Designing and pricing new products is one of the most critical activities for a firm, and it is well-known that taking into account consumer preferences for design decisions is essential for products later to be successful in a competitive environment (e.g., Urban and Hauser 1993). Consequently, measuring consumer preferences among multiattribute alternatives has been a primary concern in marketing research as well, and among many methodologies developed, conjoint analysis (Green and Rao 1971) has turned out to be one of the most widely used preference-based techniques for identifying and evaluating new product concepts. Moreover, a number of conjoint-based models with special focus on mathematical programming techniques for optimal product (line) design have been proposed (e.g., Zufryden 1977, 1982, Green and Krieger 1985, 1987b, 1992, Kohli and Krishnamurti 1987, Kohli and Sukumar 1990, Dobson and Kalish 1988, 1993, Balakrishnan and Jacob 1996, Chen and Hausman 2000). These models are directed at determining optimal product concepts using consumers' idiosyncratic or segment level part-worth preference functions estimated previously within a conjoint framework. Recently, Balakrishnan and Jacob (1996) have proposed the use of Genetic Algorithms (GA) to solve the problem of identifying a share maximizing single product design using conjoint data. In this paper, we follow Balakrishnan and Jacob's idea and employ and evaluate the GA approach with regard to the problem of optimal product line design. Similar to the approaches of Kohli and Sukumar (1990) and Nair et al. (1995), product lines are constructed directly from part-worths data obtained by conjoint analysis, which can be characterized as a one-step approach to product line design. In contrast, a two-step approach would start by first reducing the total set of feasible product profiles to a smaller set of promising items (reference set of candidate items) from which the products that constitute a product line are selected in a second step. Two-step approaches or partial models for either the first or second stage in this context have been proposed by Green and Krieger (1985, 1987a, 1987b, 1989), McBride and Zufryden (1988), Dobson and Kalish (1988, 1993) and, more recently, by Chen and Hausman (2000). Heretofore, with the only exception of Chen and Hausman's (2000) probabilistic model, all contributors to the literature on conjoint-based product line design have employed a deterministic, first-choice model of idiosyncratic preferences. Accordingly, a consumer is assumed to choose from her/his choice set the product with maximum perceived utility with certainty. However, the first choice rule seems to be an assumption too rigid for many product categories and individual choice situations, as the analyst often won't be in a position to control for all relevant variables influencing consumer behavior (e.g., situational factors). Therefore, in agreement with Chen and Hausman (2000), we incorporate a probabilistic choice rule to provide a more flexible representation of the consumer decision making process and start from segment-specific conjoint models of the conditional multinomial logit type. Favoring the multinomial logit model doesn't imply rejection of the widespread max-utility rule, as the MNL includes the option of mimicking this first choice rule. We further consider profit as a firm's economic criterion to evaluate decisions and introduce fixed and variable costs for each product profile. However, the proposed methodology is flexible enough to accomodate for other goals like market share (as well as for any other probabilistic choice rule). This model flexibility is provided by the implemented Genetic Algorithm as the underlying solver for the resulting nonlinear integer programming problem. Genetic Algorithms merely use objective function information (in the present context on expected profits of feasible product line solutions) and are easily adjustable to different objectives without the need for major algorithmic modifications. To assess the performance of the GA methodology for the product line design problem, we employ sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation. Sensitivity analysis is carried out to study the performance of the Genetic Algorithm w.r.t. varying GA parameter values (population size, crossover probability, mutation rate) and to finetune these values in order to provide near optimal solutions. Based on more than 1500 sensitivity runs applied to different problem sizes ranging from 12.650 to 10.586.800 feasible product line candidate solutions, we can recommend: (a) as expected, that a larger problem size be accompanied by a larger population size, with a minimum popsize of 130 for small problems and a minimum popsize of 250 for large problems, (b) a crossover probability of at least 0.9 and (c) an unexpectedly high mutation rate of 0.05 for small/medium-sized problems and a mutation rate in the order of 0.01 for large problem sizes. Following the results of the sensitivity analysis, we evaluated the GA performance for a large set of systematically varying market scenarios and associated problem sizes. We generated problems using a 4-factorial experimental design which varied by the number of attributes, number of levels in each attribute, number of items to be introduced by a new seller and number of competing firms except the new seller. The results of the Monte Carlo study with a total of 276 data sets that were analyzed show that the GA works efficiently in both providing near optimal product line solutions and CPU time. Particularly, (a) the worst-case performance ratio of the GA observed in a single run was 96.66%, indicating that the profit of the best product line solution found by the GA was never less than 96.66% of the profit of the optimal product line, (b) the hit ratio of identifying the optimal solution was 84.78% (234 out of 276 cases) and (c) it tooks at most 30 seconds for the GA to converge. Considering the option of Genetic Algorithms for repeated runs with (slightly) changed parameter settings and/or different initial populations (as opposed to many other heuristics) further improves the chances of finding the optimal solution.
