Project Management Institute

A conceptual model of the emotional valuation of a project

James Bowen, University of Ottawa, Canada

Abstract

The conceptual model of the subjective emotional aspect of valuation (SEAV) develops guidelines for the measurement, control, and prediction of the emotional response to projects. The SEAV is defined as a valuation done by the end-user, and is expressed along a desirability scale ranging from “completely unacceptable” to “improvement beyond this point has no additional value.”

The essence of this paper is the application of decision-making theories to project acceptance problems; it presents a conceptual model, or a “box for thinking.” The theoretical framework of this document includes theories and findings from various fields of knowledge. The main difference of the SEAV model from alternative findings is that the Reference Point measures are included in the list of parameters.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of problems involving the emotional acceptance of a project revolve not around its implementation, but the product or service design. The research described in this paper suggests an additional parameter that substantially affects a project's vitality, especially in the case of projects with a wide stakeholder base: it is the stakeholders' SEAV of the project that is important. The conceptual model of SEAV provides tools to measure, to predict, and to evaluate the stakeholders' emotional valuation in the early stages of the project, beginning at product or service design.

Although this research should be developed further, it already provides useful tools for use in project management practice, and appears applicable to different areas of management.

Keywords: concept, subjective, emotional, valuation, model, project management

The SEAV is part of the acceptance and operational process, as the end-user's behavior depends on the interaction of many factors. In general, the valuation process consists of two parts: emotional response and cognitive evaluation. In the authors' experience, the emotional part of the evaluation of the project has the biggest impact on the stakeholders' acceptance of the project. Modern neuroscientists acknowledge that an individual's emotional responses occur before the cognitive part of a valuation process, and it provides a “quick and dirty frame for our response,” … “emotional reactions are not just another input into the evaluation of an alternative; they occur before a summary evaluation and determine which alternatives remain in the choice set that is evaluated” (Hastie & Dawes, 2001, p. 207-213).

In the case that the project is emotionally acceptable, we use a positive template for the cognitive valuation. The positive template means that we tend mainly to valuate a project's positive aspects, and pay little attention to some noticeable inconveniences and shortcomings. Even more, we are ready to support the project team's decisions for those inconveniences and shortcomings.

However, if the project is emotionally unacceptable, we use a negative template cognitive valuation. The negative template means that we tend to emphasize a project's negative aspects, and pay little or no attention to noticeable benefits, and to the necessity of a project. In this case, the project team could exert their best efforts, but the stakeholders will reject or even sabotage the project without a reasonable rationale. They probably have logical reasons, but are able to explain their logic beyond “I dislike it. That's all!” Given time, they might find negative reasons, but if they were honest, all those reasons would be derived from this main one—They emotionally don't like it, and, one cannot persuade them to change their attitude. Usually there is not a huge difference between the first case and the second one: And more, very often the second case is objectively better and more necessary.

The conceptual model of SEAV develops guidelines on how to measure, control, and predict the emotional response of and to projects.

Research Method

This document describes the development of a conceptual model, or a “box for thinking.” The proposed model is based on decision-making theories applied to the emotional part of the evaluation process of a project. The theoretical framework contains theories and findings from various fields of knowledge. The most important of these are described in the following historical perspective section. To implement the research findings, some assumptions were made, and adaptations of the theories were developed.

A Historical Perspective

The proposed conceptual model is based on the conclusions inherent in the decision-making theories concerning how people evaluate the same situation. Although there are several ways people do this, there exist some common patterns. These common patterns, when identified and quantified, are what make the prediction of an emotional evaluation possible and usable in practice.

This research is, therefore, based on the following theoretical cornerstones:

Prospect Theory. Prospect Theory was developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (1979) in Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk as a psychologically realistic alternative to Expected Utility theory. The essence of the Prospect Theory is the acknowledgment that our evaluation of an activity depends on the direction and value of changes this activity makes relative to a Reference Point that defines zero on our personal gain-loss scale, rather than from the objective value of the results this activity brings. Kahneman and Tversky (1979, p. 277) illustrated this phenomenon with the following thought: “The same level of wealth, for example, may imply abject poverty for one person and great riches for another—depending on their current assets.” This monumental work provides an important basis for the development of the SEAV model. The main difference of the SEAV model from alternative findings is the Reference Point measures are included in a list of parameters.

The Value Function. The Value Function transforms objective values into the personal values of the decision-maker. The hypothetical Value Function was first introduced by Kahneman and Tversky (1979, p. 277). The Typical Value Function (Hastie & Dawes, 2001, p. 294) was chosen as a base for SEAV modeling purposes:

img

where x is the objective value of the gains or losses.

Equation 1 indicates that if the value of gains and losses are identical, losses are perceived approximately twice as painful as the gains are enjoyable. To keep the conceptual continuity of the Value Function, its original form is extended as follows:

img

The Value Function is used for the quantitative evaluation of the gains or losses in the SEAV model.

The Desirability Function. The Desirability Function, d, transforms the Physical Intensity of Property into a dimensionless scale of desirability. The Desirability Function was first introduced by Edwin C. Harrington Jr. (1965) in his fundamental work The Desirability Function. As a base for SEAV modeling purposes, the One-sided Desirability Function, d, (Harrington, 1965, p. 496) is used:

img

where Y′ is a linear transformation of the property variable, Y, such that Y′ = -5 when Y is equal to the Lower Specification Limit, YLSL, and Y′ = +5 when Y is equal to the Upper Specification Limit, YUSL

The Upper Specification Limit is the Physical Intensity of Property that is valued as the best possible choice. The Lower Specification Limit is the Physical Intensity of Property that is valued as the worst possible choice. The correspondence between the Lower and Upper Specification Limits and Physical Intensity of Property has to be individually defined for any application.

The original form of Desirability Function, d, is transformed as follows:

img

The Desirability Function is used for the qualitative evaluation of the SEAV. The original interpretation of the Desirability Function values was modified in order to adapt them to research purposes. The modified interpretation of Desirability Function values is shown in Table 2.

The Over-All Desirability Function. The Over-All Desirability Function was developed by Harrington (1965, p. 496) to transform several measures of the product parameters' desirability into an overall measure of desirability for the product as a whole:

img

where d1, d2,....., dn are the Desirability variables.

The Over-All Desirability Function is used for some evaluations transformation to the consolidated measure of SEAV.

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) is a technology acceptance model formulated by Viswanath Venkatesh and others in User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). Although the UTAUT was initially developed to evaluate and predict information technology acceptance, its approach and methods are applicable to a wide range of business activities. This theory operates with four core determinants of intention and use, two direct determinants of use-related behavior, and four moderators of key relationships as shown on

. Core determinants are listed on the figure's left side; moderators of key relationships are listed on the figure's lower part; direct determinants of use behavior are Behavioral Intention and Use Behavior.

Like other theories in this area, the UTAUT does not take into account the Prospect Theory Reference Point acknowledgment. For the purposes of the conceptual model, valuated as UTAUT shortcoming, it uses Performance Expectancy and Effort Expectancy objective values only, but does not use the Reference Point's Performance and Effort values as parameters.

Although the UTAUT does not provide an appropriate tool for the SEAV evaluation, it is used as an underpinning for the authors' proposed modified UTAUT model.

The Hypothesis. The hypothesis includes the following concepts:

  • Effort Reward Coefficient
  • Objective evaluation of changes
  • Emotional template for the cognitive valuation
  • SEAV calculation algorithm.

Effort Reward Coefficient. Decreasing effort is valuated as a gain; increased effort is valuated as a loss.

The assumption is that the Effort Change, ΔEV, is valuated as an accordant Gain Change, ΔGV, in the same proportion as the ratio of the Gain Value, GV0, to Effort Value, EV0, in the Reference Point.

If the end-users do not have current experience in project-related activities, it means EV0 = GV0 = 0. If the end-users have some gain without any effort, or vice versa, some effort without any gain, it means EV0 = 0 or GV0 = 0. For the cases where EV0 = GV0 = 0, EV0 = 0 or GV0 = 0, it is assumed that Effort Change, ΔEV, is valuated as accordant Gain Change, ΔGV, in the same ratio of the Maximum Gain Value, GVmax, to the Maximum Effort Value, EVmax.

For ease of further calculations, the proportion between AEV and ΔGV is called the Effort Reward Coefficient. The Effort Reward Coefficient is calculated as follows:

img

Objective Evaluation of Changes. The Objective Evaluation of changes implies the evaluation of changes in terms of desirability. It is calculated as the Desirability of Objective Relative Wealth. The Objective Relative Wealth, ORW, is the sum of Effort Change, leveled to the accordant gain change, by multiplying by the Effort Reward Coefficient (ERC × ΔEV), and the Gain Change, ΔGV.

Emotional Template for the Cognitive Valuation. The Emotional Template for the Cognitive Valuation is the Psychological Evaluation of Changes in terms of Desirability. It is calculated as the Desirability of Psychological Relative Wealth. The Psychological Relative Wealth, PRW, is calculated as the sum of the psychological value of Effort Change, leveled to accordant gain's change by multiplying by the Effort Reward Coefficient (v(ERC ΔEV)), and the psychological value of Gain Change, v (ΔGV).

SEAV Calculation Algorithm. The SEAV is a common measure of the Expected State Desirability and the Objective Evaluation of Changes, made through a prism of an Emotional Template for the Cognitive Valuation. As such, the SEAV is calculated as the Over-All Desirability of the following:

  • Desirability of Expected Effort Value
  • Desirability of Expected Gain Value
  • Desirability of Objective Relative Wealth
  • Desirability of Psychological Relative Wealth.

Limitations. This research has limitations as follows:

  • The research area is shown in Figure 2, and is limited to factors affecting the emotional aspect of the valuation of the project.
  • The research framework is also limited to the evaluation and prediction of the SEAV, but project complex evaluation.
  • This research's framework is limited to the evaluation of a single expected Effort and Gains values set, but a multitude of them.
  • The probability of expected Effort's and Gain's values set occurrence is assumed as 100%.

The Conceptual Model of SEAV.

The conceptual model of SEAV is developed under the assumption that concepts included in the Hypothesis are true. The Hypothesis is based on the authors' personal opinion and does not pretend to be complete, other than the above, the theoretical justifications.

The conceptual model of SEAV is based on the theoretical background referred to in the historical perspective section, the modified UTAUT model, hypothesis, and limitations. Based on this, some useful concepts are defined in this section.

It is advised to read this section first with the aim to achieve a common view of this topic. To provide readability, most definitions and explanations of equations are moved out from this section. Definitions are placed in the Appendix in an order such that definitions necessary to understand a current definition are placed before it. In this case it would be easy to read the Appendix consecutively from the start to the end after reading this section. In order to easily find any abbreviation, all necessary information is consolidated in Table 1.

Modified UTAUT Model. In order to explain the place of SEAV in the acceptance and use process, this paper proposes a modified UTAUT model shown in Figure 2. The determinants and moderators listed in the proposed model are generalized, because this methodology is applicable to a wide range of business activities.

Objective Equilibrium Line. The Objective Equilibrium Line is a line on each point of which the Normalized Objective Relative Wealth is equal to zero. It means that the Objective Equilibrium Line by itself represents the multitude of Efforts and Gains with the same Reference Point proportion between Efforts and Gains. From this definition, it follows that points in the area above this line are objectively preferable to the Reference Point, and contrariwise, points in the area below this line are objectively worse than the Reference Point. The Objective Equilibrium Line equation follows from its definition:

img

The Objective Equilibrium Line equation follows from this, and is calculated as follows:

img

An example of the Objective Equilibrium Line is shown on Figure 5.

Psychological Equilibrium Line. The Psychological Equilibrium Line is a line on each point for which the Normalized Psychological Relative Wealth is equal to zero. It means the Psychological Equilibrium Line by itself represents the multitude of Efforts and Gains where the psychological values of Effort Change and Gain Change are equal. From this definition, it follows that points in the area above this line are psychologically preferable to the Reference Point, and, contrariwise, points in the area below this line are psychologically worse than the Reference Point. The Psychological Equilibrium Line equation follows from its definition:

img

The Psychological Equilibrium Line equation from previous equation is calculated as follows:

img
img

An example of the Psychological Equilibrium Line is shown on Figure 5.

The Subjective Emotional Aspect of Valuation. The equation of the Subjective Emotional Aspect of Valuation Function is calculated as follows:

img

The interpretation of Subjective Emotional Aspect of Valuation Function values is shown in Table 2.

The Fixed SEAV Line. The Fixed SEAV Line is a line on each point of which the SEAV values are equal. From this definition, it follows that the SEAV values of points in the area above this line are greater than the SEAV value on this line. Contrariwise, points in the area below this line are less than the SEAV value on this line.

The Fixed SEAV Line equation follows from its definition:

img

where C is the chosen SEAV value.

The Fixed SEAV Line equation is too complicated for practical use. Nowadays it is relatively easy to calculate the Fixed SEAV Line's points by numerical methods. In general, those methods mean leaving Gains and Efforts values until the defined SEAV value is reached with the necessary accuracy.

The Fixed SEAV Line has a different behavior depending on the position of the Reference Point. It is useful to illustrate how this behavior changes depending on Reference Point position in different quadrants of Gains and Efforts multitude. In this case, Figure 6, 7, 8, and 9 present the fixed SEAV Lines applicable to some SEAV values and different Reference Points.

Conclusions

It appears that the overwhelming majority of problems involving emotional acceptance of the project revolve not around its implementation, but the product or service design. In the event of the wrong design of a product or service, the best project team will not be able to do anything to increase the emotional valuation, and hence acceptance, of the project. Of course, the wrong implementation could befall any project with an excellent product or service design, but this aspect occurs relatively seldom and this case is outside the scope of this research.

The conceptual model of Subjective Emotional Aspect of Valuation provides tools to measure, to predict, and to evaluate the stakeholders' emotional valuation in the early stages of the project starting from the product or service design.

A chart with a Fixed SEAV Line provides convenience and clarity when it comes to setting requirements for the product or service parameters before their design. It also is very helpful in order to check the design after it is completed. This chart also provides convenience and clarity for the definition of the potential shortcomings of the design of the product or service.

A chart with a Fixed SEAV Line is also a useful tool to research and define regularities in the users' perception of a product or service. For an example, a chart with a Fixed SEAV Line analysis gets theoretical support for a commonly known empirical phenomenon: a product's desirability does not depend on the level of effort to operate it in a relatively wide range of efforts, but after reaching some level of efforts, a sudden change can be observed in the users' attitude to this product. In simple words, there is a situation whereby “little stroke fells great oak.” In other words, a little extra effort leads a project to become emotionally unacceptable.

However, relatively small gains could dramatically change a user's attitude to a product. It is evident that for a difference between product rejection (DS=0.4) and its evaluation as a best commercial quality (DS=0.63) could be about only 10% of gains maximum level!

It is necessary to note, that after getting the SEAV for all measured parameters of a product or service, the recommended actions could be as follows:

If the SEAV for such parameters is between 0.80 and 1.00, then this design is “too good” and it leads to overspending of resources. In this case, it is necessary to evaluate the economic viability of corresponding changes in the design.

If the SEAV for such parameter is between 0.63 and 0.80, then the right design for this aspect has been attained and changes are not needed.

  • If the SEAV for such parameter is between 0.40 and 0.63, then this design is “good, but poor” and it leads to the decline of the product. Taking into account that “… if any one property is so poor that the product is not suitable to the application, that product will not be acceptable, regardless of the remaining properties” (Harrington, 1965, p. 496). In this case it is necessary to evaluate the options for improving the design.
  • If the SEAV for such aspect are less than 0.40, then there is definitely a necessity to improve this aspect of the design.

The outcome of this research is a model, supported by the management literature that allows a project to be evaluated with a new parameter. This is a crucial parameter that determines if a user will emotionally accept a project or emotionally reject it. Emotional acceptance of a project is crucial to a user's overall acceptance of a project. Although the project may pass other financial or functionality criteria, it is the emotional criteria that determine the user's reaction.

In addition, it is hypothesized that this criterion can be measured before the project is even started. And thus, this research suggests a change to the project management process. The suggested change is to design the project from the users' emotional criteria prior to implementation. Following this recommendation increases the likelihood of the acceptance of the results of the project.

References

Harrington, E. C. Jr. (1965). The desirability function. American Society for Quality [online], Available: http://www.asq.org/qic/display-item/index.html?item=4860.

Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2001). Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment and decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. JSTOR [online], Available: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9682%28197903%2947%3A2%3C263%3APTAAOD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, D. F. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. Collaborative Software Development Laboratory [online], Available: http://csdl.ics.hawaii.edu/techreports/05-06/doc/Venkatesh2003.pdf.

Appendix

Definitions

Reference Point

The Reference Point could be one of, or a combination of, the following parameters:

  • A state to which one has adapted
  • A set of social norms and expectations
  • A level of aspirations
  • The Status Quo.

In the majority of cases, the Reference Point is the Status Quo; but, in every case, the Reference Point should be chosen individually.

Normalized Values

A Normalized Value is a value that has been processed in a way that makes it possible to be efficiently compared against other values.

Effort Value

Effort Value is a measure of anything the end-user spends to operate some activity before or after the project implementation (money, time, endeavors, etc.).

Reference Point Effort Value

Reference Point Effort Value is the Effort Value at the Reference Point.

Effort Change

Effort Change is the difference between the valuated Effort Value and the Effort Value at the Reference Point. An increase in effort is felt like a loss. For that reason, an increase of the Effort Value has a negative sign. On the other hand, a decrease in efforts is felt like a gain. For that reason, a decrease of the Effort Value has a positive sign. In light of factors above, the Effort Change is calculated as follows:

img
Normalized Effort

The Normalized Effort is the ratio of the Effort Value to the Maximum Effort Value. The Normalized Effort is calculated as follows:

img
Normalized Effort Change

The Normalized Effort Change is the ratio of the Effort Change to the Maximum Effort Value. The Normalized Effort Change is calculated as follows:

img
The Desirability of Effort

The Desirability of Effort is calculated accordingly to Equation 4. The Effort Value Lower Specification Limit is equal to EVmax, and the Effort Value Upper Specification Limit is equal to zero.

Accordingly, the Desirability of Effort Value and Desirability of Normalized Effort are calculated respectively as:

img
img

From Equations 15 and 4, it follows that the Desirability of Effort Value is equal to Desirability of Normalized Effort:

img
Gain Value

The Gain Value is a measure of anything the end-user gets from some activity before or after the project implementation (money, satisfaction, etc.).

Reference Point Gain Value

The Reference Point Gain Value is the Gain Value at the Reference Point.

Gain Change

The Gain Change is the difference between the valuated Gain Value and the Gain Value at the Reference Point. An increase of the Gain Value has a positive sign. Otherwise, a decrease in gains is felt like a loss, and the Gain Value has a negative sign. In light of factors above, the Gain Change is calculated as follows:

img
Normalized Gain

The Normalized Gain is the ratio of the Gain Value to the Maximum Gain Value. The Normalized Gain values are calculated as follows:

img
Normalized Gain Change

The Normalized Gain Change is the ratio of the Gain Change to The Maximum Gain Value. The Normalized Gain Change is calculated as follows:

img
The Desirability of Gain

The Desirability of Gain Value is calculated accordingly to Equation 4. The Gain Value Lower Specification Limit is equal to zero, and the Gain Value Upper Specification Limit is equal to GVmax. Accordingly, the Desirability of the Gain Value and Desirability of Normalized Gain are calculated, respectively, as:

img
img

From Equations 21 and 4, it follows that the Desirability of Gain Value is equal to the Desirability of Normalized Gain:

img
Objective Relative Wealth

The Objective Relative Wealth is the sum of Effort Change and Gain Change for the valuated point. In order to provide the Effort Change and Gain Change dimensions interoperability, the Effort Change is multiplied by Effort Reward Coefficient. The Objective Relative Wealth is calculated as follows:

img
img
img
Objective Relative Wealth Function

The Objective Relative Wealth Function is based on Equation 28 and is calculated as follows:

img
Normalized Objective Relative Wealth

The Normalized Objective Relative Wealth is the ratio of the Objective Relative Wealth to the Maximum Gain Value. The Normalized Objective Relative Wealth is calculated as follows:

img
img
Normalized Objective Relative Wealth Function

The Normalized Objective Relative Wealth Function is based on Equation 31 and is calculated as follows:

img
The Desirability of Objective Relative Wealth

The Desirability of Objective Relative Wealth is calculated accordingly to Equation 4. The Objective Relative Wealth Lower Specification Limit is equal to the point's P (EVmax, 0) Objective Relative Wealth and the Objective Relative Wealth Upper Specification Limit is equal to point's P (0, GVmax) Objective Relative Wealth. The Relative positions of the above mentioned measures are shown on Figure 3.

According to above, the Desirability of Objective Relative Wealth and the Desirability of Normalized Objective Relative Wealth are calculated, respectively:

img
img

From Equations 28, 30, and 4, it follows that the Desirability of the Objective Relative Wealth is equal to the Desirability of the Normalized Objective Relative Wealth:

img

The interpretation of the Desirability of Objective Relative Wealth value is shown in Table 2.

The Desirability of Normalized Objective Relative Wealth Function

The Desirability of Normalized Objective Relative Wealth Function is based on Equation 34, and is calculated as follows:

img

The interpretation of the Desirability of Normalized Objective Relative Wealth Function values is shown in Table 2.

Psychological Relative Wealth

The Psychological Relative Wealth is the sum of the psychological values of the Effort Change and the Gain Change for the valuated point. In order to provide Effort Change and Gain Change dimensions interoperability, the Effort Change is multiplied by the Effort Reward Coefficient. The Psychological Relative Wealth is calculated as follows:

img
img
img
Psychological Relative Wealth Function

The Psychological Relative Wealth Function is based on Equation 39 and is calculated as follows:

img
Normalized Psychological Relative Wealth

The Normalized Psychological Relative Wealth is the ratio of the Psychological Relative Wealth to the Maximum Gain Value, raised to the power 0.88. The Normalized Psychological Relative Wealth is calculated as follows:

img
img
Normalized Psychological Relative Wealth Function

The Normalized Psychological Relative Wealth Function is based on Equation 42 and is calculated as follows:

img
The Desirability of Psychological Relative Wealth

The Desirability of Psychological Relative Wealth is calculated accordingly to Equation 4. The Psychological Relative Wealth Lower Specification Limit is equal to the point's P (EVmax, 0) the Psychological Relative Wealth, and the Psychological Relative Wealth Upper Specification Limit is equal to the point's P (0, GVmax) Psychological Relative Wealth.

The relative positions of these measures are shown in Figure 4. According to above evaluation process, the Desirability of Objective Relative Wealth and Desirability of Normalized Objective Relative Wealth are calculated, respectively, as:

img
img

The interpretation of the Desirability of Psychological Relative Wealth values is the same as shown in Table 2.

From Equations 39, 41 and 4, it follows that the Desirability of the Psychological Relative Wealth is equal to the Desirability of the Normalized Psychological Relative Wealth:

img
The Desirability of Normalized Objective Relative Wealth Function

The Desirability of the Normalized Psychological Relative Wealth Function is based on Equation 45 and is calculated as follows:

img

The interpretation of the Desirability of Normalized Psychological Relative Wealth Function values is shown in Table 2.

Table 1: Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description Equation Dimension
d (x1, x2, x3) Desirability Function (4) Dimensionless
DO (x1, x2, x3, x4) Desirability of NORW Function (36) Dimensionless
DP (x1, x2, x3, x4) Desirability of NPRW Function (47) Dimensionless
E Normalized Effort (15) Dimensionless
ERC Effort Reward Coefficient (6) img
EV Effort Value - Effort's units
EV0 Reference point's Effort Value - Effort's units
EVmax The Maximum Effort Value - Effort's units
G Normalized Gain (21) Dimensionless
GV Gain Value - Gain's units
GV0 Reference Point Gain Value - Gain's units
GVmax The Maximum Gain Value - Gain's units
ORW Objective Relative Wealth (26) Gain's units
ORW (x1, x2, x3, x4) Objective Relative Wealth Function (29) Gain's units
NORW Normalized Objective Relative Wealth (30) Dimensionless
NORW (x1, x2, x3, x4) NORW Function (32) Dimensionless
NPRW Normalized Psychological Relative Wealth (41) Gain's units
NPRW (x1, x2, x3, x4) NPRW Function (43) Gain's units
PRW Psychological Relative Wealth (37) (gain unit)0.88
PRW (x1, x2, x3, x4) PRW Function (40) (gain unit)0.88
SEAV (x1, x2, x3, x4) The Subjective Emotional Aspect of Valuation Function (12) Dimensionless
v (x) Value Function (2) (argument dimension)0.88
ΔE Normalized Effort Change (16) Effort's units
ΔEV Effort Change (14) Effort's units
ΔG Normalized Gain Change (22) Gain's units
ΔGV Gain Change (20) Gain's units

Table 2: The Interpretation of Desirability Function Values

Desirability Function's Value Desirability Function Value's Interpretation
1.00 Improvement beyond this point has no additional value
0.80 Excellent
0.63 Best commercial quality
0.40 Acceptable but poor
0.30 Borderline
0.00 Completely unacceptable
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model

Figure 1: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model

Modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model

Figure 2: Modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model

Objective Relative Wealth Scale

Figure 3: Objective Relative Wealth Scale

Psychological Relative Wealth Scale

Figure 4: Psychological Relative Wealth Scale

Normalized Gain and Normalized Effort to Objective and Psychological Equilibrium Lines and Reference Point (0.5, 0.25)

Figure 5: Normalized Gain and Normalized Effort to Objective and Psychological Equilibrium Lines and Reference Point (0.5, 0.25)

Fixed SEAV Line Applicable to Some SEAV Values and Reference Point (0.25, 0.25)

Figure 6: Fixed SEAV Line Applicable to Some SEAV Values and Reference Point (0.25, 0.25)

Fixed SEAV Line Applicable to Some SEAV Values and Reference Point (0.25, 0.75)

Figure 7: Fixed SEAV Line Applicable to Some SEAV Values and Reference Point (0.25, 0.75)

Fixed SEAV Line Applicable to Some SEAV Values and Reference Point (0.75, 0.75)

Figure 8: Fixed SEAV Line Applicable to Some SEAV Values and Reference Point (0.75, 0.75)

Fixed SEAV Line Applicable to Some SEAV Values and Reference Point (0.75, 0.25)

Figure 9: Fixed SEAV Line Applicable to Some SEAV Values and Reference Point (0.75, 0.25)

This material has been reproduced with the permission of the copyright owner. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited. For permission to reproduce this material, please contact PMI or any listed author.

© 2010 Project Management Institute

Advertisement

Advertisement

Related Content

Advertisement