IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v45y1999i4p533-542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Value of Internet Commerce to the Customer

Author

Listed:
  • Ralph L. Keeney

    (Center for Telecommunications Management, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-0871)

Abstract

Internet commerce has the potential to offer customers a better deal compared to purchases by conventional methods in many situations. To make this potential a reality, businesses must focus on the values of their customers. We interviewed over one-hundred individuals about all the pros and cons of using Internet commerce that they experienced or envisioned. The results were organized into twenty-five categories of objectives that were influenced by Internet purchases. These categories were separated into means objectives and fundamental objectives used to describe the bottom line consequences of concern to customers. These results are applicable to designing an Internet commerce system for a business, creating and redesigning products, and increasing value to customers. The set of fundamental objectives also provides the foundation for developing a quantitative model of customer values.

Suggested Citation

  • Ralph L. Keeney, 1999. "The Value of Internet Commerce to the Customer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(4), pages 533-542, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:45:y:1999:i:4:p:533-542
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.45.4.533
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.4.533
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.45.4.533?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter C. Fishburn, 1965. "Independence in Utility Theory with Whole Product Sets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 28-45, February.
    2. Jeffrey P. Krischer, 1976. "Utility Structure of a Medical Decision-Making Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 951-972, October.
    3. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1979. "Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 810-822, August.
    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. Jay Simon, 2016. "On the existence of altruistic value and utility functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 371-391, September.
    2. Ralph L. Keeney, 2002. "Common Mistakes in Making Value Trade-Offs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 935-945, December.
    3. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    4. Bleichrodt, Han, 1995. "QALYs and HYEs: Under what conditions are they equivalent?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 17-37, May.
    5. Ying He & James S. Dyer & John C. Butler, 2013. "On the Axiomatization of the Satiation and Habit Formation Utility Models," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1399-1410, December.
    6. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2015. "On the decomposition of Generalized Additive Independence models," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 15064, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    7. Christophe Labreuche & Michel Grabisch, 2016. "A comparison of the GAI model and the Choquet integral with respect to a k-ary capacity," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 16004, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    8. Nikolaos Argyris & Alec Morton & José Rui Figueira, 2014. "CUT: A Multicriteria Approach for Concavifiable Preferences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 633-642, June.
    9. Carland, Corinne & Goentzel, Jarrod & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2018. "Modeling the values of private sector agents in multi-echelon humanitarian supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 532-543.
    10. John M. Miyamoto & Peter P. Wakker & Han Bleichrodt & Hans J. M. Peters, 1998. "The Zero-Condition: A Simplifying Assumption in QALY Measurement and Multiattribute Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(6), pages 839-849, June.
    11. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 2017. "A Practical Approach to Address Uncertainty in Stakeholder Deliberations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 487-501, March.
    12. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Roessler, Craig, 1998. "Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 299-312, December.
    13. Janne Gustafsson, 2020. "Valuation of Research and Development Projects Using Buying and Selling Prices: Generalized Definitions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 154-168, June.
    14. Peter Reichert & Klemens Niederberger & Peter Rey & Urs Helg & Susanne Haertel-Borer, 2019. "The need for unconventional value aggregation techniques: experiences from eliciting stakeholder preferences in environmental management," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 197-219, November.
    15. Wynn C. Stirling & Teppo Felin, 2016. "Satisficing, preferences, and social interaction: a new perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 279-308, August.
    16. Minardi, Stefania & Savochkin, Andrei, 2015. "Preferences with grades of indecisiveness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 300-331.
    17. James E. Smith & James S. Dyer, 2021. "On (Measurable) Multiattribute Value Functions: An Expository Argument," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 247-256, December.
    18. Jay Simon, 2020. "Weight Approximation for Spatial Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-18, July.
    19. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    20. Carmen Herrero Blanco, 2001. "Individual Evidence Of Independence In Health Profiles Evaluation," Working Papers. Serie AD 2001-20, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:45:y:1999:i:4:p:533-542. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.