Quantitative Measurement of Quality Attribute Preferences Using Conjoint Analysis

  • Kwang Chun Lee
  • Ho-Jin Choi
  • Dan Hyung Lee
  • Sungwon Kang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3941)


Conjoint analysis has received considerable attention as a technique for measuring customer preferences through utility tradeoffs among products and services. This paper shows how the method can be applied to the area of software architecture to analyze architectural tradeoffs among quality attributes. By eliciting customer utilities through conjoint analysis, software engineers can identify and focus on the useful quality attributes, which will increase the chance of delivering satisfactory software products to the customers. This paper proposes a quantitative method of measuring quality attribute preferences using conjoint analysis and demonstrates its efficacy by applying it to the Project Management Center (PMCenter) project. The proposed method is complementary to the Architecture Trade-off Analysis Method (ATAM) in that ATAM relies on customer’s feedback to elicit important quality attributes, whereas this method can be used to actually measure the utilities of quality attributes in a quantitative manner. Furthermore, our method provides a new framework for choosing architecture styles and design patterns based on customer’s preferences of quality attributes.


Quality Attribute Design Pattern Software Architecture Conjoint Analysis Customer Preference 
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. 1.
    Addlelman, S.: Orthogonal main-effect plans for asymmetrical factorial experiments. Technometrics 4, 21–46 (1962)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armstrong, S.: Principles of Forecasting. Kluwer Publishing, Dordrecht (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Churchill, G., Lacobucci, D.: Marketing research: methodological foundations, 8/e, South-Western College Pub (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garlan, D., Shaw, M.: An introduction to software architecture, CMU/SEI-94-TR-21, ESC-TR-94-21 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Green, P.E., Srinivasan, V.: Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research 5, 103–123 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Green, P.E., Srinivasan, V.: Conjoint analysis in marketing: new development with implications for research and practice. Journal of Consumer Research 5, 103–123 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green, P.E., Krieger, A.M., Wind, Y.: Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects. Interfaces 31(3), Part 2 of 2, S56–S73 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hauser, J.R., Rao, V.: Conjoint analysis, related modeling, and applications. In: Advances in Marketing Research: Progress and Modeling, Norwell, MA. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kazman, R., Klein, M., Barbacci, M.: The architecture tradeoff analysis method. In: Longstaff, T., Lipson, H., Corriere, J. (eds.) 4th Int’l Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS 1998), pp. 67–78. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kazman, R., Klein, M., Clements, P.: ATAM: method for architecture evaluation. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luce, R.D., Tukey, J.: Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1–27 (1964)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McFadden, D.: The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing Science 5(4) (1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Plackett, R.L., Burman, J.P.: The design of optimum multifactorial experiments. Biometrika 33, 305–325 (1946)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software architecture: perspectives on an emerging discipline. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith, D., Merson, P.: Using architecture evaluation to prepare a large web based system for evolution. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE Int’l Workshop on Web Site Evolution (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiegers, K.E.: Software requirements, 2/e”, Microsoft Press (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wittink, D.R., Cattin, P.: Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. Journal of Marketing 53, 91–96 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wittink, D.R., Vriens, M., Burhenne, W.: Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: results and reflections. International Journal of Research in Marketing 11, 41–52 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kwang Chun Lee
    • 1
  • Ho-Jin Choi
    • 1
  • Dan Hyung Lee
    • 1
  • Sungwon Kang
    • 1
  1. 1.Information and Communications UniversityDaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations