Advertisement

Analysis of a New Product Development Strategy Based on a Heuristic Multi-criteria Methodology

  • Fethullah GöçerEmail author
Chapter
  • 15 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 279)

Abstract

In the recent years, there has been a significant attention among researchers and practitioners to new product development (NPD) strategies. The development of a new product also has long been categorized as the key function of companies in an increasingly competitive global market. However, the initiation of a new product is a process involving risk and uncertainty. That is why companies needs to adapt more accurate product development strategies and evaluate the launching of a new product carefully. One way to cope with this risk is to use novel product development strategies. Therefore, this control problem is formulated as a systematic decision process in order to select the more rational candidate to be launched as a new product. Basically in this chapter, the determination of a comparable new product alternatives and the selection of the best one is done through an integrated approach based on a heuristic multi-criteria decision methodology. The Pythagorean Fuzzy sets (PFSs) are used as an objective world environment since its definite advantages in handling vagueness and uncertainty. A significant focus of the chapter is the dependency of decision criteria and to reflect this situation, the Pythagorean Fuzzy based heuristic approach is proposed for the first time as a combination of AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) and ARAS (Additive Ratio Assessment). A production system is considered where manufacturing of a new product is performed in a Group Decision Making (GDM) setting. Literature reviewed in this chapter presents the current state of the art and discusses the potential future research trends. Finally, a practical case study is presented to demonstrate the potential of the methodology and validate the outcome.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the experts’ valuable contribution, which has been vital for the preparation of this study. This research has received the financial support of the Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdullah, L., Najib, L.: A new preference scale of intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in multi-criteria decision making problems. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 26(2), 1039–1049 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Achiche, S., Appio, F.P., McAloone, T.C., Di Minin, A.: Fuzzy decision support for tools selection in the core front end activities of new product development. Res. Eng. Design 24(1), 1–18 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akbariyeh, H., Seddigh, A.: The influence of strategic orientation on new product development: mediating role innovation, knowledge management and organisational capabilities: an empirical investigation. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 13(4), 502 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atanassov, K.: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 20(1), 87–96 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ayağ, Z.: An integrated approach to concept evaluation in a new product development. J. Intell. Manuf. 27(5), 991–1005 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, L.A.: Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manag. Sci. 17(4), B-141–B-164 (1970)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Büyüközkan, G., Arsenyan, J.: Collaborative product development: A literature overview. Prod. Plan. Control. 23(1), 47–66 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Büyüközkan, G., Feyzıog̃lu, O.: A fuzzy-logic-based decision-making approach for new product development. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 90(1), 27–45 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buyukozkan, G., Gocer, F.: A novel approach integrating AHP and COPRAS under Pythagorean fuzzy sets for digital supply chain partner selection. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1–18 (2019)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Büyüközkan, G., Gocer, F.: An intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM approach for effective hazardous waste management. In: Intelligence Systems in Environmental Management: Theory and Applications, vol. 113, pp. 21–40. Springer (2017a)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Büyüközkan, G., Göçer, F.: Application of a new combined intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM approach based on axiomatic design methodology for the supplier selection problem. Appl. Soft Comput 52, 1222–38 (2017b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Büyüközkan, G., Göçer, F.: An extension of ARAS methodology under interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment for digital supply chain. Appl. Soft Comput. 69(C), 634–54 (2018a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Büyüközkan, G., Göçer, F.: Smart medical device selection based on intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral. Soft Comput. (2018b)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Büyüközkan, G., Göçer, F., Feyzioğlu, O.: Cloud computing technology selection based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM methods. Soft. Comput. 22(15), 5091–5114 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Büyüközkan, G., Görener, A.: Evaluation of product development partners using an integrated AHP-VIKOR model. Kybernetes 44(2), 220–237 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Büyüközkan, G., Güleryüz, S.: A new integrated intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making approach for product development partner selection. Comput. Ind. Eng. 102, 383–395 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Büyüközkan, G., Güleryüz, S., Karpak, B.: A new combined IF-DEMATEL and IF-ANP approach for CRM partner evaluation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 191, 194–206 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chang, K.-L.: Combined MCDM approaches for century-old Taiwanese food firm new product development project selection. Br. Food J. 115(8), 1197–1210 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen, T.-Y.: A novel risk evaluation method of technological innovation using an inferior ratio-based assignment model in the face of complex uncertainty. Expert Syst. Appl. 95, 333–350 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen, T.-Y.: Remoteness index-based Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR methods with a generalized distance measure for multiple criteria decision analysis. Inf. Fusion 41, 129–150 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen, W.-C., Lin, Y.-F., Liu, K.-P., Chang, H.-P., Wang, L.-Y., Tai, P.-H.: A complete MCDM model for NPD performance assessment in an LED-based lighting plant factory. Math. Probl. Eng. 1–24 (2018)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cui, F.-B., You, X.-Y., Shi, H., Liu, H.-C.: Optimal siting of electric vehicle charging stations using Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR approach. Math. Probl. Eng. 1–12 (2018)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Demirci, J.R., Bogen, D.L.: Feasibility and acceptability of a mobile app in an ecological momentary assessment of early breastfeeding. Matern. Child Nutr. 13(3), e12342 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dogu, E., Esra Albayrak, Y.: Criteria evaluation for pricing decisions in strategic marketing management using an intuitionistic cognitive map approach. Soft. Comput. 22(15), 4989–5005 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Du, Y., Hou, F., Zafar, W., Qian, Yu., Zhai, Y.: A novel method for multiattribute decision making with interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy linguistic information. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 32(10), 1085–1112 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dursun, M., Arslan, Ö.: An integrated decision framework for material selection procedure: a case study in a detergent manufacturer. Symmetry 10(11), 657 (2018)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gul, M., Guneri, A.F., Miralp Nasirli, S.: A fuzzy-based model for risk assessment of routes in oil transportation. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. (2018)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gul, M.: Application of Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and VIKOR methods in occupational health and safety risk assessment: the case of a gun and rifle barrel external surface oxidation and colouring unit. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 1–14 (2018)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gul, M., Ak, M.F.: A comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in occupational health and safety risk assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 196, 653–664 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ilbahar, E., Karaşan, A., Cebi, S., Kahraman, C.: A novel approach to risk assessment for occupational health and safety using Pythagorean fuzzy AHP & fuzzy inference system. Saf. Sci. 103, 124–136 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kahraman, C., Büyüközkan, G., Ateş, N.Y.: A two phase multi-attribute decision-making approach for new product introduction. Inf. Sci. 177(7), 1567–1582 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kahraman, C., Oztaysi, B., Onar, S.C.: Multicriteria scoring methods using Pythagorean fuzzy sets. In: Advances in Fuzzy Logic and Technology (Proceedings of: EUSFLAT 2017), pp. 328–35. Springer (2018)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liang, D., Xu, Z.: The new extension of TOPSIS method for multiple criteria decision making with hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Appl. Soft Comput. 60, 167–179 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liang, W., Zhang, X., Liu, M.: The maximizing deviation method based on interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy weighted aggregating operator for multiple criteria group decision analysis. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 1–15 (2015)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lu, J., Ma, J., Zhang, G., Zhu, Y., Zeng, X., Koehl, L.: Theme-based comprehensive evaluation in new product development using fuzzy hierarchical criteria group decision-making method. IEEE Trans. Industr. Electron. 58(6), 2236–2246 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mohd, W.R.W., Abdullah, L.: Pythagorean fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to multi-criteria decision making. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1905, p. 040020 (2017)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mylonas, A., Kastania, A., Gritzalis, D.: Delegate the smartphone user? Security awareness in smartphone platforms. Comput. Secur. 34, 47–66 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ng, C.Y., Chuah, K.B.: Evaluation of design alternatives’ environmental performance using AHP and ER approaches. IEEE Syst. J. 8(4), 1185–1192 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Oliveira, G.A., Tan, K.H., Guedes, B.T.: Lean and green approach: an evaluation tool for new product development focused on small and medium enterprises. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 205, 62–73 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ozdemir, Y., Gul, M.: Measuring development levels of NUTS-2 regions in Turkey based on capabilities approach and multi-criteria decision-making. Comput. Ind. Eng. 128, 150–169 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Peng, X., Yang, Y.: Some results for Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 30(11), 1133–1160 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peng, X., Yang, Y.: Pythagorean fuzzy Choquet integral based MABAC method for multiple attribute group decision making. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 31(10), 989–1020 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pourjavad, E., Peng, W.: An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach for risk evaluation of new product in a pipe industry. Int. J. Prod. Dev. 22(3), 165 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ren, P., Zeshui, X., Gou, X.: Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach to Multi-criteria decision making. Appl. Soft Comput. 42, 246–259 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Saaty, T.L.: A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 15(3), 234–281 (1977)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw, New York (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Safaei Ghadikolaei, A., Esbouei, S.K.: Integrating FAHP and fuzzy ARAS for evaluating financial performance. Boletim Da Sociedade Paranaense de Matemática 32(2), 163 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sliogeriene, J., Turskis, Z., Streimikiene, D.: Analysis and choice of energy generation technologies: the multiple criteria assessment on the case study of Lithuania. Energy Procedia 32, 11–20 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Smith, A., de Salas, K., Lewis, I., Schüz, B.: Developing smartphone apps for behavioural studies: the AlcoRisk app case study. J. Biomed. Inform. 72, 108–119 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tepe, S., Kaya, İ.: A fuzzy-based risk assessment model for evaluations of hazards with a real-case study. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 1–26 (2019)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yager, R.R.: Pythagorean fuzzy subsets. In 2013 Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS), pp. 57–61. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yager, R.R.: Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 22(4), 958–965 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yager, R.R.: Properties and applications of Pythagorean fuzzy sets. In: Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 332, pp. 119–36 (2016)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Yager, R.R., Abbasov, A.M.: Pythagorean membership grades, complex numbers, and decision making. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 28(5), 436–452 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yeh, T.-M., Pai, F.-Y., Liao, C.-W.: Using a hybrid MCDM methodology to identify critical factors in new product development. Neural Comput. Appl. 24(3–4), 957–971 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z.: A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 16(2), 159–172 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhang, X.: Multicriteria Pythagorean fuzzy decision analysis: a hierarchical QUALIFLEX approach with the closeness index-based ranking methods. Inf. Sci. 330, 104–124 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zhang, X., Xu, Z.: Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making with Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 29(12), 1061–1078 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Engineering DepartmentKahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam UniversityKahramanmaraşTurkey

Personalised recommendations