It could be the Pepsi sip test problem. Pepsi does well in sip testing, better than coke, but most people report liking coke better. Why? Pepsi is slightly sweeter, which means it tastes better for the first sip or two. But, in the long run, coke wins out because it's a bit less sweet and therefore more tolerable for a whole drink.

It's possible they tested touch screens with people using prototypes and whatnot but did not do their due diligence to test it long-term. On first impression, touch screens seem cool, futuristic, and flashy. It's really only when you try to daily drive the car that you realize they're annoying and a regression from physical buttons.

But, they present very well on sales room floors and car shows.

I guess it is possible that customers - the ones that they asked anyway - were also caught up in the touchscreen hype. There was a lot of hype in the first few years of iPhone and iPad.

That was my first thought. How did they go all screen if they ran the study groups?

>If they have custromer feedback and focus groups like they mention how did it happen in the first place?

This is part of the modern UI paradox. Never before has UI and UX gotten so much attention, and logging, and tracking, and research, etc. But of course with all that additional attention UI and UX is generally getting worse over time. I have my theories why, but I'd bet they're paying for decent talent here and are coming to the wrong conclusions.

focus groups are like the sobriety tests on the side of the road. Its just performance and the conclusion was made before it even started.

The Blackberry thumb trackpads in the steering wheels made me scream trying to navigate the dash menus.

... I cannot believe they actually put them in a base model Sprinter.

Do they hate tradespeople?