Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T18:17:30.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEVELOPMENT OF DECISION TOOL FOR A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY USING PAIRWISE COMPARISON TECHNIQUE TO SUPPORT AN INTUITIVE DECISION

Part of:Design Support Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

N. Tanaiutchawoot,
N. Bursac,
J. Gross,
S. Rapp and
A. Albers
N. Tanaiutchawoot*
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
N. Bursac
Affiliation:
TRUMPF GmbH+Co. KG, Germany
J. Gross
Affiliation:
Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg Stuttgart, Germany
S. Rapp
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
A. Albers
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
*
*narucha.tanaiutchawoot@partner.kit.edu

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Pairwise comparison is basically used to prioritize alternatives and select a solution in product development. Decision errors can happen when the amount of processing information increases. This research proposes an assisted decision tool to prioritize alternatives by using the pairwise comparison technique and a Quicksort algorithm. This software was evaluated in the product development workshop that aims to select the component to further develop in the new product generation. This tool provides high-reliability results, reduces procedure time and is a user-friendly interactive interface.

Keywords

design toolsdecision makingproblem solvingnew product developmentpairwise-comparison technique

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020, pp. 423 - 430
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Albar, F.M. and Jetter, A.J. (2009), “Heuristics in decision making”, PICMET’09-2009 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology. IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers, A. and Braun, A. (2011), “A generalised framework to compass and to support complex product engineering processes”, International Journal of Product Development, Vol. 15 No. 1-3, pp. 6–25.10.1504/IJPD.2011.043659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers, A. et al. (2016), “iPeM – Integrated Product Engineering Model in Context of Product Generation Engineering”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 50, pp. 100–105.10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belton, V. and Stewart, T. (2002), “Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach”, Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar
Bozóki, S. et al. (2013), “Analysis of pairwise comparison matrices: an empirical research”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 211 No. 1, pp. 511–528.10.1007/s10479-013-1328-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bursac, N. et al. (2018), “Decision Heuristic in Pge-Product Generation Engineering”, In Proceedings of TMCE.Google Scholar
Büyüközkan, G. and Feyzıog˜lu, O. (2004), “A fuzzy-logic-based decision-making approach for new product development”, International journal of production economics, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 27–45.10.1016/S0925-5273(02)00330-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courtesy of Ahoona Corp. (2013), “Ahoona helps you makea decision about anything!”, Retrieved June 2, 2019, from https://www.ahoona.com/.Google Scholar
David, H.A. (1988), The Method of Paired Comparisons, Oxford University Press , New York.Google Scholar
Dörner, D. (1976), “Problemlösen als informationsverarbeitung”.Google Scholar
iDecide project (2016), “State of the art for inclusive decision making”, available at: www.idecide-project.eu.Google Scholar
Kihlander, I. (2011), “Managing Concept Decision Making in Product Development Practice”, Doctoral dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Kihlander, I. and Ritzén, S. (2009), “Deficiencies in Management of the Concept Development Process: Theory and Practice”, Human Behavior in Design, Vol. 9.Google Scholar
Krajbich, I., Armel, C. and Rangel, A. (2010), “Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice”, Nature neuroscience, Vol. 13 No. 10, p. 1292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magee, J.F. (1964), “Decision trees for decision making”, Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
Miller, G.A., Galanter, E. and Pribram, K.H. (1986), “Plans and the structure of behavior”, Adams Bannister Cox.Google Scholar
Muenzberg, C. et al. (2017), “Identifying product development crises: The potential of adaptive heuristics” In DS 87-2 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), Vol 2: Design Processes, Design Organisation and Management, Vancouver, Canada, 21-25 August 2017, pp. 189–198.Google Scholar
Ombler, F. and Hansen, P. (2015), “1000Minds Software”.Google Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (2013), “Konstruktionslehre: Methoden und Anwendung”, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Saak, M. (2006), “Entwicklung eines Konzeptes und eines Prototypen für ein rechnergestütztes Werkzeug zum effizienten Einsatz der Problemlösungsmethodik ‘Spalten’. Development of a concept and of a prototype for a computer-aided tool for the efficient employment of the problem solving methodology ‘Spalten’”, IPEK, 2006.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), “Judgment under uncertainty. Heuristics and biases”, science, Vol. 185 No. 4157, pp. 1124–1131.10.1126/science.185.4157.1124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weistroffer, H.R. and Li, Y. (2016), “Multiple criteria decision analysis software”, inMultiple Criteria Decision Analysis, Springer, pp. 1301–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynn, D.C., Eckert, C.M. and Clarkson, P.J. (2007), “Modelling iteration in engineering design” In: DS 42: Proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, 28-31 July 2007, pp. 693–694.Google Scholar