A design strategy for improving adaptive conjoint analysis

Purpose Adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) is a market research methodology for measuring utility in business-to-business and customer studies. Based on partial profiles, ACA tailors an experiment’s design to each respondent depending on their previously stated preferences, ordered in a self-assessment questionnaire. The purpose of this paper is to describe advantages and disadvantages of using a partial-profile randomised experiment, the usual system, and to propose a new design strategy for arranging profiles in blocks that improve its performance. Design/methodology/approach The authors propose a comparison between their design with the commonly used designs, as random designs and the so-called “mirror image”, in their resolution capacity for the estimations of main factors and two-factor interactions with the lowest number of profiles. Findings Comparing the proposed design over the other two designs highlights certain aspects. The proposed design guarantees more estimation for each experiment than the others and allows the researcher to tailor the design to his or her goals. The authors’ procedure will help researchers to determine an experiment’s resolution capacity before carrying it out, as well as to estimate main factors and two-factor interactions alike. Originality/value The authors propose a new design strategy for arranging the profiles in blocks for improving the performance of ACA. This proposal is based on the use of a full-profile approach in which profiles are arranged in two-level factorial designs in blocks of two, and the levels of each factor are codified vectorially.

[1]  Robert Kohn,et al.  Dissecting the Random Component of Utility , 2002 .

[2]  Paul R. Rosenbaum Blocking in Compound Dispersion Experiments , 1999, Technometrics.

[3]  Peter C. Verhoef,et al.  Partner selection in B2B information service markets , 2009 .

[4]  Aaron Gazley,et al.  Understanding preferences for motion pictures , 2011 .

[5]  Merja Halme,et al.  Estimation methods for choice-based conjoint analysis of consumer preferences , 2011, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  Yih Hwai Lee,et al.  The joint effects of choice assortment and regulatory focus on choice behavior , 2012 .

[7]  Jie Yu,et al.  Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity , 2011 .

[8]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Conjoint Analysis, Related Modeling, and Applications , 2004 .

[9]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Optimization-Based and Machine-Learning Methods for Conjoint Analysis: Estimation and Question Design , 2007 .

[10]  Oscar Kempthorne,et al.  Experimental design : selected papers of Frank Yates , 1972 .

[11]  Donald A. Anderson,et al.  Designs of Discrete Choice Set Experiments for Estimating Both Attribute and Availability Cross Effects , 1994 .

[12]  Reinhold Decker,et al.  Measuring Consumer Preferences for Complex Products: A Compositional Approach BasedonPaired Comparisons , 2010 .

[13]  Norman R. Draper,et al.  Two-Level Factorial and Fractional Factorial Designs in Blocks of Size Two , 2003 .

[14]  Philippe Cattin,et al.  Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update , 1989 .

[15]  John T. Gourville,et al.  Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and Why Variety Backfires , 2005 .

[16]  Andreas Herrmann,et al.  Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications , 2000 .

[17]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation , 2002 .

[18]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  Statistical Analysis of Choice Experiments and Surveys , 2005 .

[19]  Allen M. Weiss,et al.  Buying Modular Systems in Technology-Intensive Markets , 2003 .

[20]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing Research: New Developments and Directions , 1990 .

[21]  Damaraju Raghavarao,et al.  Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Models and Designs , 2010 .

[22]  B. Kahn,et al.  Variety for sale: Mass customization or mass confusion? , 1998 .

[23]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  An introduction to the application of (case 1) best–worst scaling in marketing research , 2013 .

[24]  Oded Netzer,et al.  Adaptive Self-Explication of Multiattribute Preferences , 2011 .

[25]  Dick R. Wittink,et al.  Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical reflections , 1994 .

[26]  Anita Rao,et al.  Adaptive Self-Explication of Multiattribute Preferences , 2011 .

[27]  R. Elliott,et al.  Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of identity , 1998 .

[28]  W. Wells Discovery-oriented consumer research. , 1993 .

[29]  Terry Speed Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation, and Discovery (2nd ed.) , 2006 .

[30]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Concomitant Variable Latent Class Models for Conjoint Analysis , 1994 .

[31]  F. Martínez-López,et al.  Using Response Surface Methodology to Optimise Factors in Conjoint Experiments , 2013 .

[32]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of Ratings-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Models , 1992 .

[33]  T. Flynn Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling , 2010, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[34]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments , 2005 .

[35]  J. Louviere,et al.  Seeing the forest despite the trees: Brand effects on choice uncertainty , 2012 .

[36]  Mark J. Garratt,et al.  Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications , 1994 .

[37]  Peter J. Lenk,et al.  Statistical Benefits of Choices from Subsets , 2009 .

[38]  T. Evgeniou,et al.  Disjunctions of Conjunctions, Cognitive Simplicity, and Consideration Sets , 2010 .