Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using a hybrid MCDM methodology to identify critical factors in new product development

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With increased global competition, businesses now face a more complex and dynamic competitive environment and need to develop more innovative products with higher quality and shorter product life cycles. New product development (NPD) is the keys to the success of a business, where both critical success factors (CSF) and key performance indicators (KPI) will affect the outcome of a NPD project. This study utilizes both CSF and KPI to examine the critical factors of NPD with the methodology of multiple criteria decision making and investigates the correlations of critical factors with fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory and establishes the weights affecting NPD in the criteria with the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach. The results assist managers in selecting suitable competitive strategies, making the optimal allocation of limited resources, achieving the greatest increase in benefits, and promoting the overall success of NPD. The findings show that there are various correlations between the critical factors, where ‘products and customers’ have the most influence on other dimensions. Moreover, the top five critical factor criteria weights, constructed by FAHP, are ‘quality standard of new products’, ‘complete quality management system’, ‘consumer satisfaction’, ‘excellent planning and control’, and ‘support of top managers’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nijssen EJ, Frambach RT (2000) Determinants of the adoption of new product development tools by industrial firms. Ind Mark Manag 29:121–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aronson ZH, Reilly RR, Lynn GS (2006) The impact of leader personality on new product development teamwork and performance: the moderating role of uncertainty. J Eng Technol Manag 23:221–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lin CT, Chen CT (2004) New product go/no-go evaluation at the front end: a fuzzy linguistic approach. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 51(2):197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Afonso P, Nunes M, Paisana A, Braga A (2008) The influence of time-to-market and target costing in the new product development success. Int J Prod Econ 115:559–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ayağ Z, Özdemir RG (2009) A hybrid approach to concept selection through fuzzy analytic network process. Comput Ind Eng 56:368–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Li YH, Huang JW (2012) Ambidexterity’s mediating impact on product development proficiency and new product performance. Ind Mark Manag 41:1125–1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Datar S, Jordan CC, Kekre S, Rajiv S, Srinivasan K (1997) Advantages of time-based product development in a fast-cycle industry. J Mark Res 34:36–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lowmana M, Trott P, Hoecht A, Sellam Z (2012) Innovation risks of outsourcing in pharmaceutical new product development. Technovation 32:99–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kessler EH, Bierly PE (2002) Is fast really better? An empirical test of the implications of innovation speed. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 46(1):2–12

    Google Scholar 

  10. Matsui Y, Filippini R, Kitanaka H, Sato O (2007) A comparative analysis of new product development by Italian and Japanese manufacturing companies: a case study. Int J Prod Econ 110:16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chin KS, Tang DW, Yang JB, Wong SY, Wang HW (2009) Assessing new product development project risk by Bayesian network with a systematic probability generation methodology. Expert Syst Appl 36:9879–9890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hartley JL, Zirger BJ, Kamath RR (1997) Managing the buyer–supplier interface on time performance in product development. J Oper Manag 15:57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. González FJM, Palacios TMB (2002) The effect of new product development techniques on new product success in Spanish firms. Ind Mark Manag 31:261–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang WP (2009) Evaluating new product development performance by fuzzy linguistic computing. Expert Syst Appl 36:9759–9766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Millson MR, Wilemon D (2006) Driving new product success in the electrical equipment manufacturing industry. Technovation 26:1268–1286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hertenstein JH, Platt MB (2000) Performance measures and management control in new product development. Account Horizons 14(3):303–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Clinton BD, Chen S (1998) Do new performance measures measure up? Manag Account 38:40–43

    Google Scholar 

  18. Das P (2010) In search of best alternatives: a TOPSIS driven MCDM procedure for neural network modeling. Neural Comput Appl 19(1):91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Oliver N, Dostaler I, Dewberry E (2004) New product development benchmarks: the Japanese, North American and UK consumer electronics industries. J High Technol Manag 23(1):371–388

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lo CC, Wang P, Chao KM (2006) A fuzzy group-preferences analysis method for new-product development. Expert Syst Appl 31:826–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lynn GS, Abel KD, Valentine WS, Wright RC (1999) Key factors in increasing speed to market and improving new product success rates. Ind Mark Manag 11:397–417

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sun H, Wing WC (2005) Critical success factors for new product development in the Hong Kong toy industry. Technovation 25:293–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lester DH (1998) Critical success factors for new product development. Res Technol Manag 41(1):36–43

    Google Scholar 

  24. Poolton J, Barclay I (1998) New product development from past research to future application. Ind Mark Manag 27:197–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pun KF, Chin KS (2005) Online assessment of new product development performance: an approach. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 16(2):157–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chow T, Cao DB (2008) A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects. J Syst Softw 81:961–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang ML, Lin YH (2008) To construct a monitoring mechanism of production loss by using Fuzzy Delphi method and fuzzy regression technique—a case study of IC package testing company. Expert Syst Appl 35:1156–1165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. MacArthur JB (1996) Performance measures that count: monitoring variables of strategic importance. J Cost Manag 10(5):39–45

    Google Scholar 

  30. Song M, Thieme RJ (2006) A cross-national investigation of the R&D marketing interface in the product innovation process. Ind Mark Manag 35:308–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Roussel PA (1991) Third generation R&D: managing the link to corporate strategy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  32. Naveh E (2005) The effect of integrated product development on efficiency and innovation. Int J Prod Res 43(13):2789–2808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Blind K, Grupp H (1999) Interdependencies between the science and technology infrastructure and innovation activities in German regions: empirical findings and policy consequences. Res Policy 28:451–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kaufman R (1998) Preparing useful performance indicators. Train Dev 80(1):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  35. Griffin A, Page AL (1993) An interim report on measuring product development success and failure. J Prod Innov Manag 10:291–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tzokas N, Hultink EJ, Hart S (2004) Navigating the new product development process. Ind Mark Manag 33(7):619–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Verona G (1999) A resource-based view of product development. Acad Manag Rev 24:133

    Google Scholar 

  38. McDonough EF, Kahn KB, Barczak G (2001) An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and collocated new product development teams. J Prod Innov Manag 18(2):110–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Olson EM, Walker OC, Ruekert RW, Bonner JM (2001) Patterns of cooperation during new product development among marketing, operations and R&D: implications for project performance. J Prod Innov Manag 18:258–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sherman JD, Berkowitz D, Souder WE (2005) New product development performance and the interaction of cross-functional integration and knowledge management. J Prod Innov Manag 22:399–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Luu VT, Kim SY, Huynh TA (2008) Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach. Int J Project Manag 26:758–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (2007) Product design and development, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Matias HJC, Vizan A, Garcia PJ, Rios J (2008) An integrated modeling framework to support manufacturing system diagnosis for continuous improvement. Robot Comput-Integr Manuf 24:187–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Cai J, Liu XD, Xiao ZH, Liu J (2009) Improving supply chain performance management: a systematic approach to analyzing iterative KPI accomplishment. Decis Support Syst 46:512–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tzeng GH, Chiang CH, Li CW (2007) Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Syst Appl 32:1028–1044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tseng ML (2009) Using the extension of DEMATEL to integrate hotel service quality perceptions into a cause-effect model in uncertainty. Expert Syst Appl 36:9015–9023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tzeng GH, Huang CY (2012) Combined DEMATEL technique with hybrid MCDM methods for creating the aspired intelligent global manufacturing & logistics systems. Ann Oper Res 197(1):159–170

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  48. Liu CH, Tzeng GH, Lee MH, Tseng HL, Lee PY (2012) Using a hybrid MCDM model combining fuzzy DEMATEL technique to examine the job stress of coach driver. Intell Decis Technol 2(16):149–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Peng KH, Tzeng GH (2012) Strategies for promoting tourism competitiveness using a hybrid MCDM model. Intell Decis Technol 2(16):107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lo MC, Yang MH, Tsai CT, Pugovkin AV, Tzeng GH (2011) A hybrid MCDM model on technology assessment to business strategy. Intell Decis Technol 1(10):47–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wu WW, Lee YT (2007) Developing global manager’s competencies using fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Syst Appl 32:499–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wu WW (2008) Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach. Expert Syst Appl 35:828–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Huang CY, Hsu PC, Tzeng GH (2012) Evaluating cloud computing based telecommunications service quality enhancement by using a new hybrid MCDM model. Intell Decis Technol 1(15):519–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lin CJ, Wu WW (2008) A causal analytical method for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 34:205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tsai WH, Chou WC (2009) Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs: a novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP. Expert Syst Appl 36:1444–1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tseng ML (2009) A causal and effect decision making model of service quality expectation using grey-fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Expert Syst Appl 36:7738–7748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Yang JL, Tzeng GH (2011) An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):1417–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Chen HH, Lee HI, Tong YH (2006) Analysis of new product mix selection at TFT-LCD technological conglomerate network under uncertainty. Technovation 26:1210–1221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Chiu YJ, Chen YW (2007) Using AHP in patent valuation. Math Comput Model 46:1054–1062

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  60. Li RJ (1999) Fuzzy method in group decision making. Comput Math Appl 38(1):91–101

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  61. Saaty TL (1989) Decision making, scaling, and number crunching. Decis Sci 20:404–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hsu CY, Chen KT, Tzeng GH (2007) FMCDM with fuzzy DEMATEL approach for customers’ choice behavior model. Int J Fuzzy Syst 9(4):236–246

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  63. Chen HH, Lee HI, Tong YH (2007) Prioritization and operations NPD mix in a network with strategic partners under uncertainty. Expert Syst Appl 33:337–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Ma MY, Chen CY, Wu FG (2007) A design decision-making support model for customized product color combination. Comput Ind 58:504–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering and Technology Management, Dayeh University, Dacun, Taiwan

    Tsu-Ming Yeh & Cheng-Wei Liao

  2. Department of Business Administration, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan

    Fan-Yun Pai

Authors
  1. Tsu-Ming Yeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fan-Yun Pai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cheng-Wei Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tsu-Ming Yeh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yeh, TM., Pai, FY. & Liao, CW. Using a hybrid MCDM methodology to identify critical factors in new product development. Neural Comput & Applic 24, 957–971 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-1314-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-1314-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation