This content has been updated with new exercises, new readings, and new PowerPoint slides. Please visit: Curriculum

### 3 Lectures / 3 Exercises

This is a suggested curriculum for technically capable graduate students in business or marketing. The purpose is to introduce students to the three main forms of conjoint analysis (traditional full-profile, ACA and discrete choice (CBC)) and give them insight into the mechanics of experimental design and part worth estimation. This program may be taught as three lectures each with a set of readings and subsequent exercises that should take about 2 hours each to complete.

### Day 1, Into to Conjoint and Traditional Conjoint (CVA)

#### Student Exercises:

1. Formulate a simple conjoint analysis problem, with two attributes of your choice, each having four levels. Generate a "full factorial" experimental design, by generating all possible combinations of the two attributes (16 total cards). Complete the survey yourself, using a ratings scale. Dummy-code and estimate part worth utilities. Chart the results, and interpret.
2. How many degrees of freedom are there? (Hint: degrees of freedom are equal to the number of observations minus the number of parameters to be estimated.) How might the degrees of freedom relate to the precision of the parameters estimated in the model?
3. How many possible product profiles can be created with a conjoint analysis problem including 5 brands, 4 designs, 3 warranty levels, and 3 prices? Would each respondent need to evaluate each product combination to obtain good results?

### Day 2, Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA)

#### Student Exercises:

1. Access the Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) Sample Study and complete the questionnaire. Answer the questions realistically, to reflect your opinions and preferences. At the end of the interview, the computer estimates your preference scores (part worth utilities) and importance scores for the attributes. Cut-and-Paste the part worth utility and importance results into your work.
2. What was the survey experience like? Do these part worth utility and importance scores seem to reflect your preferences?
3. According to your utilities, which of these product alternatives would you be expected to prefer?

(Sum the scores across the features to determine the total value of each alternative.)

4. Is this an accurate prediction of your preference?

### Day 3, Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC)

#### Student Exercises:

1. Create a Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) survey design by selecting two attributes, each with three levels. The first attribute should be three brands of a product or service (e.g. Coke, Pepsi, Sprite). The second attribute should have varying price levels (e.g. \$1.00, \$1.35, \$1.70). Choose a product category that interests you with realistic prices that cover a fairly wide range. Create an experimental design plan. The design is to have nine choice tasks (questions). Each task offers the respondent two concepts (products) to choose from.

Create a written CBC questionnaire (either electronically, or using index cards). An example of a choice task is as follows:

First, create nine product concepts (all possible combinations of the two attributes). These nine concepts form the left-side concept within each choice task. Create the second (right-hand) concept for each of these nine tasks as a "shift" of the product concept on the left. For example, if the product on the left is represented as (2,1) (Level 2 of the first attribute and Level 1 of the second attribute), we shift (increment) the levels by 1, resulting in the new concept (3,2) (Level 3 of the first attribute and Level 2 of the second attribute). To shift level 3, we revert back to level 1.

Record the design using the table below, filling in the remaining cells (we have provided the first and last concept specifications).

2. Administer the questionnaire to a few individuals. Each person should choose one of the concepts in each of the nine choice tasks.
3. Use the table below to record the summary information for all interviews and estimate the choice probability for the brands and prices (main effects):

4. Chart the choice probabilities for each of the brands and prices. Interpret the results.
5. What would happen with the results with many more respondents? What would happen if you included a "None of these" selection in each choice task? How would the questionnaire and design be better or worse if you included all three brands in each choice question?

## Demonstrate CBC Using Only Basic Math

This survey will illustrate how Choice-Based Conjoint surveys work. It involves choosing food for dinner at a baseball game. You will take a quick 9-question CBC questionnaire, and then, using simple addition arithmetic, we will analyze your results and place the results into a "what-if" market simulator to see how your results stack up against others who have completed this survey.