新產品開發決策之同步SMART^2評價模式

A Concurrent SMART^2 Evaluation Model for Decision-making in New Product Development

10.6381/JD.200606.0021

張文智(Wen-Chih Chang)；衛萬里(Wan-Li Wei)

新產品開發 ； SMART^2評價模式 ； 分析網路程序法 ； 陡坡敏感度分析 ； 0-1目標規劃法 ； New product development ； SMART^2 evaluation model ； Analytic network process ； Gradient sensitivity analysis ； Zero-one goal programming

設計學報

11卷2期（2006 / 06 / 01）

21 - 41

繁體中文

The planning and design (P&D) phase is most critical to project success in new product development (NPD). When selecting an appropriate P&D alternative which involves a variety of considerations such as corporate strategy, finance, marketing, technology, production, customer need, product aesthetics, and so forth, most company's high-level management lack the ability to evaluate the candidates effectively. Substandard NPD project is often a direct result of inadequate decision-maker selection. In this paper, we propose a concurrent SMART^2 evaluation model of NPD design alternatives using the bi-directional Analytic Network Process (ANP). It is utilized to determine the local weights of these candidates from both planning and design dimensions. Following the above evaluation model, a Gradient Sensitivity Analysis (GSA) is employed to calculate the overall weights and a mathematical Zero-One Goal Programming (ZOGP) is built to incorporate multiple objectives in order to reach an optimum solution. A NPD design case is presented to illustrate the overall decision procedure and to examine the effectiveness of our proposed model. The result shows that the local weights of alternatives in the planning aspect are C (0.365) ＞ B (0.273) ＞ A (0.257) ＞ D (0.105) while those in the design aspect are A (0.299) ＞ C (0.237) ＞ B (0.283) ＞ D (0.181). Furthermore, the priority of alternatives in the largest of the three decision areas (C ＞ A ＞ B ＞ D) identified by GSA is around 66.5% (20.5%-87%). Finally, a 50-50 proportion in planning and design dimensions is applied as a simulation point to demonstrate the final optimal solution-design alternatives A and C.

The planning and design (P&D) phase is most critical to project success in new product development (NPD). When selecting an appropriate P&D alternative which involves a variety of considerations such as corporate strategy, finance, marketing, technology, production, customer need, product aesthetics, and so forth, most company's high-level management lack the ability to evaluate the candidates effectively. Substandard NPD project is often a direct result of inadequate decision-maker selection. In this paper, we propose a concurrent SMART^2 evaluation model of NPD design alternatives using the bi-directional Analytic Network Process (ANP). It is utilized to determine the local weights of these candidates from both planning and design dimensions. Following the above evaluation model, a Gradient Sensitivity Analysis (GSA) is employed to calculate the overall weights and a mathematical Zero-One Goal Programming (ZOGP) is built to incorporate multiple objectives in order to reach an optimum solution. A NPD design case is presented to illustrate the overall decision procedure and to examine the effectiveness of our proposed model. The result shows that the local weights of alternatives in the planning aspect are C (0.365) ＞ B (0.273) ＞ A (0.257) ＞ D (0.105) while those in the design aspect are A (0.299) ＞ C (0.237) ＞ B (0.283) ＞ D (0.181). Furthermore, the priority of alternatives in the largest of the three decision areas (C ＞ A ＞ B ＞ D) identified by GSA is around 66.5% (20.5%-87%). Finally, a 50-50 proportion in planning and design dimensions is applied as a simulation point to demonstrate the final optimal solution-design alternatives A and C.

1. 衛萬里、張文智(2005)。應用模糊德爾菲與分析網路程序法選擇最佳產品設計方案之研究。設計學報，10(3)，59-80。
   連結：
2. Baxter, Mike(1995).Product Design: A practical guide to systematic methods of new product development.London:Chapman & Hall.
3. Booz, Allen, Hamilton(1982).New product management in 1980s.New York:Booz, Allen, Hamilton, Inc..
4. Breemen, J. J.,Slamet, S.(1999).The Role of Shape in Communicating Designers' Aesthetic Intents.Proceeding of the 1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences,Las Vegas, Nevada:
5. Chen, Kuohsiang,Owen, C. L.(1997).Form language and style description.Design Studies,18(3),249-274.
6. Cooper, W. W.,Charnes, A.,Ferguson, R. O.(1955).Optimal estimation of executive compensation by linear programming.Management Science,1(2),138-151.
7. Ghodsypour, S. H.,O'Brien, C.(1998).A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming.Int. J. Production Economics 56-57,199-212.
8. Hsiao, S. W.(2002).Concurrent design method for developing a new product.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,29,41-55.
9. Karsak, E. E.,Sozer, S.,Alptekin, S. E.(2002).Product planning in quality function deployment using a combined ANP and GP approach.Computer & Industrial Engineering,44,171-190.
10. Kusar, J.,Duhovnik, J.,Grum, J,Starbek, M.(2004).How to reduce new product development time.Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing,20,1-15.
11. Lee, J. W.,Kim, S. H.(2000).Using ANP and GP for interdependent information system project selection.Computers & Operations Research,27,367-382.
12. Ljungberg, L. Y.,Edwards, K. L.(2003).Design, materials selection and marketing of successful products.Materials & Design,24,519-529.
13. Pullman, M. E.,Moore, W. L.,Wardell, D. G.(2002).A comparison of quality function deployment and conjoint analysis in new product design.The Journal of Product Innovation Management,19,354-364.
14. Reza, K.,Hossein, A.,Yvon, G.(1988).An integrated approach to project evalution and selection.IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,35(4),265-270.
15. Ringuest, J. L.,Graves, S. B.(1989).The linear multi-objective R&D project selection problem.IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,36(1),54-57.
16. Roper-Low, G. C.,Sharp, J. A.(1990).A decision model for interdependent information system project selection.J Opl Res Soc,41,49-59.
17. Saaty, T. L.(1996).The analytic network process.RWS.
18. Saaty, T. L.,Takizawa, M.(1986).Dependence and independence: from linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks.European Journal of Operational Research,26,229-237.
19. Saaty, T. L.,Vargas, L. G.,Dellmann, K.(2003).The allocation of intangible resources: the AHP and LP.Socio-Economic Planning Sciences,37,169-184.
20. Sanathanam, R.,Kyparisis, G. J.(1996).Using ANP and GP for interdependent information system project selection.European Journal of Operational Research,89,380-399.
21. Swink, M. L.(1998).A tutorial on implementing concurrent engineering in new product development programs.Journal of Operations Management,16,103-116.
22. Wallace, D. D.(1991).Science in mechanical engineering at the MIT.
23. Weber R.,Werners, B.,Zimmerman, H. J.(1990).Planning models for research and development.European Journal of Operational Research,48,175-188.
24. 呂清夫(2003)。造形原理。台北:雄獅圖書。
25. 胡佑宗譯(1996)。工業設計：產品造形的歷史、理論及實務。台北:亞太圖書。
26. 許志義(2003)。多目標決策。台北:五南圖書。
27. 曾懷恩、李榮貴(1998)。以AHP模式作爲評估設計案的決策方法。設計學報，3(1)，43-54。
28. 蔡子瑋(1994)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台南，國立成功大學。

1. 曾郭鈞,曾凡桂,陳殿禮(2022)。運用韋伯社會學理論建構設計程序：以獨居現象為例。設計學研究，25(2)，1-35。
2. 胡宜中、易慧珍、王仁宏(2012)。運用網路程序分析法探討甄選管理師與工程師之關鍵人格特質─以C國營事業為例。人力資源管理學報，12(4)，53-79。
3. 張佳縈、張志仁、胡宜中、王仁宏(2016)。運用網路分析程序法評選中華汽車電動機車通路經銷商。台北海洋技術學院學報，7(2)，48-78。