IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bep/rmswpp/1-4-1003.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data

Author

Listed:
  • Winfried Steiner

    (University of Regensburg)

  • Harald Hruschka

    (University of Regensburg)

Abstract

Designing and pricing new products is one of the most critical activities for a firm, and it is well-known that taking into account consumer preferences for design decisions is essential for products later to be successful in a competitive environment (e.g., Urban and Hauser 1993). Consequently, measuring consumer preferences among multiattribute alternatives has been a primary concern in marketing research as well, and among many methodologies developed, conjoint analysis (Green and Rao 1971) has turned out to be one of the most widely used preference-based techniques for identifying and evaluating new product concepts. Moreover, a number of conjoint-based models with special focus on mathematical programming techniques for optimal product (line) design have been proposed (e.g., Zufryden 1977, 1982, Green and Krieger 1985, 1987b, 1992, Kohli and Krishnamurti 1987, Kohli and Sukumar 1990, Dobson and Kalish 1988, 1993, Balakrishnan and Jacob 1996, Chen and Hausman 2000). These models are directed at determining optimal product concepts using consumers' idiosyncratic or segment level part-worth preference functions estimated previously within a conjoint framework. Recently, Balakrishnan and Jacob (1996) have proposed the use of Genetic Algorithms (GA) to solve the problem of identifying a share maximizing single product design using conjoint data. In this paper, we follow Balakrishnan and Jacob's idea and employ and evaluate the GA approach with regard to the problem of optimal product line design. Similar to the approaches of Kohli and Sukumar (1990) and Nair et al. (1995), product lines are constructed directly from part-worths data obtained by conjoint analysis, which can be characterized as a one-step approach to product line design. In contrast, a two-step approach would start by first reducing the total set of feasible product profiles to a smaller set of promising items (reference set of candidate items) from which the products that constitute a product line are selected in a second step. Two-step approaches or partial models for either the first or second stage in this context have been proposed by Green and Krieger (1985, 1987a, 1987b, 1989), McBride and Zufryden (1988), Dobson and Kalish (1988, 1993) and, more recently, by Chen and Hausman (2000). Heretofore, with the only exception of Chen and Hausman's (2000) probabilistic model, all contributors to the literature on conjoint-based product line design have employed a deterministic, first-choice model of idiosyncratic preferences. Accordingly, a consumer is assumed to choose from her/his choice set the product with maximum perceived utility with certainty. However, the first choice rule seems to be an assumption too rigid for many product categories and individual choice situations, as the analyst often won't be in a position to control for all relevant variables influencing consumer behavior (e.g., situational factors). Therefore, in agreement with Chen and Hausman (2000), we incorporate a probabilistic choice rule to provide a more flexible representation of the consumer decision making process and start from segment-specific conjoint models of the conditional multinomial logit type. Favoring the multinomial logit model doesn't imply rejection of the widespread max-utility rule, as the MNL includes the option of mimicking this first choice rule. We further consider profit as a firm's economic criterion to evaluate decisions and introduce fixed and variable costs for each product profile. However, the proposed methodology is flexible enough to accomodate for other goals like market share (as well as for any other probabilistic choice rule). This model flexibility is provided by the implemented Genetic Algorithm as the underlying solver for the resulting nonlinear integer programming problem. Genetic Algorithms merely use objective function information (in the present context on expected profits of feasible product line solutions) and are easily adjustable to different objectives without the need for major algorithmic modifications. To assess the performance of the GA methodology for the product line design problem, we employ sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation. Sensitivity analysis is carried out to study the performance of the Genetic Algorithm w.r.t. varying GA parameter values (population size, crossover probability, mutation rate) and to finetune these values in order to provide near optimal solutions. Based on more than 1500 sensitivity runs applied to different problem sizes ranging from 12.650 to 10.586.800 feasible product line candidate solutions, we can recommend: (a) as expected, that a larger problem size be accompanied by a larger population size, with a minimum popsize of 130 for small problems and a minimum popsize of 250 for large problems, (b) a crossover probability of at least 0.9 and (c) an unexpectedly high mutation rate of 0.05 for small/medium-sized problems and a mutation rate in the order of 0.01 for large problem sizes. Following the results of the sensitivity analysis, we evaluated the GA performance for a large set of systematically varying market scenarios and associated problem sizes. We generated problems using a 4-factorial experimental design which varied by the number of attributes, number of levels in each attribute, number of items to be introduced by a new seller and number of competing firms except the new seller. The results of the Monte Carlo study with a total of 276 data sets that were analyzed show that the GA works efficiently in both providing near optimal product line solutions and CPU time. Particularly, (a) the worst-case performance ratio of the GA observed in a single run was 96.66%, indicating that the profit of the best product line solution found by the GA was never less than 96.66% of the profit of the optimal product line, (b) the hit ratio of identifying the optimal solution was 84.78% (234 out of 276 cases) and (c) it tooks at most 30 seconds for the GA to converge. Considering the option of Genetic Algorithms for repeated runs with (slightly) changed parameter settings and/or different initial populations (as opposed to many other heuristics) further improves the chances of finding the optimal solution.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:bep:rmswpp:1-4-1003
    Note: oai:bepress:roms-1003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=roms
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger, 1992. "An Application of a Product Positioning Model to Pharmaceutical Products," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 117-132.
    2. Suresh K. Nair & Lakshman S. Thakur & Kuang-Wei Wen, 1995. "Near Optimal Solutions for Product Line Design and Selection: Beam Search Heuristics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 767-785, May.
    3. Kyle D. Chen & Warren H. Hausman, 2000. "Technical Note: Mathematical Properties of the Optimal Product Line Selection Problem Using Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 327-332, February.
    4. Rajeev Kohli & R. Sukumar, 1990. "Heuristics for Product-Line Design Using Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(12), pages 1464-1478, December.
    5. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger, 1996. "Individualized Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(6), pages 850-867, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger, 1985. "Models and Heuristics for Product Line Selection," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(1), pages 1-19.
    8. Gregory Dobson & Shlomo Kalish, 1988. "Positioning and Pricing a Product Line," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 107-125.
    9. Rajeev Kohli & Ramesh Krishnamurti, 1987. "A Heuristic Approach to Product Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(12), pages 1523-1533, December.
    10. Green, Paul E. & Krieger, Abba M., 1989. "Recent contributions to optimal product positioning and buyer segmentation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 127-141, July.
    11. Gregory Dobson & Shlomo Kalish, 1993. "Heuristics for Pricing and Positioning a Product-Line Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 160-175, February.
    12. Richard D. McBride & Fred S. Zufryden, 1988. "An Integer Programming Approach to the Optimal Product Line Selection Problem," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 126-140.
    13. P. V. (Sundar) Balakrishnan & Varghese S. Jacob, 1996. "Genetic Algorithms for Product Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(8), pages 1105-1117, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cornelia Schön, 2010. "On the Optimal Product Line Selection Problem with Price Discrimination," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 896-902, May.
    2. Michalek, Jeremy J. & Ebbes, Peter & Adigüzel, Feray & Feinberg, Fred M. & Papalambros, Panos Y., 2011. "Enhancing marketing with engineering: Optimal product line design for heterogeneous markets," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-12.
    3. Tsafarakis, Stelios & Marinakis, Yannis & Matsatsinis, Nikolaos, 2011. "Particle swarm optimization for optimal product line design," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 13-22.
    4. Schön, Cornelia, 2010. "On the product line selection problem under attraction choice models of consumer behavior," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 260-264, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Xiong, Yixuan & Du, Gang & Jiao, Roger J., 2018. "Modular product platforming with supply chain postponement decisions by leader-follower interactive optimization," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 272-286.
    7. Xiaojie Liu & Gang Du & Roger J. Jiao, 2017. "Bilevel joint optimisation for product family architecting considering make-or-buy decisions," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(20), pages 5916-5941, October.
    8. Xiaojie Liu & Gang Du & Roger J. Jiao & Yi Xia, 2017. "Product line design considering competition by bilevel optimization of a Stackelberg–Nash game," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(8), pages 768-780, August.
    9. Guangyu Zou & Zhongkai Li & Chao He, 2023. "A New Product Configuration Model for Low Product Cost and Carbon-Neutral Expenditure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-21, June.
    10. Andrade, Xavier & Guimarães, Luís & Figueira, Gonçalo, 2021. "Product line selection of fast-moving consumer goods," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).

    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. Winfried J. Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "Produktliniengestaltung mit Genetischen Algorithmen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 54(7), pages 575-601, November.
    2. Albritton, M. David & McMullen, Patrick R., 2007. "Optimal product design using a colony of virtual ants," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(1), pages 498-520, January.
    3. Baier, Daniel & Gaul, Wolfgang, 1998. "Optimal product positioning based on paired comparison data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 365-392, November.
    4. G. E. Fruchter & A. Fligler & R. S. Winer, 2006. "Optimal Product Line Design: Genetic Algorithm Approach to Mitigate Cannibalization," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 227-244, November.
    5. Alexouda, Georgia & Paparrizos, Konstantinos, 2001. "A genetic algorithm approach to the product line design problem using the seller's return criterion: An extensive comparative computational study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 165-178, October.
    6. Alexandre Belloni & Robert Freund & Matthew Selove & Duncan Simester, 2008. "Optimizing Product Line Designs: Efficient Methods and Comparisons," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1544-1552, September.
    7. Leyuan Shi & Sigurdur Ólafsson & Qun Chen, 2001. "An Optimization Framework for Product Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(12), pages 1681-1692, December.
    8. Day, Jamison M. & Venkataramanan, M.A., 2006. "Profitability in product line pricing and composition with manufacturing commonalities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(3), pages 1782-1797, December.
    9. Michalek, Jeremy J. & Ebbes, Peter & Adigüzel, Feray & Feinberg, Fred M. & Papalambros, Panos Y., 2011. "Enhancing marketing with engineering: Optimal product line design for heterogeneous markets," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-12.
    10. Tallys H. Yunes & Dominic Napolitano & Alan Scheller-Wolf & Sridhar Tayur, 2007. "Building Efficient Product Portfolios at John Deere and Company," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(4), pages 615-629, August.
    11. Tan Wang & Genaro Gutierrez, 2022. "Robust Product Line Design by Protecting the Downside While Minding the Upside," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(1), pages 194-217, January.
    12. Kraus, Ursula G. & Yano, Candace Arai, 2003. "Product line selection and pricing under a share-of-surplus choice model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(3), pages 653-671, November.
    13. Wilhelm, Wilbert E. & Xu, Kaihong, 2002. "Prescribing product upgrades, prices and production levels over time in a stochastic environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(3), pages 601-621, May.
    14. Daria Dzyabura & Srikanth Jagabathula, 2018. "Offline Assortment Optimization in the Presence of an Online Channel," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2767-2786, June.
    15. Xinfang (Jocelyn) Wang & Jeffrey D. Camm & David J. Curry, 2009. "A Branch-and-Price Approach to the Share-of-Choice Product Line Design Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(10), pages 1718-1728, October.
    16. Bechler, Georg & Steinhardt, Claudius & Mackert, Jochen & Klein, Robert, 2021. "Product line optimization in the presence of preferences for compromise alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 902-917.
    17. Dimitris Bertsimas & Velibor V. Mišić, 2019. "Exact First-Choice Product Line Optimization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 651-670, May.
    18. Dimitris Bertsimas & Velibor V. Mišić, 2017. "Robust Product Line Design," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 19-37, February.
    19. Maoqi Liu & Li Zheng & Changchun Liu & Zhi‐Hai Zhang, 2023. "From share of choice to buyers' welfare maximization: Bridging the gap through distributionally robust optimization," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(4), pages 1205-1222, April.
    20. Kyle D. Chen & Warren H. Hausman, 2000. "Technical Note: Mathematical Properties of the Optimal Product Line Selection Problem Using Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 327-332, February.

    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:bep:rmswpp:1-4-1003. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.bepress.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.