Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Association rule mining and cognitive pairwise rating based portfolio analysis for product family design

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Changing customer needs coupled with rapid technology advances has boosted stronger requirements for a greater variety of consumer electronics. This trend has forced global companies to reconsider their product-positioning strategies. To reduce design cost and shorten the time to market, portfolio analysis for product family design is usually adopted to acquire diverse but related market applications. This study presents a novel framework to implement product differentiation and product configuration. Initially, association rule mining is used to capture user perceptions to identify the significant portfolios of hedonic attributes. Secondly, cognitive pairwise rating is conducted to elicit user preferences for utilitarian attributes (UAs). Finally, the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution is used to prioritize the optimal portfolios of UAs. Experiment results show that “keyboard interface”, “body material”, and “screen size” are the most concerned HAs for differentiating the product family while “CPU performance” is the most important UA for configuring padbooks, ultrabooks and notebooks. In summary, this research allows companies to effectively and efficiently incorporate user perceptions or preferences into the entire decision-making process.

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

  • Agard, B., & Kusiak, A. (2004). Data-mining based methodology for the design of product families. International Journal of Production Research, 42(15), 2955–2969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, R., Imielinski, T., & Swarmi, A. (1993). Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data (pp. 207–216).

  • Askin, R. G., & Dawson, D. W. (2000). Maximizing customer satisfaction by optimal specification of engineering characteristics. IIE Transactions, 32(1), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayağ, Z. (2005). A fuzzy AHP-based simulation approach to concept evaluation in a NPD environment. IIE Transactions, 37(4), 827–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bae, J. W., & Kim, J. (2011). Product development with data mining techniques: A case on design of digital camera. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9274–9280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gershenson, J. K., Khadke, K. N., & Lai, X. (2007). A research roadmap for product family design. In International Conference on Concurrent Engineering Design (pp. 28–31).

  • Guo, F., Liu, W. L., Liu, F. T., Wang, H., & Wang, T. B. (2014). Emotional design method of product presented in multi-dimensional variables based on Kansei engineering. Journal of Engineering Design, 25(4–6), 194–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple criteria decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahng, J., & Jain, H. K. (2006). An empirical study of the impact of product characteristics and electronic commerce interface richness on consumer attitude and purchase intentions. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 36(6), 1185–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao, J., Simpson, T. W., & Siddique, Z. (2007). Product family design and platform-based product development: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 18(1), 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao, J., & Tseng, M. M. (1999). A methodology of developing product family architecture for mass customization. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 10(1), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao, J., & Zhang, Y. (2005). Product portfolio planning with customer–engineering intereaction. IIE Transactions, 37, 801–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao, J., Zhang, Y., & Helander, M. (2006). A Kansei mining system for affective design. Expert Systems with Applications, 30(4), 658–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jose, A., & Tollenaere, M. (2005). Modular and platform methods for product family design: Literature analysis. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 16(3), 371–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kano, N. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. The Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P. T., & Keller, K. L. (2011). Marketing management (14th ed.). New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, D., Chen, W., & Simpson, T. W. (2009). A market-driven approach to product family design. International Journal of Production Research, 47(1), 71–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C., Ramirez-Serrano, A., & Yin, G. (2011). Customer-driven product design and evaluation method for collaborative design environments. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 22(5), 751–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., & Turkey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement. A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X. G., Kwong, C. K., Tang, J., & Tu, P. (2012). Optimal product positioning with consideration of negative utility effect on consumer choice rule. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 402–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15(1), 311–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayak, R. U., Chen, W., & Simpson, T. W. (2002). A variation-based method for product family design. Engineering Optimization, 34(1), 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oküdan, G. E., Chiu, M. C., & Kim, T. H. (2013). Perceived feature utility-based product family design: A mobile phone case study. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 24(5), 935–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otten, S., Spruit, M., & Helms, R. (2015). Towards decision analytics in product portfolio management. Decision Analytics, 2, 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pakkanen, J., Juuti, T., & Lehtonen, T. (2016). Brownfield process: A method for modular product family development aiming for product configuration. Design Studies, 45, 210–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirmoradi, Z., Wang, G., & Simpson, T. W. (2013). A review of recent literature in product family design and platform-based product development. In T. W. Simpson, J. R. Jiao, Z. Siddique & K. Hölttä-Otto (Eds.), Advances in product family and product platform design (pp. 1–46). New York: Springer.

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, F., Sun, S., & Xu, J. (2012). Employing rough sets and association rule mining in KANSEI knowledge extraction. Information Sciences, 196, 118–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, T. W., Siddique, Z., & Jiao, J. R. (2006). Product platform and product family design: Methods and applications. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. C., & Smith, S. S. (2012). Latent semantic engineering—A new conceptual user-oriented design approach. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26, 456–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, Z., & Kusiak, A. (2009). Optimising product configuration with a data-mining approach. International Journal of Production Research, 47(1), 1733–1751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, P. N., Steinbach, M., & Kumar, V. (2010). Introduction to data mining. New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, K., & Eppinger, S. (2008). Product and development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. H. (2013). Incorporating customer satisfaction into the decision-making process of product configuration: A fuzzy Kano perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 51(22), 6651–6662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. H. (2016). Integrating correspondence analysis with Grey relational model to implement a user-driven STP product strategy for smart glasses. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 27(5), 1007–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. H., & Chen, J. N. (2012). Using quality function deployment for collaborative product design and optimal selection of module mix. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 63(4), 1030–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. H., & Hsueh, O. Z. (2013). A novel approach to incorporate customer preference and perception into product configuration: A case study on smart pads. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 35(5), 549–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. H., & Shih, C. W. (2013). Integrating conjoint analysis with quality function deployment to carry out customer-driven concept development for ultrabooks. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 36(1), 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, L., Li, Z., Li, S., & Tang, F. (2007). A decision support system for product design in concurrent engineering. Decision Support Systems, 42(4), 2029–2042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C. C. (2011). Constructing a hybrid Kansei engineering system based on multiple affective responses: Application to product form design. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 60(4), 760–768.

  • Yang, C. C., & Shieh, M. D. (2010). A support vector regression based prediction model of affective responses for product form design. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 59(4), 669–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuen, K. K. F. (2012). Pairwise opposite matrix and its cognitive prioritization operators: Comparisons with pairwise reciprocal matrix and analytic prioritization operators. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63(3), 322–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuen, K. K. F. (2014). Fuzzy cognitive network process: Comparisons with fuzzy analytical hierarchy process in new product development strategy. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 22(3), 597–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhai, L. Y., Khoo, L. P., & Zhong, Z. W. (2009). A rough set based decision support approach to improving consumer affective satisfaction in product design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(2), 295–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Jiao, J., & Ma, Y. (2009). Market segmentation for product family positioning. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(3), 227–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank two anonymous referees for their constructive suggestions and comments to improve the quality of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Chiao Tung University, 1001 University Road, Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan

    Chih-Hsuan Wang

Authors
  1. Chih-Hsuan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chih-Hsuan Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, CH. Association rule mining and cognitive pairwise rating based portfolio analysis for product family design. J Intell Manuf 30, 1911–1922 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-017-1362-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-017-1362-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation