Measuring Consumer Preferences Using Multi-Attribute Utility Theory

다속성 효용이론을 활용한 소비자 선호조사

  • Published : 2008.09.30

Abstract

Based on the multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), we present a survey method to measure consumer preferences. The multi-attribute utility theory has been used to make decisions in OR/MS field; however, we show that the method can be effectively used to estimate the demand for new services by measuring individual level utility function. Because conjoint method has been widely used to measure consumer preferences for new products and services, we compare the pros and cons of two consumer preference survey methods. Further, we illustrate how swing weighing method can be effectively used to elicit customer preferences especially for new telecommunications services, Multi-attribute utility theory is a compositional approach for modeling customer preference, in which researchers calculate overall service utility by summing up the evaluation results for each attribute. On the contrary, conjoint method is a decompositional approach, which requires holistic evaluations for profiles. Partworth for each attribute is derived or estimated based on the evaluation, and finally consumer preferences for each profile are calculated. However, if the profiles are quite new and unfamiliar to the survey respondents, they will find it very difficult to accurately evaluate the profiles. We believe that the multi-attribute utility theory-based survey method is more appropriate than the conjoint method, because respondents only need to assess attribute level preferences and not holistic assessment. We chose swing weighting method among many weight assessment methods in multi-attribute utility theory, because it is designed to perform in a simple and fast manner. As illustrated in Clemen and Reilly (2001), to assess swing weights, the first step is to create the worst possible outcome as a benchmark by setting the worst level on each of the attributes. Then, each of the succeeding rows "swings" one of the attributes from worst to best. Upon constructing the swing table, respondents rank order the outcomes (rows). The next step is to rate the outcomes in which the rating for the benchmark is set to be 0 and the rating for the best outcome to be 100, and the ratings for other outcomes are determined in the ranges between 0 and 100. In calculating weight for each attribute, ratings are normalized by the total sum of all ratings. To demonstrate the applicability of the approach, we elicited and analyzed individual-level customer preference for new telecommunication services-WiBro and HSDPA. We began with a randomly selected 800 interviewees, and reduced them to 432 because other remaining ones were related to the people who did not show strong intention for subscription to new telecommunications services. For each combination of content and handset, number of responses which favored WiBro and HSDPA were counted, respectively. It was assumed that interviewee favors a specific service when expected utility is greater than that of competing service(s). Then, the market share of each service was calculated by normalizing the total number of responses which preferred each service. Holistic evaluation of new and unfamiliar service is a tough challenge for survey respondents. We have developed a simple and easy method to assess individual level preference by estimating weight of each attribute. Swing method was applied for this purpose. We believe that estimating individual level preference will be quite flexibly used to predict market performance of new services in many different business environments.

Keywords

References

  1. 곽승준, 유승훈, 장정인, "해양환경 종합지수 의 개발, 자원 환경경제연구," 환경경제연구, 제12권 제3호, 2003, pp. 487-516
  2. 김문구, 박종현, "와이브로 서비스 이용의도 에 미치는 영향 요인에 관한 연구: 확장된 TAM 모형을 중심으로," 한국경영정보학회 춘계학술대회 논문집, 2006, pp. 790-800
  3. 김연배, "3세대 이동 통신 서비스에 대한 소 비자 선호 분석: IMT-2000 서비스를 중심으 로," 정보통신정책연구, 제10권 제3호, 2003, pp. 65-80
  4. 김호영, 김진우, "모바일 인터넷의 사용에 영 향을 미치는 중요 요인에 대한 실증적 연구," 경영정보학연구, 제12권 제3호, 2002, pp. 89-113
  5. 설성수, 민완기, 오완근, 조영환, "새로운 기 술산업의 사회경제적 효과 분석 - 디지털 TV 를 중심으로," 정보통신정책연구, 제7권 제2 호, 2000, pp. 37-60
  6. 신용희, 전효리, "컨조인트 분석을 활용한 통 신서비스 가격요인 중요성 분석," 한국경영 과학회/대한산업공학회 춘계공동학술대회지, 2003, pp. 628-632
  7. 심종섭, "IT서비스의 품질평가 모델: 이동통 신 서비스의 품질 구성요소를 중심으로," 산학경영연구, 제17권 제2호, 2004, pp. 203-228
  8. 안형택, "설문조사에 의한 휴대인터넷 수요 전망," Telecommunications Review, 제14권 제1 호, 2004, pp. 29-38
  9. 오정훈, 곽승준, "정부연구개발사업의 평가 모형 -AHP와 MAUT의 비교 및 적용가능성 을 중심으로," 정부학연구, 제9권 제2호, 2003, pp. 93-120
  10. 유승훈, 김준상, 김태유, "전파자원 관리에 관 한 의사결정분석," 정보통신정책연구, 제7권 제1호, 2000, pp. 125-140
  11. 이종수, 김연배, 이정동, 박유리, "전환비용의 추정과 시장구조적 시사점에 관한 연구: 이동 통신 서비스 산업과 번호이동성 제도를 중심 으로," 산업조직연구, 제12권 제2호, 2004, pp. 33-58
  12. 지경용, 김문구, 임상민, "광대역 무선인터넷 의 고객수용 의향분석 및 서비스 제공방향," 통신시장, 제51호, 2003
  13. 정보통신부, "WiBro 허가 정책 방안," WiBro (휴대인터넷) 허가 정책 방안 공청회 자료집, 2004.
  14. 한광현, 김태웅, "게임 콘텐츠 특성과 단말기 요인을 고려한 모바일게임 사용의도의 영향요 인에 관한 연구," Information Systems Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2005, pp. 42-59
  15. 황호탁, "KT WiBro 서비스 제공방안 및 추진 계획," 2004. (http://cnscenter.future.co.kr/resource/rsc -center/presentation/BcN-IPv6-RFID_2004 /041208_BcN_hht.pdf)
  16. SK Telecom, "WiBro 서비스 제공방안 및 추 진전략," 2004. (http://cnscenter.future.co.kr/resource/rsc -center/presentation/BcN-IPv6-RFID_2004 /041208_BcN_hsh.pdf)
  17. Ahn, J.H., Han, S.P., Jee, K.Y., and Kim, M.K., "Consumer Preferences for New Wireless Data Services," In R. Cooper, G. Madden, A. Lloyd, and M. Schipp (Eds.), The Economics of Online Markets and ICT Networks, Physica-Verlag, 2006
  18. Batt, C.E. and Katz, J.E., "A Conjoint Model of Enhanced Voice Mail Services," Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 21, No. 8, 1997, pp. 743-760 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-5961(97)00044-X
  19. Batt, C.E., and Katz, J.E., "Consumer Spending Behavior and Telecommunications Services," Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1998, pp. 23-46 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-5961(97)00055-4
  20. Borcherding, K., Eppel, T., and D. von Winterfeldt, "Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multivariate Utility Measurement," Management Science, Vol. 37, No. 12, 1991, pp. 1603-1619 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.12.1603
  21. Churchman, C.W. and Ackoff, R.L., "An Approximate Measure of Value," Operations Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1954, pp. 172-187 https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2.2.172
  22. Clemen, R.T. and Reilly, T., Making Hard Decisions with Decisions Tools, Brooks/Cole, 2001
  23. Debreu, G., "Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory," In K.J. Arrow, S. Karlin, and P. Suppes (Eds.), Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1960
  24. Dyer, J.S., Fishburn, P.C., Steuer, R.E., Wallenius, J., and Zionts, S., "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: the Next Ten Years," Management Science, Vol. 38, No. 5, 1992, pp. 645-654 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.38.5.645
  25. Dyer, J.S. and Sarin, R.K., "Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions," Operations Research, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1979, pp. 810-822 https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.27.4.810
  26. Farquhar, P.H., "A survey of multiattribute utility theory and applications," In Martin K. Starr and Milan Zeleny (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977
  27. Green P.E. and Krieger, A.M., "Conjoint Analysis with Product-Positioning Applications," In J. Eliashberg and G.L. Lilien (Eds.), Handbooks in OR and MS, Vol. 5, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1993
  28. Green P.E. and Srinivasan, V., "Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 4, 1990, pp. 3-19 https://doi.org/10.2307/1251756
  29. Hemming, P., Schuker, D., and McBurney, P., Innovative PCS marketing: How to Build and Execute a Winning Marketing Plan, Redwing Consulting Ltd., Dallas TX., 1996
  30. Keeney, R.L., "Quasi-separable Utility Functions," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1968, pp. 551-565 https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3800150408
  31. Keeney, R.L., D. von Winterfeldt, and Eppel, T., "Eliciting Public Values for Complex Policy Decisions," Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 9, 1990, pp. 1011-1030 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.9.1011
  32. Keeney, R.L., and Raiffa, H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs, Wiley, NY., 1976
  33. Kotler, P., Marketing Management: Analysis Planning implementation and control, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 1991
  34. Lee, J., Kim, Y., Lee, J-D., and Park, Y., "Estimating the Extent of Potential Competition in the Korean Mobile Telecommunications Market: Switching Costs and Number Portability," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2006, pp. 107-124 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.07.003
  35. Pollak, R.A., "Additive von Neumann- Morgenstern Utility Functions," Econometrica, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, 1967, pp. 485-494 https://doi.org/10.2307/1905650
  36. Roberts, J.H. and Urban, G.L., "Modeling Multiattribute Utility, Risk, and Belief Dynamics for New Consumer Durable Brand Choice," Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 2, 1988, pp. 167-185 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.2.167
  37. Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Ambos, B., "Multiutility: Strategic Option in Deregulated Markets? An Empirical Assessment Using Conjoint Analysis," Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2004, pp. 57-68 https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254032000171591
  38. Torrance, G.W., Boyle, M.H., and Horwood, S.P., "Application of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory to Measure Social Preferences for Health States," Operations Research, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1982, pp. 1043-1069 https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.30.6.1043
  39. Urban, G.L. and Hauser, J.R., Design and Marketing of New Products, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993