Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation
Web-based customer panels and web-based multimedia capabilities offer the potential to get information from customers rapidly and iteratively based on virtual product profiles. However, web-based respondents are impatient and wear out more quickly. At the same time, in commercial applications, conjoint analysis is being used to screen large numbers of product features. Both of these trends are leading to a demand for conjoint analysis methods that provide reasonable estimates with fewer questions in problems involving many parameters. In this paper we propose and test new adaptive conjoint analysis methods that attempt to reduce respondent burden while simultaneously improving accuracy. We draw on recent "interior-point" developments in mathematical programming which enable us to quickly select those questions that narrow the range of feasible partworths as fast as possible. We then use recent centrality concepts (the analytic center) to estimate partworths. These methods are efficient, run with no noticeable delay in web-based questionnaires, and have the potential to provide estimates of the partworths with fewer questions than extant methods. After introducing these "polyhedral algorithms" we implement one such algorithm and test it with Monte Carlo simulation against benchmarks such as efficient (fixed) designs and Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA). While no method dominates in all situations, the polyhedral algorithm appears to hold significant potential when (a) profile comparisons are more accurate than the self-explicated importance measures used in ACA, (b) when respondent wear out is a concern, and (c) when the product development and marketing teams wish to screen many features quickly. We also test a hybrid method that combines polyhedral question selection with ACA estimation and show that it, too, has the potential to improve predictions in many contexts. The algorithm we test helps to illustrate how polyhedral methods can be combined effectively and synergistically with the wide variety of existing conjoint analysis methods. We close with suggestions on how polyhedral algorithms can be used in other preference measurement contexts (e.g., choice-based conjoint analysis) and other marketing problems.
|Date of creation:||03 Feb 2003|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (MIT), SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, 50 MEMORIAL DRIVE CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS 02142 USA|
Web page: http://mitsloan.mit.edu/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (MIT), SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, 50 MEMORIAL DRIVE CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS 02142 USA|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Green, Paul E & Helsen, Kristiaan & Shandler, Bruce, 1988. " Conjoint Internal Validity under Alternative Profile Presentations," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 392-397, December.
- David Reibstein & John E. G. Bateson & William Boulding, 1988. "Conjoint Analysis Reliability: Empirical Findings," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 271-286.
- White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
- Neeraj Arora & Greg M. Allenby & James L. Ginter, 1998. "A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 29-44.
- Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. " Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
- Toubia, Olivier & Hauser, John & Simester, Duncan, 2003. "Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Working papers 4285-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
- Sha Yang & Gerg M. Allenby & Geraldine Fennel, 2002. "Modeling Variation in Brand Preference: The Roles of Objective Environment and Motivating Conditions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 14-31, May.
- Freund, Robert Michael. & Roundy, Robin. & Todd, Michael J., 1947-, 1985. "Identifying the set of always-active constraints in a system of linear inequalities by a single linear program," Working papers 1674-85., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
- Arora, Neeraj & Huber, Joel, 2001. " Improving Parameter Estimates and Model Prediction by Aggregate Customization in Choice Experiments," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 273-283, September.
- Moore, William L. & Semenik, Richard J., 1988. "Measuring preferences with hybrid conjoint analysis: The impact of a different number of attributes in the master design," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 261-274, May.
- John R. Hauser & Steven P. Gaskin, 1984. "Application of the “Defender” Consumer Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 327-351.
- Elie Ofek & V. Srinivasan, 2002. "How Much Does the Market Value an Improvement in a Product Attribute?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 398-411, June.
- John R. Hauser & Steven M. Shugan, 1980. "Intensity Measures of Consumer Preference," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 278-320, April.
- Zsolt Sándor & Michel Wedel, 2002. "Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 455-475, February.
- Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
- V. Srinivasan & Allan Shocker, 1973. "Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 38(3), pages 337-369, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mit:sloanp:1811. 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: (Christian Zimmermann)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.