Have an idea?

Visit Sawtooth Software Feedback to share your ideas on how we can improve our products.

Piping forward "must-haves" into ACBC

We have information about “must-haves” from the QNR before the ACBC.
We introduce (binary) features and get respondent ratings as
- "not interested" (excluded from ACBC, coded as "0" utility),  
- "not a priority but nice" (autopopulated in BYO screen as level "n/a" selected to reduce frequency of inclusion)
- "relevant and/or attractive" (autopopulated in BYO screen as level "included" selected to increase frequency of inclusion)
- "must-have"

The idea to use the latter response as if this was the responses gathered in the “must-have” questions inside the ACBC. Somehow the “must-have” questions trigger the design algorithm to focus on corresponding concepts.
Can this be piped into the ACBC without showing the equivalent question there (again)? Rather than on-the-fly we’d like to have this effect from the beginning of the screening on.

Is there any code (Perl, JS) that can inform/steer the ACBC in the same way that the on-the-fly questions do? We find these ACBC responses reflected in the data set so can we write such values via code as well?

Thanks
Alex
asked May 1 by alex.wendland Bronze (2,355 points)
Perhaps constructed lists would be the way to handle this.  You could make the levels use constructed lists, and populate the constructed list with only the "included" level if "must have" has been selected.  Then JavaScript in the BYOs could hide this attribute and automatically select the one valid response behind the scenes.

Do you think that would work for you?
Thanks Zachary, this sounds like a viable idea.
I'm not sure how ACBC deals with lists if they have only 1 level. Ideally we wouldn't show the attributes if they are all the same. We can show the "must-have" above the concepts and tournament.

However, I've been advised that forcing must haves into the ACBC defeats the purpose of identifying must haves from observations rather than relying on self-stated input. The latter is often unreliable and suffers from overstatement and response style. This apparently was the original motivation to derive must-haves via ACBC.

For that reason I believe we won't pursue the approach but thanks for the idea!

Your solution to the original question

Please only use this to answer the original question. Otherwise please use comments.
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:

To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.
...