Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Developing a Fuzzy Model for Assessment and Selection of the best Idea of New Product Development


Affiliations
1 Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
2 Control Engineering Department, Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz,Tabriz, Iran
 

This paper introduces a model for evaluating and prioritizing new products development ideas. As the environment of decision making includes full of ambiguities and uncertainties, a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model is applied to evaluate and prioritize the ideas based on the criteria. To validate the proposed mode, the results of the proposed model are compared with the results of applying the traditional AHP model in a manufacturer of Automobile parts. The comparison indicates that applying the proposed model would lead to more reliable and compatible results than the uncertain environment of decision making process.

Keywords

Product Innovation, Company, Multi Criteria Decision Making, AHP, Fuzzy Logic
User

  • Akova B, Ulusoy G, Payzın E and Kayla AR (2003) An integrated new product development model for the Turkish electronics industry. Working Paper, Bogazici University, Istanbul, 2003

  • Azadeh A, Nazari-Shirkouhi S, Hatami-Shirkouhi L and Ansarinejad A (2011) A unique fuzzy multicriteria decision making: computer simulation approach for productive operators’ assignment in cellular manufacturing systems with uncertainty and vagueness. Intl. J. Adv. Manufacturing Technol. 6(1- 4), 329-343.

  • Azadeh A, Shirkouhi SN and Rezaie K (2010) A robust decision-making methodology for evaluation and selection of simulation software package. Intl. J. Adv.Manufacturing Technol. 47(1), 381–393.

  • Bstieler L and Gross CW (2003) Measuring the effect of environmental uncertainty on process activities, project team characteristics, and new product success. J. Business & Industrial Marketing. 18(2), 146–161.

  • Chang P and Chen K (2004) The influence of input factors on new leading product development projects in Taiwan. Intl. J. Project Management. 22(5), 415-423.

  • Chen J, Reilly RR and Lynn GS (2005) Uncertainty: Is it a threat or opportunity for new product development teams? Wesley J. Howe School of Technology Management Stevens Institute of Technology. Institute for the Study of Business Markets The Pennsylvania State University.

  • Cooper RG and Kleinschmidt EJ (2007) Winning businesses in product development: The critical success factors. Res. Technol. Mgt. 50(3), 52–66.

  • De Brentani U, Kleinschmidt EJ and Salomo S (2010) Success in global new product development: Impact of strategy and the behavioral environment of the firm. J. Product Innovation Mgt. 27(2), 143-160.

  • Ebrahim NA, Ahmed S and Taha Z (2010) Critical factors for new product developments in SMEs virtual team. Afri. J. Business Mgt. 4(11), 2247–2257.

  • Feyzoğlu O and Büyüközkan G (2008) An integrated group decision-making approach for new product development. Intl. J. Computer Integrated Manufact. 21(4), 366.

  • Frambach RT, Prabhu J and Verhallen TM (2003) The influence of business strategy on new product activity: The role of market orientation. Intl. J. Res. Marketing. 20(4), 377–397.

  • Gehin A, Zwolinski P and Brissaud D (2008) A tool to implement sustainable end-of-life strategies in the product development phase. J. Cleaner Production. 16(5), 566-576.

  • Ho Y and Tsai C (2011) Comparing ANFIS and SEM in linear and nonlinear forecasting of new product development performance. Expert Sys. Applications. 38(6), 6498-6507.

  • Huang X, Soutar GN and Brown A (2002) New product development processes in small and medium-sized enterprises: Some Australian evidence. J. Small Business Mgt. 40(1), 27–42.

  • Iranmanesh H, Shirkouhi SN and Skandari MR (2008) Risk evaluation of information technology projects based on fuzzy analytic hierarchal process. Intl. J. Computer & Information Sci. & Engg. 2(1), 38-44.

  • Iwu CG (2010) Impact of product development and innovation on market share. Afri. J. Business Mgt. 4(13), 2659–2667.

  • Kan Mohammadi S, Hassanzadeh I, Mathur RM and Patil KV (2000) A new fuzzy decision-making procedure applied to emergency electric power distribution scheduling. Engg. Applicat. Artificial Intelligence. 13(6), 731-740.

  • Kuen CW, Zailani S and Fernando Y (2009) Critical factors influencing the project success amongst manufacturing companies in Malaysia. Afri. J. Business Mgt. 3(1), 016–027.

  • Lee LY, Fu CS, Li SM and Chen SM (2011) The effects of a project’s social capital, leadership style, modularity, and diversification on new product development performance. Afr. J. Business Mgt. 5(1), 142-155.

  • Lin M, Wang C, Chen M and Chang CA (2008) Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Computers in Industry. 59(1), 17-31.

  • Lu LY and Yang C (2004) The R&D and marketing cooperation across new product development stages: An empirical study of Taiwan's IT industry. Industl. Marketing Mgt. 33(7), 593–605.

  • Lynn GS, Abel KD, Valentine WS and Wright RC (1999) Key factors in increasing speed to market and improving new product success rates. Industl. Marketing Mgt. 28(4), 319–326.

  • March-Chordā I, Gunasekaran A and Lloria- Aramburo B (2002) Product development process in Spanish SMEs: an empirical research. Technovation. 22(5), 301–312.

  • Naghadehi MZ, Mikaeil R and Ataei M (2009) The application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to selection of optimum underground mining method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine, Iran. Expert Sys. Applications. 36(4), 8218–8226.

  • Nair B and Radhadevi S (2006) Competitive and collaborative supply chains: The strategic role of product innovation, secondary markets and channe structure. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.

  • Noke H and Hughes M (2010) Climbing the value chain: Strategies to create a new product development capability in mature SMEs. Intl. J. Operations & Product. Mgt. 30(2), 132-154.

  • Ozer M (2005) Factors which influence decision making in new product evaluation. European J. Operational Res. 163(3), 784–801.

  • Petrick IJ and Echols AE (2004) Technology roadmapping in review: A tool for making sustainable new product development decisions. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 71(1-2), 81–100.

  • Pun KF, Yiu MY and Chin KS (2010) Developing a self-assessment model for measuring new product development performance: an AHP approach. Intl. J. Adv. Operations Mgt. 2(1), 57–79.

  • Rezaie K, Byat M and Shirkouhi SN (2009) Evaluating effective factors of implementing knowledge management based on FAHP method. Modelling & Simulation, 2009. AMS’09. Third Asia Intl. Conf. pp: 398–403.

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. 1980. McGraw-Hill, NY.

  • Soldatos J and Hardy J (2007) The new product development process in Australian grocery organizations. Mgt. 14(1), 61-67.

  • Thietart R and Xuereb J (1997) Rationality and the management of uncertainty in new product development. Actes de la conf. de MONTREAL.

  • Wang W (2009) Evaluating new product development performance by fuzzy linguistic computing. Expert Sys. Applications. 36(6), 9759-9766.

  • Wei C and Chang H (2011) A new approach for selecting portfolio of new product development projects. Expert Sys. Applications. 38(1), 429-434.


Abstract Views: 306

PDF Views: 115




  • Developing a Fuzzy Model for Assessment and Selection of the best Idea of New Product Development

Abstract Views: 306  |  PDF Views: 115

Authors

Ali Badizadeh
Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Sohrab Khanmohammadi
Control Engineering Department, Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz,Tabriz, Iran

Abstract


This paper introduces a model for evaluating and prioritizing new products development ideas. As the environment of decision making includes full of ambiguities and uncertainties, a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model is applied to evaluate and prioritize the ideas based on the criteria. To validate the proposed mode, the results of the proposed model are compared with the results of applying the traditional AHP model in a manufacturer of Automobile parts. The comparison indicates that applying the proposed model would lead to more reliable and compatible results than the uncertain environment of decision making process.

Keywords


Product Innovation, Company, Multi Criteria Decision Making, AHP, Fuzzy Logic

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst%2F2011%2Fv4i12%2F30322