11 of 60 IIMA/CISG91

10. DEMAND ESTIMATION OF INFORMATION PRODUCTS

In a demand assessment survey, data were collected on the level of satisfaction on four dimensions
(coverage, reliability, timeliness, and convenience) of existing products. These products are those offering
conceptual information, case studies, statistical databases, and technical reports. For each product type,
respondents were asked to give a score between 1 and 4 (1 for least and 4 for most) for what they wanted
(wntd) and what they received (recd) of each dimension. A sample data for twelve respondents is given in
the Annexure.

Using this data, it is required to study the scope of introducing the new products by improving the
dimension in which the respondents experience deficiency in the existing products. The deficiency in any
dimension experienced by a respondent is measured as the difference of the wanted score and received
score given by him for that dimension. If such difference is greater than zero (as in the case of respondent
1 for coverage dimension of conceptual products, the wanted is 4, received is 2 and the difference is 2), it
is called positive deficiency. The total of such positive deficiencies across all respondents for a product
type and a dimension is called total potential deficiency (TPD) of that product type-dimension
combination. For our problem we will have 16 TPD values. The TPD of a product type-dimension
combination divided by the number of respondents having positive deficiency for that combination is
called the average potential deficiency (APD). If a respondent is satisfied with any dimension of a
product type, his wanted score is less than or equal to the received score for that dimension and the
difference would be negative (for example respondent 2, for product type reports on coverage dimension
– wanted 2, received 4; thus the deficiency is 2-4 =-2). We do not consider such respondents for our TPD
computations as they do not have deficiency.

It is required to compute and tabulate the APDs for each product and in each dimension as shown below.

Table of Average Potential Deficiencies (APD)

Dimension
Product Type
Coverage Reliability Timeliness Convenience
Conceptual
Cases
Databases
Reports

It is also required to compute the percentage of respondents (to the total number of respondents) having
the positive deficiency for each product type and in each dimension, and tabulate them as shown below.

Table of Percentage of Respondents with Positive Deficiencies (%D)

Dimension
Product Type
Coverage Reliability Timeliness Convenience
Conceptual
Cases
Databases
Reports

Questions (See Annexure-II for expected results):

1. Develop spreadsheet based solution to obtain the above two tables.

2. Develop a single table which puts together the APD and %D values in a single cell for each
product type – dimension combination.

Hint: Use 4 extra columns, one for each dimension, to compute the deficiency values (of each respondent) in that
dimension and use those results for further computations and tabulations.
12 of 60 IIMA/CISG91

Annexure I: Sample Data for 12 Respondents

Coverage Reliability Timeliness Convenience
RespNo ProdType cvwntd cvrecd rlwntd rlrecd tmwntd tmrecd conwntd conrecd
1 conceptual 4 2 4 3 3 2 3 2
1 cases 2 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
1 databases 3 2 3 3 2 1 3 1
1 reports 4 4 2 3 1 2 3 2
2 conceptual 3 2 3 2 4 3 4 2
2 cases 4 1 4 3 3 1 2 1
2 databases 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 3
2 reports 2 4 2 1 2 3 1 4
3 conceptual 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 2
3 cases 4 1 4 3 2 1 4 1
3 databases 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 2
3 reports 2 2 2 4 4 3 2 3
4 conceptual 4 2 1 1 4 2 4 1
4 cases 2 1 4 1 4 2 3 1
4 databases 3 2 3 3 2 2 4 4
4 reports 1 3 2 4 2 3 1 4
5 conceptual 2 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
5 cases 3 2 3 3 2 1 3 1
5 databases 4 4 2 3 1 2 3 2
5 reports 3 2 3 2 4 3 4 2
6 conceptual 4 1 4 3 3 1 2 1
6 cases 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 3
6 databases 2 4 2 1 2 3 1 4
6 reports 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 2
7 conceptual 4 1 4 3 2 1 4 1
7 cases 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 2
7 databases 2 2 2 4 4 3 2 3
7 reports 4 2 1 1 4 2 4 1
8 conceptual 2 1 4 1 4 2 3 1
8 cases 3 2 3 3 2 2 4 4
8 databases 1 3 2 4 2 3 1 4
8 reports 4 1 4 3 3 1 2 1
9 conceptual 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 3
9 cases 2 4 2 1 2 3 1 4
9 databases 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 2
9 reports 4 1 4 3 2 1 4 1
10 conceptual 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 2
10 cases 2 2 2 4 4 3 2 3
10 databases 4 2 1 1 4 2 4 1
10 reports 2 1 4 1 4 2 3 1
11 conceptual 3 2 3 3 2 2 4 4
11 cases 1 3 2 4 2 3 1 4
11 databases 2 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
11 reports 3 2 3 3 2 1 3 1
12 conceptual 4 4 2 3 1 2 3 2
12 cases 3 2 3 2 4 3 4 2
12 databases 4 1 4 3 3 1 2 1
12 reports 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 3

Annexure II: Expected Results

APD Table %D Table

Coverage Reliability Timeliness Convenience Coverage Reliability Timeliness Convenience
conceptual 1.67 1.75 1.63 1.89 conceptual 0.75 0.67 0.67 0.75
cases 1.63 1.63 1.50 2.00 cases 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.58
databases 1.67 1.60 1.67 1.83 databases 0.50 0.42 0.50 0.50
reports 1.83 1.50 1.43 2.00 reports 0.50 0.50 0.58 0.58

APD & %D Table

Coverage Reliability Timeliness Convenience
conceptual 1.67-75% 1.75-67% 1.63-67% 1.89-75%
cases 1.63-67% 1.63-67% 1.50-67% 2.00-58%
databases 1.67-50% 1.60-42% 1.67-50% 1.83-50%
reports 1.83-50% 1.50-50% 1.43-58% 2.00-58%