New product concept selection: an integrated approach using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and conjoint analysis (CA)

  • Authors

    • SaEd M. Salhieh Alfaisal University
    • Mira Y. Al-Harris The University of Jordan
    2014-02-03
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v3i1.1635

  • Abstract

    New product concept development is considered to be a critical step and the main determinant for the success or failure of new product development. This paper introduces a new methodology for the evaluation and selection of new product concepts using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Conjoint Analysis (CA). The proposed methodology integrates customer perceived value of the new product concepts through the use of CA and uses this perceived value as a measure for the new concepts’ performance. In addition, the methodology takes into account the development burden that a company has to perform to bring the new concept into a state of market readiness. This development burden is estimated by determining two main factors, namely the burden to produce and the burden to sell the new product concept. The customer perceived value and the development burden are both used in DEA to evaluate the new product concepts resulting in the selection of the best product concept. The applicability of the proposed methodology is illustrated through a case study.

     

    Keywords: Product development, concept selection, data envelopment analysis, conjoint analysis.

  • References

    1. Wang, K. Lee, Y. and Kurniawan, F. (2012), ‘Evaluation Criteria of New Product Development Process - A Comparison Study Between Indonesia and Taiwan Industrial Manufacturing Firms’, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 16, No. 4,
    2. Lang, M. (2011), ‘Conjoint Analysis in Marketing Research’, GRIN Verlag.
    3. Ullah, R., Zhou, D. and Zhou, P. (2012), ‘Design Concept Evaluation and Selection: A Decision Making Approach’, Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 156-166, pp. 1122-1126.
    4. Ayag. Z. (2005), ‘A fuzzy AHP-based simulation approach to concept evaluation in a NPD environment’, IIE Transactions, Vol. 37, pp. 827-842.
    5. Pugh, S. (1991), ‘Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Harlow, UK.
    6. Ulrich, K. and Eppinger, S. (2011) ‘Product Design and Development’. 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
    7. King, A. and Sivaloganathan, S. (1999), ‘Development of a Methodology for Concept Selection in Flexible Design Strategies’. Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 329-349.
    8. Ayağ, Z. and Özdemir, R.G. (2009), ‘A hybrid approach to concept selection through fuzzy analytic network process’, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 56, Issue 1, pp. 368–379.
    9. Geng, X. Chu, X. and Zhang, Z. (2010), ‘A new integrated design concept evaluation approach based on vague sets. Expert Systems with Applications’, Vol. 37, pp. 6629–6638.
    10. Robinson, M. A. (2012), ‘How design engineers spend their time: Job content and task satisfaction’, Design Studies, Vol. 33, pp. 391-425.
    11. Niazi, A., Dai, J.S., Balabani, S. and Seneviratne, L. (2006), ‘Product cost estimation: Technique classification and methodology review’. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, ASME, Vol. 128, Issue. 2, pp. 563 - 575.
    12. Scholl, A., Manthey, L., Helm, R. and Steiner, M. (2005), ‘Solving multi attribute design problems with analytical hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison’, European Journal of operation research, Vol. 164, Issue 3, pp. 760–777.
    13. Green, P. and Srinivasan, V. (1990), ‘Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 3-19.
    14. Grissom, M., Belegundu, A., Rangaswamy, A. and Koopmann, G. (2006), ‘Conjoint Analysis-Based multiattribute optimization: application on acoustical design. Structural and Multidisplinary Optimization’, Vol. 31, Issue 1, pp. 8-16.
    15. Orme, A. (2005), ‘Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research’, Research Publishers LLC.
    16. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. and Rhodels, E. (1978), ‘Measuring the efficiency of decision making units’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2, pp. 429 – 444.
    17. Cooper, W., Seiford, L. and Tone, K. (2007), ‘Data envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software, 2nd Edition, Springer.
    18. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. and Thrall, R. (1991), ‘A structure for Classifying and Characterizing Efficiency and Inefficiency in Data Envelopment Analysis’, The Journal of Productivity Analysis, Vol. 2, pp. 197-237.
    19. Banker, R. D. , Charnes, A. and Cooper, W. W. (1984), ‘Some models for estimation of technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis’, Management Science, Vol. 30, pp. 1078–92.
    20. Tone, K. (2001), ‘A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 130, Issue 3, pp. 498-506.
    21. Andersen, P. and Petersen, N. (1993), ‘A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analyses. Management Science, Vol. 39, No. 10, pp. 1261–1264.
    22. Tone, K. (2002), ‘A slacks-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 143, pp. 32-41.
    23. Al-Delaimi, K. and Al-Ani, A. (2006), ‘Using Data Envelopment Analysis to Measure Cost Efficiency with an Application on Islamic Banks’, Scientific Journal of Administrative Development, Vol. 4, pp. 134-156.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Salhieh, S. M., & Al-Harris, M. Y. (2014). New product concept selection: an integrated approach using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and conjoint analysis (CA). International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 3(1), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v3i1.1635

    Received date: 2013-12-16

    Accepted date: 2014-01-17

    Published date: 2014-02-03