A conjoint analysis to determine the preferences for some selected M.B.A. programs

Authors

  • İlknur Özmen University of Baskent
  • Bilge Yaşıt University of Baskent
  • Özge Sezgin Middle East Technical University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.12.1.4246

Keywords:

Conjoint Analysis, Stimuli, Utility, Multinomial Logit Analysis, Consumer Preferences, Executive MBA, Sam-pling Plan, Simulator

Abstract

This paper reviews the Conjoint Analysis Method (CAM), which is a multivariate marketing research technique used to determine consumer behaviours and preferences for products or services. One aim of this study is to demonstrate that the CAM can be used in “Service Sector” as well as in “Product Sector” and the other aim is to utilize CBC Sawtooth Software Program, which is a special program for CAM. A usage of CBC Sawtooth Software Program is demonstrated in the analysis of Management Business Administration (MBA) program preferences of Ba?kent University students. This study includes those MBA programs that require substantial tuition and fee payments. According to the results of the study, “University Name” plays the most important role in MBA preferences. The Conjoint Analysis found that, most preferred university is the Bo?aziçi University and the most preferred type of MBA program is the “Executive MBA Program”. Another important finding is that “Higher Tuition and Fees” makes the MBA less attractive.

References

Addelman, S. (1962) Orthogonal main-effect plans for asymmetrical factorial experiments, Technometrics, 4, 21-46.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1962.10489985

Batsell, R. R. and Lodish, L. M. (1981) A model and measurement methodology for predicting individual consumer choice, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 1-12.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151309

CBC User Manual, Version 2.0, Sawtooth Software, Inc.

Gensch, D. H. and Recker, W. W. (1979) The multinomial multiattribute logit choice model, Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 124-132.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3150883

Green, P. E. and Rao, V. R. (1971) Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data, Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 355-363.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3149575

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn., New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, R. M. (1987) Adaptive conjoint analysis, in Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing. Sawtooth Software, Ketchum, ID, pp. 253-265.

Louviere, J. and Woodworth, G. (1983) Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350-367.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151440

Mahajan, V., Green, P. E. and Goldberg, S. M. (1982) A conjoint model for measuring self and crossprice demand relationships, Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 334-342.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151567

McFadden, D. (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, Frontiers on Econometrics, edn. P. Zarembka, New York: Academic Press, pp. 105-421.

Montgomery, D.C. (1991) Design and Analysis of Experiments, Chichester: John Wiley.

Orme, B. (2003) Introduction to Market Simulators for Conjoint Analysis, Sawtooth Software, Inc.

Punj, G. N. and Staelin, R. (1978) The choice process for graduate business schools, Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 588-598.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3150628

Wittink, D. And Cattin, P. (1989) Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update, Journal of Marketing, 53, 91-96.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251345

Downloads

Issue

Section

Research Articles