| |
|
The Elimination-By-Aspects decision rule works by eliminating choices
sequentially until one emerges as the winner. Think back to your romance-novel-reading
friend in Module 1. In the table below you will
find the same Harlequin lines of books and the same five attributes as
in the Compensatory Rule module. But this new table shows a different
way to make decisions.
In this situation you need to rank order the attributes in terms of importance,
with (1) as the most important and (5) the least important. For example,
if "Intricacy of Plot" was most important to me, then I would
rank it a 1. If "Bookcover Artwork" was the least important
to me, I'd rank it a 5.
In addition, you need to set a minimum value for each attribute. This
reflects the lowest value (on a 1-10 scale) that you or your imaginary
friend will accept for that specific attribute. The minimum value is set
independent of the minimums for other attributes. For example, consumers
who enjoy "Suspense and Mystery" would set a high minimum value
(e.g., 7 or 8) for that attribute. If they valued "Intricacy of Plot"
as much as "Suspense and Mystery", then they could set a minimum
value of 7 or 8 for that attribute also.
Go ahead, input some values, change the attribute minimums and rankings
several times, and see what happens. Click Calculate every time you make
changes.
Instructions
1. In the row titled "Attribute Ranking" rank the attributes
by your preference in order of importance, with 1 = most important and
5 = least important.
2. In the row titled "Minimum Value for Attribute" enter a minimum
acceptable value for each attribute (between 1 and 10) based on your preferences.
For example, if you refuse to accept anything less than an 8 for "Intricacy
of Plot", the minimum value of this attribute should be 8.
3. Click Calculate to determine which Harlequin line should be chosen.
|
|
Results:
|
|
How does it work?
-
The elimination-by-aspects or EBA rule focuses first on the most
important attribute.
- It eliminates any product that does not meet the minimum
for that attribute, and looks for a clear winner based solely
on the most important attribute.
- If a winner emerges, the process stops.
- If a winner does not emerge, (ie, there's a 'tie') attention
focuses on the second attribute. All products that passed the
first attribute minimum are reviewed again.
- At every step, alternatives that do not meet the minimum
for the attribute being studied are eliminated. The process continues
until a clear winner emerges.
- If no clear winner emerges, the consumer can raise or
lower the minimum attributes values until a winner finally does
emerge.
Notice that although the EBA seems complex, it is easier to apply
than the compensatory rule. Ranking attributes is easier than
allocating points among the attributes. Furthermore, the alternatives
are merely compared against a minimum attribute value, and only
one attribute is considered at a time. The rule does not involve
complex calculations.
However, high scores in one attribute do not compensate for low
scores in other attributes, which means that consumers can choose
alternatives that are less than optimal when compared to choices
where all attributes are considered. The EBA rule is a non-compensatory
rule.
Which one of the two rules - compensatory or elimination-by-aspects
- is more likely to be applied by your imaginary friend? Would
it make any difference if your friend was from the U.S.? China?
Japan? India? Germany?
|
|
|
|
