Mass Customization Information Systems in Business,
IGI Global, London, UK, 2007.
[137] J. Warschat, M. Kürümlüoglu, R. Nostdal, Enabling IT for mass customisation: the
IT architecture to support an extended enterprise offering mass-customised
products, International Journal of Mass Customisation 1 (2–3) (2006) 394–401.
[138] N. Franke, M. Schreier, Product uniqueness as a driver of customer utility in mass
customization, Marketing Letters 19 (2) (2008) 93–107.
705
[139] J.W. Finney, R.E. Mitchell, R.C. Cronkite, R.H. Moos, Methodological issues in
estimating main and interactive effects: examples from coping/social support
and stress field, Journal of Health & Social Behavior 25 (1) (1984) 85–98.
[140] S. Chin, K.-Y. Kim, Facial configuration and BMI based personalized face and
upper body modeling for customer-oriented wearable product design, Compu-
ters in Industry 61 (6) (2010) 559–575.
[141] C. Noon, R. Zhang, E. Winer, J. Oliver, B. Gilmore, J. Duncan, A system for rapid
creation and assessment of conceptual large vehicle designs using immersive
virtual reality, Computers in Industry 63 (5) (2012) 500–512.
[142] J. Lee, S. Han, J. Yang, Construction of a computer-simulated mixed reality
environment for virtual factory layout planning, Computers in Industry 62
(1) (2011) 86–98.
[143] H. Park, H.-C. Moon, Design evaluation of information appliances using aug-
mented reality-based tangible interaction, Computers in Industry 64 (7) (2013)
854–868.
[144] P. Jiang, Exploring consumers’ willingness to pay for online customisation and its
marketing outcomes, Journal of Targeting Measurement & Analysis for Market-
ing 11 (2) (2002) 168–183.
[145] K. Liao, X. Deng, E. Marsillac, Factors that influence Chinese automotive sup-
pliers’ mass customization capabilities, International Journal of Production
Economics 146 (1) (2013) 25–36.
Alessio Trentin is an assistant professor at the
Università di Padova (Italy), where he got a PhD in
Operations Management in 2006. In 2007–2008 he was
a visiting assistant research professor at the Zaragoza
Logistics Center (Zaragoza, Spain), a joint research
center of MIT (USA) and Aragona government (Spain).
His research interests include form postponement,
mass customization, product configuration, build-to-
order supply chains and sustainable operations man-
agement. His work has been published in Computers
in Industry, the International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, the International Journal of
Production Economics, the International Journal
of Production Research and the International Journal of
Mass Customisation.
Elisa Perin works as a consultant for Pricewaterhou-
seCoopers Advisory, in the Technology team. She holds
a PhD in Operations Management and an MS in
Industrial Engineering from the Università di Padova
(Italy). Her research interests are related to mass
customization, product configuration and environmen-
tal sustainability. Her work has been published in
Computers in Industry, the International Journal of
Production Economics and the International Journal
of Production Research.
Cipriano Forza is a full professor of operations
management at the Università di Padova (Italy). He is
also on the faculty at the European Institute of
Advanced Studies in Management, where he teaches
Research Methods in Operations Management. He has
been a visiting scholar at Minnesota University (USA),
London Business School (UK) and Arizona State
University (USA). Currently he serves as an associate
editor for the Journal of Operations Management and the
Decision Sciences Journal. His research focuses on
product variety management, including such topics
as mass customization, concurrent product-process-
supply chain design and product configuration. He has
been successfully assisting numerous companies in
these areas. His work has been published in the Journal of Operations Management,
the International Journal of Operations & Production Management, the International
Journal of Production Research, Computers in Industry, the International Journal of
Production Economics, Industrial Management & Data Systems and other journals. In
2003 and 2007 he published two books with McGraw-Hill and Palgrave Macmillan,
respectively, on product information management for mass customization.