IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/opsear/v59y2022i2d10.1007_s12597-021-00537-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of logarithmic goal programming and conjoint analysis to generate priority point vectors: an experimental approach

Author

Listed:
  • Sumeetha R. Natesan

    (Indian Institute of Management)

  • Goutam Dutta

    (Indian Institute of Management)

Abstract

The utility of a service or product can be considered as an aggregation of utilities of multiple attributes, that the consumers consider while choosing a product. The two methods used to generate a linear utility function are the logarithmic goal programming model (LGPM) and the conjoint analysis method (CAM). In these two methodologies, the procedures used to collect data and generate the utility function differ significantly. This is possibly the first study to compare the two methods for determining the utility function of a product (here vehicle insurance policy). For this study we will be collecting the data from the same set of respondents (customers) for the same set of five different brands of the product (vehicle insurance policy) available in the market. The similarities and differences among LGPM and CAM approaches are examined to provide useful insights in terms of consistency in consumer behaviour while prioritizing their choices for a product. The study addresses if the priority order of consumer choices for a product remains the same or changes if the methodology changes. Moreover, we apply a multinomial logit choice model to derive a choice probability of the brands available in the market using both approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Sumeetha R. Natesan & Goutam Dutta, 2022. "A comparison of logarithmic goal programming and conjoint analysis to generate priority point vectors: an experimental approach," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 59(2), pages 518-549, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:opsear:v:59:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s12597-021-00537-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s12597-021-00537-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12597-021-00537-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12597-021-00537-1?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, February.
    2. Goutam Dutta & Priyanko Ghosh & Arushi Wanchoo Kaul, 2015. "A logarithmic goal programming approach to develop the utility function for a railway travel," International Journal of Revenue Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(2), pages 153-164.
    3. 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.
    4. Vithala R. Rao, 2008. "Developments in Conjoint Analysis," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Berend Wierenga (ed.), Handbook of Marketing Decision Models, chapter 0, pages 23-53, Springer.
    5. G Dutta & S Basu & J John, 2010. "Development of utility function for life insurance buyers in the Indian market," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(4), pages 585-593, April.
    6. Scholl, Armin & Manthey, Laura & Helm, Roland & Steiner, Michael, 2005. "Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 760-777, August.
    7. Sumeetha Natesan & Chhaya Singh & Goutam Dutta, 2019. "Utility function for airline travel in Nepal and its comparison with India," International Journal of Revenue Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(1/2), pages 23-45.
    8. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    9. S Tsafarakis & E Grigoroudis & N Matsatsinis, 2011. "Consumer choice behaviour and new product development: an integrated market simulation approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(7), pages 1253-1267, July.
    10. Goutam Dutta & Priyanko Ghosh, 2011. "Development of a utility function for airline travel: a logarithmic goal programming approach," International Journal of Revenue Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(4), pages 277-289.
    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. Natesan, Sumeetha R. & Dutta, Goutam, 2020. "Development of Utility Function for Vehicle Insurance: Comparison of Logarithmic Goal Programming Method and Conjoint Analysis Method," IIMA Working Papers WP 2020-02-01, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    2. 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.
    3. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    4. Jinsung Kim & Minseok Kim & Sehyeuk Im & Donghyun Choi, 2021. "Competitiveness of E Commerce Firms through ESG Logistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-15, October.
    5. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    6. Andrew R. Kamwendo & Mandusha Maharaj, 2022. "The Preferences of Consumers When Selecting Clothing Detergent Products," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 12(6), pages 23-36, November.
    7. Bragge, Johanna, 2001. "Premediation analysis of the energy taxation dispute in Finland," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 1-16, July.
    8. Lieven, Theo, 2015. "Policy measures to promote electric mobility – A global perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 78-93.
    9. Julio López & Sebastián Maldonado & Ricardo Montoya, 2017. "Simultaneous preference estimation and heterogeneity control for choice-based conjoint via support vector machines," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(11), pages 1323-1334, November.
    10. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Hajibaba, Homa & Boztuğ, Yasemin & Dolnicar, Sara, 2016. "Preventing tourists from canceling in times of crises," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 48-62.
    12. Jong Seok Kim, 2017. "Empirical Analysis Of Consumer Willingness To Pay For Smart Phone Attributes In Multi-Countries," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(02), pages 1-37, February.
    13. Kwarteng Michael Adu & Pilík Michal & Juřičková Eva, 2018. "Beyond cost saving. Other factor consideration in online purchases of used electronic goods: a conjoint analysis approach," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 13(3), pages 1051-1063, September.
    14. John R. Hauser & Steven M. Shugan, 2008. "Defensive Marketing Strategies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 88-110, 01-02.
    15. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    16. Ohlwein, Martin, 2022. "Same but different - The effect of the unit of measure on the valuation of a unit price," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    17. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    18. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    19. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    20. Tofallis, C., 1996. "Improving discernment in DEA using profiling," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 361-364, June.

    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:spr:opsear:v:59:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s12597-021-00537-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.