A Comparison of Approaches to Importance-Performance Analysis

By D. Bacon. 2003

428 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Importance values for Importance–Performance Analysis: A formula for spreading out values derived from preference rankings (2007, methodology): “Although a recent review of these methods (Bacon, 2003) supports earlier studies (e.g. Alpert, 1971; Heeler et al., 1979) in finding that direct measures capture the importance of attributes better than indirect measures, the former have serious drawbacks.”
Improving importance-performance analysis: the role of the zone of tolerance and competitor performance. the case of Taiwan's hot spring hotels. (2014, background): “Importanceeperformance analysis (IPA) is the conventional means of prioritizing attributes to improve service quality (Bacon, 2003).”
Classification of the destination attributes in the content of competitiveness (by revised importance-performance analysis) (2012, methodology): “…four quadrants where the cross-point is placed in the centre of the scale that is used (e.g. 4 for importance and performance attributes in 7-point scale) while in others, cross-point is placed at the centre of the data (mean or median of the importanceperformance attributes) (Bacon, 2003: 58).”
Importance-performance analysis: A valid management tool? (2015, background): “Some attributes fall in close proximity to the thresholds, making it difficult to interpret such outcomes with a desired level of confidence (Bacon, 2003; Tarrant & Smith, 2002).”