Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

An Improved Method for the Quantitative Assessment of Customer Priorities

Contents:

Author Info

  • Srinivasan, V.

    (Stanford University)

  • Wyner, Gordon A.

    (Millward Brown Inc)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Companies constantly seek to enhance customer satisfaction by improving product or service features. Two methods are commonly used to assess customer priorities for product or service features from individual customers: ratings and constant-sum allocation. A common problem with the ratings approach is that it does not explicitly capture priorities; it is easy for the respondent to say that every feature is important. The traditional constant-sum approach overcomes this limitation, but with a large number of (ten or more) features, it becomes difficult for the respondent to divide a constant sum among all of them. ASEMAP (pronounced Ace-Map, Adaptive Self-Explication of Multi-Attribute Preferences) is a new web-based interactive method for assessing customer priorities. It consists of the respondent first grouping the features into two or more categories of importance (e.g., more important, less important). The respondent then ranks the features in each of the categories from the most important to least important thereby resulting in an overall rank order of the features. In order to estimate quantitative values for the priorities, the computer-based approach breaks down the feature importance question into a sequence of constant-sum paired comparison questions. The paired comparisons are chosen adaptively for each respondent to maximize the information elicited from each paired comparison question. The respondent needs to be questioned only on a small subset of all possible paired comparisons. Importances for the features are estimated from the constant-sum paired comparisons by log-linear multiple regression. The empirical context was that of assessing research priorities among fifteen topics from managers of Marketing Science Institute's member companies. The ASEMAP method provided a statistically significant and substantially better validity than the traditional constant sum method.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/RP2028.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Stanford University, Graduate School of Business in its series Research Papers with number 2028.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: Jun 2009
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:2028

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5015
    Phone: (650) 723-2146
    Fax: (650)725-6750
    Email:
    Web page: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Schlereth, Christian & Eckert, Christine & Schaaf, René & Skiera, Bernd, 2014. "Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: A classification and merge of trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 185-198.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:2028. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.