ap-5-11.dvi


Acta Polytechnica Vol. 51 No. 5/2011

Introduction to Modeling of Buying Decisions

O. Grünwald

Abstract

Buying decision models of customers to adjust the competitiveness of organizations have been a challenge for marketing
disciplines for several generations. This topic has been explored by researchers and academics in past years, and quite
an extensive theoretical base exists with a number of approaches for dealing with this challenge.
This paper presents some approaches for creating a customer decision model, and provides experimental results from

an electronic investigation intended to build the Kano Model; to prove an ability to understand the modeling principle;
and to find out the interpretation of the examined demand in a specific market segment involving students of a technical
university. The last section of the paper contains a brief introduction to Choice-Based Modeling with Choice-Based
Conjoint Analysis (CBC), which was tailored for modeling purchasing decisions.

Keywords: customer behaviors, Kano model, choice-based conjoint analysis.

1 Models of Customer
Behaviors

Modeling purchasing decisions is derived from gen-
eral behavioral theory, according to which customer
decisions are influenced primarily by cultural factors,
social factors and personal factors [1]. Buying deci-
sion models seek the best mathematical way to em-
ulate the reality of markets. Statistical surveys to
obtain input data are usually performedwith a sam-
ple of the population. Models for understanding cus-
tomer purchasing behavior are usually based on the
stimulus-response principle. Influences in the buying
decision process are shown in Figure 1, where the
final decision is shaped by incentives of competitive
bids and personal characteristics of the buyers.
During a marketing interview, respondents re-

ceive incentiveswith the specific information that the

Fig. 1: Influences of external and personal factors in the
buying decision process

respondents understand. Then the incentive is trans-
formed to a perception which further enters the hu-
man consciousness. A psychological process together
with the personal characteristics of the respondents
arising from the perception forms the resulting pur-
chasing decision. Kotler describes four key processes
constituting the final decision: the motivation pro-
cess, the perception process, the learning process and
the memory process.
Marketers considermotivating factors responsible

for the purchase decision to be particularly impor-
tant. The motivational process affecting customers’
decisions is described in the literature by three the-
ories: Freudian theory, Maslow theory and Herzberg
theory.
Freudian theory assumes that the forces constitut-

ing human behavior are for the most part uncon-
scious. People do not fully understand their own
motivations for making decisions, such as the choice
of a specific bundle of product features. To iden-
tify and track the motivation of people, the lad-
dering technique [2] is used, which is in accordance
with the means end chain theory. It is employed
to model elements of three types: attributes, con-
sequences and basic values. The technique monitors
and analyzes connections and consequences between
these elements, which can be represented by a sum-
mary table with counts of connections. The domi-
nant connections can be represented in a tree dia-
gram. The result then represents the dominant per-
ceptual orientations (ways of thinking) across con-
sumerswith respect to the product category, and can
be represented by a hierarchical value map (HVM).
This is essentially a tree diagram with a hierarchical
structure of linkages or associations across levels of
abstraction.

45



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 51 No. 5/2011

Maslow theory classifies the needs of customers
into five hierarchical levels. According to this theory,
people are driven by needs that theywant tomeet at
a given moment. The hierarchy of needs in the fol-
lowing list reflects a priority sequence from highest
to lowest level according to the traditional pyramid
scheme:
1. Self-actualization Needs
2. Esteem Needs
3. Social Needs
4. Safety Needs
5. Psychological Needs.
The needs belonging to the fifth and lowest psycho-
logical level, e.g. the need to drink, are the basal
needs to ensure vital functions of human life, and
must be satisfied before fulfilment of the needs from
the higher levels. The highest category of the self-
actualization level of needs contains needs as self-
deployment and realization [1].
Herzberg theory deals with two types of factors.

The first type is the group of dissatisfiers. These fac-
tors cause dissatisfaction among customers, and they
want to avoid them. Although these properties do
not sell a product, they certainly cause a customer
not to buy the product. The other type of factors
is the group of satisfiers, which in turn are sought
by the customers and ensure customer satisfaction
in proportion to their performance. In a competitive
environment, these properties allowdiversification of
the product against other products designed to meet
similar needs in a specific customer segment.

2 Kano Model
The Kano model (Kano 1984) is designed for mar-
keting surveys. It extends Herzberg’s theory from
two factors to three factors classifying the needs of
customers. The first category of needs in the model
comprises mandatory must-be requirements. If the
product or service does notmeet these requirements,
customers will be very dissatisfied because the prod-
uct cannot fulfill its purpose well without them. On
the other hand, when these requirements meet the
customers’ needs, they are perceived as self-evident
and they do not cause any customer satisfaction, as
in Herzberg’s theory. The second type is a class
of one-dimensional needs. Their increasing compli-
ance in a product will proportionally increase the
customer satisfaction gained from the experience of
using it. These requirements are usually of a para-
metrical type (for example, a performance, a con-
sumption or a durability). The third type is a class
containing attractive needs. These requirements have
the greatest influence on how satisfied customerswill
be with a product. Customers are mostly unable to
specify attractive needs by themselves, because these

requirements are often unconscious. Ahigher level of
their compliance will also increase customer satisfac-
tion more than proportionately. However, if attrac-
tive needs are not met, customers will not feel any
dissatisfaction. Needs of this type are significant for
a differentiated and positioned product.

Fig. 2: Kano model, with three categories of customer
needs (Must-be, One dimensional and Attractive)

The Kano model makes it possible to divide
customer needs into a mandatory category, a one-
dimensional category and an attractive category of
requirements. A product manager may determine
what requirements will ensure the highest customer
satisfaction, and will better understand the product
offerings. He can find out about actual fulfillment
of the requirements (the horizontal dimension in Fi-
gure 2) of an already established product, and can
determine the importance of each individual product
feature, decide which feature to prioritize and which
to ignore if is not possible to meet all of them due to
budget constraints. He can define the requirements
that have highest potential to increase the level of
product performance, or discover completely new re-
quirements demanded by customers.

2.1 Design of the Kano Model

The first step in the design is to recognise which re-
quirements it is appropriate to employ in the model.
In direct questioning on motives and shopping re-
quirements, customers usually express their con-
scious desires. This direct method cannot reveal the
unconsciousmotives involved in purchasing decisions
which really lead to customer satisfactionwhen using
the product. In order to determine the requirements
indirectly, it is appropriate to make interviews with
the following questions [5].
1. What are the associations the customer makes
when using product xy?

2. What problems/defect/complaints does the cus-
tomer associate when using product xy?

3. What are the criteria the customer takes into
account when buying product xy?

46



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 51 No. 5/2011

4. What features or services do customers expect?
What would customers change in product xy?

The first type question is often answered un-
clearly, but we can detect the attitudes towards the
product. Answers to the second type of question de-
fine new requirements for the product that were pre-
viously unknown to the manufacturer. The third
type of responsewill involve mainly one-dimensional
(performance-related) requirements. The fourth type
of question will evoke requirements that are already
known, and consumers are aware about their expec-
tations, but they have yet not been obtained in the
product. To prove the Kano model, we designed
an interview with 80 respondents involved in survey.
The questions concerned the respondents’ satisfac-
tion with their studies at a technical university. The
main requirements identified for the survey are listed
in the appendix.

2.2 Concept of a Kano Questionnaire

A Kano questionnaire usually consists of three types
of questions adopted for the purpose which we are
endeavoring to find out. In order to classify the
requirements into categories, the questionnaire will
include paired-type questions targeted at a func-
tion/dysfunction of each requirement. Further ques-
tions that askabout the dimensionof current compli-
ance are added (in our interview, a number of these
questions are variable for each requirement in order
to target different subparts). The results are plotted
in Figure 2 in the dimension of the horizontal axis.
The third question type is intended to obtain the im-
portance level of the requirements, which will enable
us to prioritize the features for their further integra-
tion into developing services related to the studies.
A paired-type question is composed for each product
property included for consideration in the survey as
two questions asking for two hypothetical situations
that consider the case firstly that a requirement is
satisfiedbytheproductandsecondly for the situation
when the requirement is not met. For each question
in the pair, respondents can select one of five stan-
dardized responses. All paired questions have the
same standardized options.
positive How do you assess whether you have the

latest information and whether you can use a
consolidated information system?

◦ It is excellent
◦ It must be that way
◦ I do not care
◦ I can live with it
◦ It is a big problem

negative How do you assess whether you do not
have the latest information and you cannot use
a consolidated information system?

◦ It is excellent
◦ It must be that way
◦ I do not care
◦ I can live with it
◦ It is a big problem

The retrieved paired responses for each require-
ment are then classified into 6 different classes [4]
according to the selected combinations.

Table 1: The classification matrix for combinations of
answers collected from the paired questions

Requirements Dysfunctional →
↓ Functional like must be neutral live with dislike

like Q A A A O

must be R I I I M

neutral R I I I M

live with R I I I M

dislike R R R R Q

In Table 1, the rows and the columns determine
the class of requirement based on the combination of
paired responses. CategoryA is for attractive require-
ments, category O for one-dimensional requirements,
and categoryM for must be requirements. Category I
means that the response combination is indifferent,
and the respondent has not provided decisive infor-
mationabout the requirement in a combinationof re-
sponses. CategoryR signals that an increasing level of
the related requirement decreases the customer sat-
isfaction. Category Q is for unclear responses with a
combinationwithout anunderstandablemeaning, for
pairs of positive and negative responses in contradic-
tion to each other. Requirements with dominant Q
categoryshouldbe interviewedagain. Acombination
of pair answers belonging to the Q category and to
the R category should not occur very often, other-
wise this result means improper product features or
invalid responses from the respondents.
Performance questions presented in the interview to-
gether with the paired question type are about how
a product currentlymeets the claims of respondents,
and they assume that the respondents have previ-
ous experience of using the product. The answers
are expressed on rating scales. In the interview we
used scales with six degrees (1–7) plus one option
for the case that the respondent is not affected by
the request. We implemented different numbers of
these questions under each individual requirement,
as it was necessary to ask about specific sub-areas
and related details. The questions that we used are
listed in the appendix as a second level of the list. An
example of a question to find out how the specific re-
quirement currentlymeets the customers’ (students’)
requirements is shown below.

47



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 51 No. 5/2011

How satisfied are you with opportunities to obtain
current information related to your studies?

◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
does not affect very very

me dissatisfied satisfied

Importance questions were the third type of ques-
tion in the interview. The respondents evaluated
each single requirement again on a scale of 1 to 7,
andwere asked to reflect the degree of importance of
each single demand in accordance with their percep-
tion.

2.3 Survey of student satisfaction at
CTU

The survey to conclude the Kano model was con-
ducted electronicallywith agroupof 60 studentswho
had previously been acquaintedwith the principle of
the model. The respondents answered the question-
naire without any assistance on their own computer.
They received the instruction and an invitation to
participate in the interview by an email message.
Each requirement in the interview obtained 30 re-
sponses. The total set of20 requirementswasdivided
into two variants of the questionnaire, each with
10 steps+1 step for importance questions. This par-
tition reduced the interviewing time and prevented
an overload of respondents during the interview at
the expense a smaller number of responses. The vari-
ants of the questionnaire were alternated after each
new respondent. In this way, each question in the in-
terview was responded to by approximately one half
of the total number of respondents. We investigated
the classification of requirements, the degree of their
current performance, and their importance for the
respondents.
An interpretation of the results includes for each

requirement a specification of the frequency of the
specific class in descendingorder. Some requirements
were not given an entirely clear category, so the cat-
egory with the highest frequency was considered as
dominant. The categories in other places in the order
should also be taken into account when interpreting
the results, taking into consideration the distribu-
tions of the frequencies of other classes. Some of the
answers were dominant in the category of attractive,
and simultaneously the requirement received almost
samethenumberofmust be answersandtherewasno
great difference between them. In this case, the ab-
sence of a such requirement in the servicewill reduce
the satisfaction and at the same time dissatisfaction
will emerge. Wealso calculated the coefficient of sat-
isfaction [6] CS coefficient as shown in the following
formulas.

s =
A + O

A + O + I + M
(1)

Where s denotes the coefficient of satisfaction. A,
O, I, M are the frequencies of classifications into the
categories

d =
O + M

(−1) × (A + O + I + M)
(2)

Where d means coefficient of dissatisfaction.

CS = s + d =
A − M

A + O + I + M
(3)

CS means the total coefficient of satisfactions, and
emphasizes the extremes of the satisfaction. If we
use an averaging procedure for the responses of each
requirement, it would compensate the result to the
mean values. Therefore, the CS coefficient subtracts
the one dimensional responses in the numerator and
then the result reflects by +/− sign whether it is an
attractive or must be requirement, and the size of
the coefficient expresses the absolute value of the A
and M responses to the total number of responses.
The CS coefficient reflects in its inner parts a and
d how strongly the product requirement affects the
satisfaction, or the dissatisfaction, if the requirement
is/is not met.

Fig. 3: Positioning of students’ requirements in a two di-
mensional system (satisfaction anddissatisfaction effects)

Figure 3 shows the rate of satisfaction in two
dimensions: s as the satisfaction coefficient and d
as the dissatisfaction coefficient. The requirements
placed on top of the coordinate system indicate the
degree of satisfaction if the requirement is met, and
the location of the right means the degree of dissat-
isfaction when not fulfilled. This figure shows that
if requirement No. 13 — Use of the latest techno-
logy for teaching and opportunities to use your own
notebook is not met, respondents will not feel strong
dissatisfaction, but they will feel great satisfaction
if they have access to good wireless connections and
software support. In contrast, requirement No. 6 —
Content accordance of the field of study with world
trends will cause high dissatisfaction if is not met,
and no significant satisfaction if is fulfilled.

48



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 51 No. 5/2011

In our questionaire, each requirement-step con-
sisted of a paired question and a variable number of
differently aimed second type questions on the cur-
rent level of performance. The level of compliance
was expressed by the respondents on a rating scale.
When averaging the responses, all requirementswere
slightly above the middle of the range. From this re-
sult it was very difficult to determine the actual per-
formance despite the compensation feature. CP Co-
efficient of performancewas therefore calculated as an
additional indicator, in order to provide an overview.

CP =

∑7
i=3 fi −

∑5
i=1 fi∑7

i=1 fi
(4)

where CP is the coefficient of performance, focused
on the result of extreme values to avoid the com-
pensated result, fn denotes the choice frequencies of
each level on a seven-grade rating scale by the re-
spondents. The result from the questionaire is shown
in Figure 4. The labels A,B,C refer to the second
type question. A is the first performance question
belonging under a specific requirement, B is the sec-
ond question, and C is the third question. Three
questions in the setwas themaximumnumber in our
questionnaire. The requirements are marked with
numbers 1 to 20. The classification into categories
(M,A,O, I) is derived fromthe superior requirement
and is thus identical for all variants of all relatedper-
formance questions (which have the same number).
The requirements are numbered from 1 to 20.

Fig. 4: Performance questions focused on how the re-
quirements meet the needs. Performance is represented
by the CP coefficient, togetherwith a classification of the
three most dominant requirement categories

Theperformances of requirementsare shownbythe
value of the CP coefficient, which subtracts the num-
ber of responses on the scale (1–5) from the number
of responses on the evaluation scale (3–7) and di-
vides this number by the overall number of assess-
ments. If the resulting coefficient is negative, this
requirement can be perceived as insufficiently met.
Each requirement is also displayed with the classi-
fication of the three most numerous groups. The
classes are listed in descending order by the num-
ber of frequencies gained. The combinations indicate
the approximate structures of class distributions and
also the nature of the requirements. For example,
request No. 16 A, from the appendix marked here as
A16 — How satisfied are you with the links between
the teaching and practical applications? is perceived
as attractive (A), but some of the respondents con-
sidered it asamust be (M), and the coefficient of per-
formance CP is −0.2, which indicates lack of com-
pliance. Question C of requirement No. 9 — How
satisfied are you with the spaces for parking? is per-
cieved as a very poor performance, is classified as
attractive (A) and consequently as a must be (M).
The number of evaluations was only 43 %due to the
frequent choice does not affect me, whichmeans that
many of the students are not concerned with park-
ing needs. If the indifferent class is dominant, the
next class in order becomes decisive. Requirement
No. 20A—How satisfied are you with the possibility
of continuing for a master’s degree after graduating
as a bachelor of STM? is a case of the dominant
indifferent class and must-be class as second in the
order, and therefore if the requirement is not met it
will evoke dissatisfaction among the students. If it
is met, it will be regarded as self-evident and will
not evoke any improvement in student satisfaction.
Requirement No. 2 — Helpful approach of teachers,
mainly question B — How satisfied are you with the
study materials? with a significant contribution of
must be evaluation, also need to be addressed.

3 Choice-Based Conjoint
Analysis

Conjoint analysis is an universal tool which might be
used in market research to determine a marketing
strategy. It belongs to the group of multivariate sta-
tistical methods designed for the most exact mar-
ket survey. Conjoint anlaysis was originally derived
from the fields of mathematical psychology and psy-
chometry. In contrast to compositional approaches,
whereeachspecific incentiveattribute is assessedsep-
arately, the conjoint approach is based on a global
assessment of the incentives representing products.
Respondents evaluate a set of concepts in a ques-
tionnaire, and assign their preference to them. Each

49



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 51 No. 5/2011

product is a concept characterized by a specific com-
bination of parameters, or by the characteristic lev-
els of important attributes, and respondents must
make trade-offs between the properties when con-
sidering concept preferences, because they are eval-
uating complex objects, each of which represents a
specific product as a whole. This way of question-
ing is more similar to real buying behavior. In com-
positional approaches, product properties are evalu-
ated without the context of the simultaneous pres-
ence of other attributes. Respondents do not need
to make any compromises during the evaluation, for
example due to a limited financial budget, or they do
not take into the account a combination of manufac-
turer brand and other properties. They do not eval-
uate the utility of a product, but only the separate
features, and the resulting preference characteristic
is often significantly distorted. Choice-based mod-
els emerge from Mc Fadden’s economic theory [7].
According to this theory, individuals and homoge-
neous groups of individuals produce the market be-
havior generated by maximizing preferences, which
may include a random component due to fluctuation
in perceptions, and attitudes and also the action of
other immeasurable factors. Demographic, economic
and social variables also shape the resulting pref-
erences. Choice-based conjoint analysis (CBC) [8]
is a specific approach from the group of conjoint
methods. It is derived from Random Utility Theory
(RUT), which is an aspect of more general Behav-
ioral Theory. This approach focuses directly on the
process of customers’ purchasing decisions. A dis-
crete choice qustionnaire also maintains hypothetical
products, as in the traditional conjoint approach, but
here respondents always choose only one concept per
question. The question is formed as a subset of the
total set of hypothetical concepts. In marketing and
economics, themost important randomutilitymodel
is the discrete-choice model (the choice of one option
at the time). The data can be analysed using the
COUNT method, which simply expresses the number
of cases when selected concepts included the levels
as a percentage of the total number of occurrences
of these levels in a questionnaire. Other approaches
foranalyzingchoice-baseddataareMultinomial Logit
(MNL), Multinominal Probit (MNP), Latent Classes
and MNL Hierarchical Bayes (HB).
The output of this method usually computes the

probability that a particular type of respondent will
buy a specified product (a combination of product
features), or it determines thepreferences of themar-
ket segment.

4 Conclusion
This article has presented issues of buying decision
modeling in the context of the original motivation
theories from psychology. An electronic survey was
conducted among respondents belonging to a group
of students at a technical university. A Kano Model
was constructed for the identified requirements of
students which were established during the intial
stage. The model was analyzed. This allowed us to
classify the requirements into the typical categories
(attractive, one-dimensional, and must be) affecting
the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of customers in
different ways. It helped us to understand how the
requirementswork tomeet students’ needs. The cur-
rent performances and importance1 of the require-
ments were also measured. It was possible to de-
duce from the results strong andweak aspects in the
services related to education and to define potential
improvements and new services that will have the
greatest benefit for students.
Aweakpoint in compositionalmethods lies in ob-

taining responses on individual attributes of a prod-
uct or a service independently of other attributes.
Products are offered in the market as bundles of at-
tributes. Compositional methods are not able to cap-
ture the effect of combinations of attributes and are
therefore often inaccurate. Conjoint analysis deals
successfully with this issue. Its Choice-Based ap-
proach, tailored for modeling purchasing decisions,
was introduced in Section 3.

Appendix2

1. Meals, housing and social facilities
A. How satisfied are you with the food?
B. How satisfied are you with the accomonda-
tion?

C. How satisfied are you with the sanitary fa-
cilities (toilets, etc)?

2. Helpful approach of teachers
A. How satisfied are you with the helpfulness
of the teachers?

B. How satisfied are you with the study mate-
rials?

3. Good organization of lessons, optimal schedule
and the need to move from place to place
A. How satisfied are youwith the arrangement
of your schedule?

4. Better opportunities through the image of the
university
A. How satisfied are youwith the offers of em-
ployment for graduates from the faculty?

1The measurement of requirement importance is not shown in this paper.
2The annex contains a list of requirements used in the survey to conclude the Kano model. The first level in the list retains the

identified requirements; the second level contains the questions to investigate current performances.

50



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 51 No. 5/2011

5. Top equipment at the faculty for teaching or re-
search work
A. How satisfied are you with the support fa-
cilities used in teaching at the faculty?

6. Content accordance of the field of study with
world trends
A. How satisfied are you with the appeal of
your field of study?

7. Greater freedom in choice of curriculum
A. How satisfied are youwith the current offer
of courses?

8. Opportunity to gain a recognized certificate for
language skills
A. Howsatisfiedareyouwith theprovisions for
learning a foreign language?

9. Spaces available in the university for various
purposes (sports, study halls for team discus-
sions, etc)
A. How satisfied are you with the spaces for
self study?

B. How satisfied are you with the sports facil-
ities?

C. How satisfied are you with the spaces for
parking?

10. Opportunities for scientific cooperationwith the
department during the studies
A. How satisfied are you with the opportuni-
ties to participate in projects carried out by
the departments?

11. Availability of current information, and oppor-
tunities to use a uniform and comprehensive
IS
A. How satisfied are you with the opportuni-
ties to obtain current information related to
your studies?

12. Comfortable work with the KOS system and
good interaction with the staff of the study de-
partment
A. How satisfied are you with the use of the
KOS system?

B. How satisfied are you with office hours at
the study department?

C. How satisfied are you with the behavior of
the study department staff?

13. Use of the latest technology for teaching and op-
portunities to use your own notebook
A. Howsatisfiedareyouwith the technical aids
used in your classes?

B. How satisfied are youwith opportunities to
use your own laptop in your classes?

14. Compliance of the curriculum with your ideas
about the field that you study
A. How satisfied are you with the range of re-
quired courses?

B. How satisfied are you with content of the
individual courses?

15. Opportunities to study abroad

A. How satisfied are you with the offers for
studying abroad?

16. The interrelation between teaching and practice
A. Howsatisfiedareyouwith the linksbetween
teaching and practical applications?

17. The image and positive evaluation of the faculty
in the world, its general recognition and reputa-
tion
A. Howsatisfied are youwith the reputation of
the University among the public?

18. Opportunities to choose interdisciplinary fields
of study (a combination of fields)
A. How satisfied are you with the offer of
courses from other fields of study?

19. Providing a wide range of student discounts
A. How satisfied are you with the offer of stu-
dent discounts?

20. The existence of an opportunity to continue to a
master’s degree focused on the field of Software
Technology and Management (STM)
A. How satisfied are you with the possibility
of continuing to study for a master’s degree
after graduating as a bachelor of STM?

References

[1] Kotler, P., Keller, K.: Marketing Management.
13th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009.

[2] Reynolds, T. J., Gutman, J.: Laddering the-
ory,method, analysis, and interpretation.Under-
standing Consumer Decision Making–The Mean-
End Approach to Marketing and Advertising
Strategy, p. 25–62.

[3] Biligili, B., Ünal, S.: KanoModelApplication for
Classifying the Requirements of University Stu-
dents. MIBES, 2008, p. 31–45.

[4] Sauerwein,E., Bailom,F., Matzler,K., Hinterhu-
ber, H.: The Kano model: How to delight your
customers. International Working Seminar on
Production Economics, 1996, vol. 1, p. 313–327.

[5] Shiba, S., Graham, A., Walden, D., Lee, T. H.,
Stata, R.: A new American TQM: Four practical
revolutions in management. Productivity Press
Portland, Ore, 1993.

[6] Berger, C.: Kano’s methods for understanding
customer-defined quality. Center for Quality of
Management Journal, 1993, vol.2, no. 4, p. 3–36.

[7] McFadden, D.: The Choice Theory Approach
to Market Research. Marketing Science, 1986,
vol. 5, no. 4, p. 275–297.

[8] Orme, B.: The CBC System for Choice-Based
ConjointAnalysis.Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2008,
p. 1–27.

51



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 51 No. 5/2011

About the author

Ondrej Grünwald was born in Karlovy Vary in
1978. He received his Ing. degree in 2008 from
the Faculty of Electrical Engineering of the Czech
Technical University in Prague, specializing in Eco-
nomics and Management in Electrical Engineering.
Currently he is a Ph.D. student at the Department
of Economics, Management and Humanities at the
Faculty of Electrical Egineering of CTU in Prague.
His interests include the application ofmathematical

and statistical methods in marketing, mainly con-
joint analyses and related techniques for marketing
research.

Ondřej Grünwald
E-mail: grunwond@fel.cvut.cz
Dept. of Economics
Management and Humanities
Czech Technical University
Technická 2, 166 27 Praha, Czech Republic

52