[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mit/sloanp/1810.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Toubia, Olivier
  • Simester, Duncan
  • Hauser, John
  • Dahan, Ely
Abstract
We propose and test new "polyhedral" question design and estimation methods that use recent developments in mathematical programming. The methods are designed to offer accurate estimates after relatively few questions in problems involving many parameters. With polyhedral question design, each respondent's questions are adapted based upon prior answers by that respondent to reduce a feasible set of parameters as rapidly as possible. Polyhedral estimation provides estimates based on a centrality criterion (the "analytic center" of the feasible parameter set). The methods require computer support but can operate in both Internet and other computer-aided environments with no noticeable delay between questions. We evaluate the proposed methods using two approaches. First, we use Monte Carlo simulations to compare the methods against established benchmarks in a variety of domains. In the simulations we compare polyhedral question design to three benchmarks: random selection, efficient Fixed designs, and Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA). We compare polyhedral estimation to Hierarchical Bayes estimation for each question design method. The simulations evaluate the methods across different levels of respondent heterogeneity, response accuracy, and numbers of questions. For low numbers of questions, polyhedral question design does best (or is tied for best) for all domains. For high numbers of questions, efficient Fixed designs do better in some domains. The best estimation method depends on respondent heterogeneity and response accuracy. Polyhedral (analytic center) estimation shows particular promise for high heterogeneity and/or for low response errors. The second evaluation employs a large-scale field test. The field test involved 330 respondents, who were randomly assigned to a question-design method and asked to complete a web-based conjoint exercise. Following the conjoint exercise, respondents were given $100 and allowed to make a purchase from a Pareto choice set of five new-to-the-market laptop computer bags. The respondents received their chosen bag together with the difference in cash between the price of their chosen bag and the $100. We compare the question-design and estimation methods on both internal validity (holdout tasks) and external validity (actual choice of a laptop bag). The field test findings are consistent with the simulation results and offer strong support for the polyhedral question design method. The preferred estimation method varied based on the question design method, although Hierarchical Bayes estimation consistently per-formed well in this domain. The findings reveal a remarkable level of consistency across the validation tasks. They suggest that the proposed methods are sufficiently promising to justify further development. At the time of the test, the bags were prototypes. Based, in part, on the results of this study the bags were launched successfully and are now commercially available. Sales of the features of the laptop bags were consistent with conjoint-analysis predictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Toubia, Olivier & Simester, Duncan & Hauser, John & Dahan, Ely, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Working papers 4279-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:mit:sloanp:1810
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1810
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Abbie Griffin & John R. Hauser, 1993. "The Voice of the Customer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27.
    4. 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.
    5. Arora, Neeraj & Huber, Joel, 2001. "Improving Parameter Estimates and Model Prediction by Aggregate Customization in Choice Experiments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(2), pages 273-283, September.
    6. John R. Hauser & Steven P. Gaskin, 1984. "Application of the “Defender” Consumer Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 327-351.
    7. 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.
    8. John R. Hauser & Steven M. Shugan, 1980. "Intensity Measures of Consumer Preference," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 278-320, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Green, Paul E & Helsen, Kristiaan & Shandler, Bruce, 1988. "Conjoint Internal Validity under Alternative Profile Presentations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 392-397, December.
    11. David Reibstein & John E. G. Bateson & William Boulding, 1988. "Conjoint Analysis Reliability: Empirical Findings," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 271-286.
    12. 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.
    13. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    17. Kamel Jedidi & Sharan Jagpal & Puneet Manchanda, 2003. "Measuring Heterogeneous Reservation Prices for Product Bundles," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 107-130, July.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    2. John R. Hauser & Olivier Toubia, 2005. "The Impact of Utility Balance and Endogeneity in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 498-507, August.
    3. Steven M. Shugan, 2003. "Editorial: Compartmentalized Reviews and Other Initiatives: Should Marketing Scientists Review Manuscripts in Consumer Behavior?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 151-160.
    4. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    5. Yu, Jie & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2011. "Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 378-388.
    6. Braun, Alexander & Schmeiser, Hato & Schreiber, Florian, 2016. "On consumer preferences and the willingness to pay for term life insurance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 761-776.
    7. Crabbe, M. & Vandebroek, M., 2012. "Improving the efficiency of individualized designs for the mixed logit choice model by including covariates," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 2059-2072.
    8. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2011. "Estimation methods for choice-based conjoint analysis of consumer preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 160-167, October.
    9. Montgomery, David B. & Ramus, Catherine, 2007. "Including Corporate Social Responsibility, Environmental Sustainaibility, and Ethics in Calibrating MBA Job Preferences," Research Papers 1981, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    10. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    11. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    12. Adriane Hartmann & Henrik Sattler, 2004. "Wie robust sind Methoden zur Präferenzmessung?," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 3-22, February.
    13. Lynd Bacon & Peter Lenk, 2012. "Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 453-474, December.
    14. Peter E. Rossi & Greg M. Allenby, 2003. "Bayesian Statistics and Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 304-328, July.
    15. Greg Allenby & Geraldine Fennell & Joel Huber & Thomas Eagle & Tim Gilbride & Dan Horsky & Jaehwan Kim & Peter Lenk & Rich Johnson & Elie Ofek & Bryan Orme & Thomas Otter & Joan Walker, 2005. "Adjusting Choice Models to Better Predict Market Behavior," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 197-208, December.
    16. Acosta, Lilibeth A. & Enano, Nelson H. & Magcale-Macandog, Damasa B. & Engay, Kathreena G. & Herrera, Maria Noriza Q. & Nicopior, Ozzy Boy S. & Sumilang, Mic Ivan V. & Eugenio, Jemimah Mae A. & Lucht,, 2013. "How sustainable is bioenergy production in the Philippines? A conjoint analysis of knowledge and opinions of people with different typologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 241-253.
    17. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    18. Theodoros Evgeniou & Massimiliano Pontil & Olivier Toubia, 2007. "A Convex Optimization Approach to Modeling Consumer Heterogeneity in Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 805-818, 11-12.
    19. Henrik Sattler, 2006. "Methoden zur Messung von Präferenzen für Innovationen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(54), pages 154-176, January.
    20. James Cochran & David Curry & Rajesh Radhakrishnan & Jon Pinnell, 2014. "Political engineering: optimizing a U.S. Presidential candidate’s platform," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 63-87, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mit:sloanp:1810. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: None (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssmitus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.