Measuring customer preferences in new product development: comparing compositional and decompositional methods

International Journal of Product Development

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 12-29

  Helm, Roland ^a   Scholl, Armin ^a   Manthey, Laura ^a   Steiner, Michael ^a  

^a FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

Author keywords

analytic hierarchy process (AHP); applicability; conjoint analysis (CA); customer preference measurement; dominance test; paired comparison; validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247159256     PISSN: 14779056     EISSN: 17418178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJPD.2004.004888     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Porter, M.E. (1998) ‘The competitive advantage of nations’, in: M.E. Porter (Ed.) On Competition, Boston, pp.155–195.
2. Helm, R. (2001) Planung und Vermarktung von Innovationen - Die Präferenz von Konsumenten für verschiedene Innovationsumfänge unter Berücksichtigung des optimalen Stimulationsniveaus und marktbezogener Einflussfaktoren, Stuttgart.
3. Brockhoff, K. (1999) Produktpolitik, 4th ed., Stuttgart.
4. Dannemann, M. (1993) ‘Der kleine wurf, Manager Magazin, Vol. 4, pp.214–227.
5. Sattler, H. (2001) Markenpolitik, Stuttgart.
6. Green, P.E., Wind, J. and Rao, V.R. (1998) ‘Conjoint analysis: methods and applications’, in R.C. Dorf (Ed.) The Technology Management Handbook, Boca Raton, Florida, 12/65-12/75.
7. Green, P.E., Carmone, F.J. and Wind, Y. (1972) ‘Subjective evaluation models and conjoint measurement’, Behavioural Science, pp.288–299.
8. Hartmann, A. and Sattler, H. (2002) ‘Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Germany, Austria and Switzerland’, Research Papers on Marketing and Retailing, University of Hamburg, No. 6.
9. Zahedi, F. (1986) ‘The analytic hierarchy process: a survey of the method and its application’, Interfaces, Vol. 16, pp.96–108.
10. Vargas, L.G. (1990) ‘An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 48, pp.2–8.
11. Wittink, D.R., Vriens, M. and Burhenne, W. (1994) ‘Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: results and critical reflections’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 18, pp.41–52.
12. Green, P.E., Krieger, A.M. and Wind, Y. (2001) ‘Thirty years of conjoint-analysis: reflections and prospects’, Interfaces, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.56–73.
13. Wind, Y. and Saaty, T.L. (1980) ‘Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process’, Management Science, Vol. 26, pp.641–658.
14. Tscheulin, D.K. (1991) ‘Ein empirischer Vergleich der Eignung von Conjoint-Analyse und ‘Analytic Hierarchy Process’ (AHP) zur Neuproduktplanung’, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 61, pp.1267–1280.
15. Tscheulin, D.K. (1992) Optimale Produktgestaltung - Erfolgsprognose mit Analytic Hierarchy Process und Conjoint-Analyse, Wiesbaden.
16. Mulye, R. (1998) ‘An empirical comparison of three variants of the AHP and two variants of conjoint analysis’, Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, Vol. 11, pp.263–280.
17. Orme, B. (2002) ‘Interpreting conjoint analysis data’, Sawtooth Software - Research Paper, Available from: http://www.sawtoothsoftwarexom/download/techpap/interpca.pdf
18. Gierl, H. and Helm, R. (2000) ‘Den Blick am Markt - Conjoint-Analyse für eine marktorientierte Innovationsplanung’, QZ Qualität und Zuverlässigkeit, Vol. 45, pp.1134–1138.
19. Alpert, M.J. (1971) ‘Identification of determinant attributes: a comparison of methods’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, pp.184–191.
20. Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990) ‘Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, October, pp.3–19.
21. Green, P.E. and Srinivasan V. (1978) ‘Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 5, September, pp.103–123.
22. Orme, B. (1996) ‘Which conjoint method should I use?’, Sawtooth Software - Research Paper, Available from: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/whichmth.pdf
23. Addelman, S. (1962) ‘Orthogonal main-effect plans for asymmetrical factorial experiments’, Technometrics, Vol. 4, pp.21–46.
24. Gierl, H. (1995) Marketing, Stuttgart.
25. Green, P.E. (1974) ‘On the design of choice experiments involving multifactor alternatives’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1, pp.61–68.
26. Hausruckinger, G. and Herker, A. (1992) ‘Die Konstruktion von Schätzdesigns für Conjoint-Analysen auf Basis von Paarvergleichen’, Marketing ZFP, Vol. 14, pp.99–110.
27. Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York.
28. Bateson, J.E.G., Reibstein, D. and Boulding, W. (1987) ‘Conjoint analysis reliability and validity: a framework for future research’, in M. Houston (Ed.) Review of Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, pp.451–481.
29. Ernst, O. (2001) Multimediale versus abstrakte Produktpräsentation bei der Adaptiven Conjoint-Analyse: Ein empirischer Validitätsvergleich, Frankfurt.
30. Sattler, H. and Hensel-Börner, S. (2000) ‘A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches’, in A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, and F. Huber (Eds.) Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications, Berlin, pp.121–133.
31. Tscheulin, D.K. and Blaimont, C. (1993) ‘Die Abhängigkeit der Prognosegüte von Conjoint-Studien von demographischen Probanden-Charakteristika’, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 63, pp.839–847.
32. Sattler, H., Hensel-Börner, S. and Krüger, B. (2001) ‘Die Abhängigkeit der Validität von Conjoint-Studien von demographischen Probanden-Charakteristika: Neue empirische Befunde’, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 71, pp.771–787.
33. Mowen, J.C. and Minor, M.S. (2001) Consumer Behaviour - A Framework, New Jersey.
34. Helm, R., Manthey, L., Scholl, A. and Steiner, M. (2003) ‘Empirical evaluation of preference elicitation techniques from marketing and decision analysis’, Jenaer Schriften zur Wirtschaftswissenschaft, No. 2/2003, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.
35. Hensel-Börner, S. (2000) Validität computergestützter hybrider Conjoint-Analysen, Wiesbaden.