Non-geometric Plackett-Burman Designs in Conjoint Analysis

  • Ola Blomkvist
  • Fredrik Ekdahl
  • Anders Gustafsson


Design of experiments is an established technique for product and process improvement that has its origin in the 1920s and the work of Sir Ronald Fisher. Conjoint analysis shares the same theoretical basis as traditional design of experiments, but was originally used within the field of psychology and it was not until the early 1970s that the methodology was introduced into marketing research to form what is called conjoint analysis (Luce and Tukey 1964; Green and Rao 1971; Johnson 1974). Today, conjoint analysis is an established technique for investigating customer preferences.


Conjoint Analysis Geometric Design Normal Probability Plot Underlying Model Subset Regression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bisgaard, S. (1992), Industrial Use of Statistically Designed Experiments: Case Study References and Some Historical Anecdotes, Quality Engineering, 4, 547–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Box, G. E. P. and Behnken, D. W. (1960), Some New Three Level Designs for the Study of Quantitative Variables, Technometrics, 2, 455–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Box, G. E. P. and Behnken, D. W. (1961), Corrections, Technometrics, 3, 576–577.Google Scholar
  4. Box, G. E. P., Hunter, W. G. and Hunter, J. S. (1978), Statistics for Experimenters - An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Box, G. E. P. and Draper, N. R. (1987), Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Box, G. E. P. (1990), George’s Column–Do Interactions Matter? Quality Engineering, 2, 365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Box, G. E. P. and Meyer, R. D. (1993), Finding the Active Factors in Fractionated Screening Experiments, Journal of Quality Technology, 25, 94–105.Google Scholar
  8. Box, G. E. P. and Tyssedal, J. (1996), Projective Properties of Certain Orthogonal Arrays, Biometrika, 83, 950–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daniel, C. (1959), Use of Half-Normal Plots in Interpreting Factorial Two-Level Experiments, Technometrics, 1, 311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daniel, C. (1976), Application of Statistics to Industrial Experimentation,New York.Google Scholar
  11. Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. (1981), Applied Regression Analysis,New York.Google Scholar
  12. Finney, D. J. (1945), The Fractional Replication of Factorial Arrange ments, Annals of Eugenics, 12, 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher, R. A. (1935), The Design of Experiments,Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  14. Green, P. and Rao, V. (1971), Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgemental Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 1, 61–68.Google Scholar
  15. Green, P. (1984), Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review, Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Green, P. and Srinivasan, V. (1978), Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103123.Google Scholar
  17. Green, E. P. and Srinivasan, V. (1990), Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice, Journal of Marketing, 17, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hagerty, M. R. (1986), The Cost of Simplifying Preference Models, Marketing Science, 5, 298–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamada, M. and Wu, C. F. J. (1992), Analysis of Designed Experiments with Complex Aliasing, Journal of Quality Technology, 24, 130137.Google Scholar
  20. Hynén, A. (1996), Screening for Main and Interaction Effects with Plackett and Burman’s 12 Run Design, (Submitted) (A preprint is available as RQT&M Research Report No. 1, Division of Quality Technology and Management, Linköping University, Sweden. ).Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, R. (1974), Trade-off Analysis of Consumer Values, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kackar, R. N. and Tsui, K. L. (1990), Interaction Graphs: Graphical Aids for Planning Experiments, Journal of Quality Technology, 22, 1–14.Google Scholar
  23. Luce, D. and Tukey, J. (1964), Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Myers, R. H. and Montgomery, C. M. (1995), Response Surface Methodology,New York.Google Scholar
  25. Plackett, R. L. and Burman, J. P. (1946), The Design of Optimum Multi-factorial Experiments, Biometrika, 33, 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sun, D. X. and Wu, C. F. J. (1994), Interaction Graphs for Three-Level Fractional Factorial Designs, Journal of Quality Technology, 26, 297307.Google Scholar
  27. Wittink, R. D. and Cattin, P. (1989), Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update, Journal of Marketing, 53, 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wittink, D. R., Vriens, M. and Burhenne, W. (1994), Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis in Europe: Results and Critical Reflections, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ola Blomkvist
  • Fredrik Ekdahl
  • Anders Gustafsson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations