A Comparison of Different Methods for the Elicitation of Attribute Weights: Structural Modeling, Process Tracing, and Self-Reports

Harte, J.M.; Koele, Pieter

doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1089

Cited by 44 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, explanatory variables can be modeled as functions of other explanatory variables and thus this technique is well suited to our research question. In addition, structural equation modeling has been used to elicit attribute weights (Harte and Koele 1995). Path analysis is also more useful for model testing than the usual multiple linear regression model which is just-identified, meaning there are exactly as many parameters as correlations among variables.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agency Perceptions of Alternative Salinity Policies: The Role of Fairness

McCann¹,

Hafdahl²

2007

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agency Perceptions of Alternative Salinity Policies: The Role of Fairness

McCann¹,

Hafdahl²

2007

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three methods to assess attribute importance were used: process tracing, self-explication, and ratings conjoint analysis (for a detailed comparison of these methods, see Billings & Marcus, 1983;Harte & Koele, 1995;Leigh, MacKay, & Summers, 1984). The process-tracing exercise is described first.…”

Section: Study Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Dueling or the battle royale? The impact of task complexity on the evaluation of entry threat

Klemz

Gruca

2003

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current marketing research on response to entry assumes that an incumbent decision maker faces potential rivals one at a time as in a series of duels. In many circumstances, however, an incumbent decision maker faces a large number of entrants simultaneously (a "battle royale"). An experiment using experienced managers shows that the increased complexity produced by multiple entrants had a significant effect on the managers' decision processes and their decision outcomes. Specifically, when faced with multiple entrants, the managers adopted more noncompensatory decision processes, and were more likely to misidentify the most threatening entrant as defined by their self-explicated weights or conjoint part-worths. These results provide insight into an unexplained gap between the extant normative and empirical research on response to entry.

show abstract

“…Measuring weights. There are a number of methods for measuring requirement weights [24,36,42,56], like simply asking actors to verbalize them, the AHP and other methods of pairwise comparison [55], and the structural method in which weights are derived from a series of hypothetical choices presented to actors [e.g., 27]. There are also methods that, although sometimes primarily aimed at weight elicitation, help actors to derive weights from higher-level goals, like valuefocused thinking [40,41,44].…”

Section: Previous Research Concerning Requirement Weightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing and assessing a course on prioritization and importance assessment in strategic non-routine requirements engineering processes

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this contribution, we present a course for making stakeholders in requirements engineering (RE) processes aware of the relevance of importance assessment (the thinking process that they go through while assessing requirement weights) and giving them some experience with specific aspects of the importance assessment process. We also analyze the experiences of the participants in five pilot sessions. In RE instruments, elicitation of requirement weights receives much attention. However, the processes that individual stakeholders go through while assessing weights are largely ignored or seen as a 'black box'. In the course, participants gain experience with some common issues and pitfalls in assessing weights. Issues covered are: completeness and interdependence of requirements, causal relationships and the common denominator, handling 'irrational' requirements, and the meaning of 'importance' (priority). The course was given in various large organizations in the aerospace sector, and data on participants' experiences were gathered by means of a standardized questionnaire. The extent to which the participants claimed they learned about the relevance of importance assessment and about how to perform it were, respectively, 2.89 and 2.72 on a scale from 1 to 5. The relevance of the various assignments was rated between 3.74 and 4.00 on a 1-5 scale. Our study indicates that the course, or elements of it, should be embedded in an organization's work practices in order to achieve lasting effects.

show abstract

A Comparison of Different Methods for the Elicitation of Attribute Weights: Structural Modeling, Process Tracing, and Self-Reports

Cited by 44 publications

References 0 publications

Agency Perceptions of Alternative Salinity Policies: The Role of Fairness

Agency Perceptions of Alternative Salinity Policies: The Role of Fairness

Dueling or the battle royale? The impact of task complexity on the evaluation of entry threat

Designing and assessing a course on prioritization and importance assessment in strategic non-routine requirements engineering processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About