Research
Built around how people actually shop.
Industry and academic research informed the problem. OnSight’s own survey, interviews and prototype testing challenged the solution. The two are kept distinct here.
OnSight primary research
Built from the store floor up.
Research shaped the product before deployment. The next test is a real store, with reliable data and agreed measures.
- 111
- Shopper survey
- 7
- Retail experts
- 9
- Store staff
- 20
- Prototype participants
Valid responses · 11–31 March 2026
Stock/size information, locating products and help on demand were priorities.
Final thesis · pp. 31–36
Exploratory interviews
Data reliability, adoption and retailer value challenged the original concept.
Final thesis · pp. 38–47
Interviews across nine locations
Stock and size questions recur while teams juggle other floor duties.
Final thesis · pp. 48–50
Informal task-based testing
All completed core tasks and reported intent to use it again. Help from the map needed refinement.
Final thesis · pp. 58–60
Exploratory research · not representative retail performance
OnSight primary research
What shoppers reported
73%
Stock / size uncertainty
Reported this at least sometimes.
Survey · 111 valid responses · p. 32
80%
Would use stock / size checking
Selected this feature when asked which they would use.
Survey · self-reported feature intent · p. 35
38% / 27%
Screen / QR preference
Preferred a screen or a QR code respectively; 25% did not mind the format.
Survey · stated format preference · p. 35
Percentages are reported by the thesis; item-level counts are not supplied. This is an exploratory, self-reported sample, not a representative estimate of all shoppers.
OnSight primary research
What the research changed
Initial assumption
Screen-led access
Research learning
Interviews raised hardware cost and adoption friction; shoppers expressed different format preferences.
Product direction
Explore QR-first or hybrid access, depending on the store.
Final thesis · pp. 35, 38–47, 53
Initial assumption
Answer simple stock questions
Research learning
Staff repeatedly check sizes and availability; unreliable inventory would undermine the service.
Product direction
Prioritise reliable stock information and clear uncertainty handling.
Final thesis · pp. 48–53
Initial assumption
Convenience as the main pitch
Research learning
Experts asked for distinct customer, staff and retailer value.
Product direction
Connect autonomy, contextual assistance and measurable operational signals.
Final thesis · pp. 38–47, 51–54
What this does not prove
Survey answers and interviews are exploratory. The 20-person prototype study used personal contacts, informal sessions and simulated store data, without controlled timing or systematic logging. It does not establish sales uplift, time savings, inventory accuracy, live AI performance or successful retail adoption. No real-store pilot results are available.
Academic and industry research
Secondary research
Sources checked against the final thesis bibliography. Findings below paraphrase the thesis; external publications have not been independently re-audited here.
Customer experience
Information and effort shape the journey before a sale.
Physical and digital retail
Store experiences and digital information can complement each other.
Human assistance
Self-service should preserve access to a person.
Adoption
A useful tool must also be easy to use.
Staff enablement
Clear requests can support teams during competing floor duties.
Retail intelligence
Search and service signals can reveal questions transaction data misses.
- Customer experience
Consumers identify customer experience as an important factor in purchasing decisions, alongside price and quality.
Consumer research cited in the thesis introduction; not OnSight customer outcomes.
- Human assistance
Speed, convenience, knowledgeable help and friendly service are important elements of a positive experience.
Consumer experience research; cited in the final project bibliography.
- Customer journey
Customer experience is shaped across pre-purchase, purchase and post-purchase touchpoints — not only the transaction.
Theoretical framework used in the thesis, pp. 22–24.
Lemon, K. N. & Verhoef, P. C. · 2016
Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey · Journal of Marketing
Source - Technology adoption
Perceived usefulness and ease of use help explain acceptance of technology.
Technology Acceptance Model; a design lens, not proof of OnSight adoption.
Davis, F. D. · 1989
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology · MIS Quarterly
Source - Physical and digital retail
Omnichannel retail considers connected customer journeys across channels rather than treating each channel in isolation.
Academic introduction listed in the final bibliography.
Verhoef, P. C., Kannan, P. K. & Inman, J. J. · 2015
From multi-channel retailing to omni-channel retailing · Journal of Retailing
Source - Physical store value
Physical stores can play several roles within an omnichannel distribution and shopping network.
Industry perspective cited in the thesis; not a measured OnSight result.
McKinsey & Company · 2021
Reimagining the role of physical stores in an omnichannel distribution network
Source