Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Panos Papalambros

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 2: Propagation of preference construction through Wassenaar et al.’s decision-based-design flow chart

Figure 2 Propagation of preference construction through Wassenaar et al.’s decision-based-design flow chart

Related Figures (5)

Figure 1: Propagation of preference construction through Michalek’s engineering/marketing ATC Formulation
Figure 1: Propagation of preference construction through Michalek’s engineering/marketing ATC Formulation
Table 2: Attributes and Levels Present in Versions A, B, and C of survey Part | Which one of these paper towels would you prefer to purchase?
Table 2: Attributes and Levels Present in Versions A, B, and C of survey Part | Which one of these paper towels would you prefer to purchase?
Figure 5 shows the estimated part worths for quilting in more detail, with standard error bars. If Besharati et al.’s [9] integrated marketing and design robust optimization approach had been used with version A of this survey, it would have found that quilting was an important attribute in the design of the paper towel, but not so for versions B and C. Since the across-user preference inconsistency affects the parameter and potentially also variance and error, their approach would lead to different robust optima dependent on the construction of preferences. Figure 5: Preference for quilted over not quilted
Figure 5 shows the estimated part worths for quilting in more detail, with standard error bars. If Besharati et al.’s [9] integrated marketing and design robust optimization approach had been used with version A of this survey, it would have found that quilting was an important attribute in the design of the paper towel, but not so for versions B and C. Since the across-user preference inconsistency affects the parameter and potentially also variance and error, their approach would lead to different robust optima dependent on the construction of preferences. Figure 5: Preference for quilted over not quilted
Recall that respondents’ explanations for must-be and delighting attribute classifications were checked by independent judges for consistency with the descriptions mentioned previously and that instances of deviation from these descriptions were indentified and removed. A negotiable must-be attribute represents a preference inconsistency: in one preference construction, people claim the attribute must be, or needs to be included and functioning normally, while in another, they would buy the product without it. Nineteen respondents (24%) exhibited this inconsistency. Congruously, a dealbreaker delighting attribute also represents a preference inconsistency, but this inconsistency was found only in one respondent’s answers. This difficulty in consistently imagining necessity versus ease of consistently imagining delight must be kept in mind when eliciting needs and preferences from users. n an optimization framework, this shift in preference from dealbreaker to negotiable (e.g., from non-compensatory to compensatory) would indicate a fundamental change in the problem formulation, in which a parameter (possibly a bound in an active constraint) could change to a variable depending on how preferences were elicited.
Recall that respondents’ explanations for must-be and delighting attribute classifications were checked by independent judges for consistency with the descriptions mentioned previously and that instances of deviation from these descriptions were indentified and removed. A negotiable must-be attribute represents a preference inconsistency: in one preference construction, people claim the attribute must be, or needs to be included and functioning normally, while in another, they would buy the product without it. Nineteen respondents (24%) exhibited this inconsistency. Congruously, a dealbreaker delighting attribute also represents a preference inconsistency, but this inconsistency was found only in one respondent’s answers. This difficulty in consistently imagining necessity versus ease of consistently imagining delight must be kept in mind when eliciting needs and preferences from users. n an optimization framework, this shift in preference from dealbreaker to negotiable (e.g., from non-compensatory to compensatory) would indicate a fundamental change in the problem formulation, in which a parameter (possibly a bound in an active constraint) could change to a variable depending on how preferences were elicited.
Related topics:
MarketingMechanical EngineeringPsychologyExperimental EconomicsDecision MakingMarket DesignConjoint AnalysisUtility TheoryMultidisciplinary design practicesUser preferences
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved