product design planning with the analytic hierarchy process in inter–organizational networks

Product design planning with theanalytic hierarchy process ininter-organizational networks

Marjan (J.M.) Hummel,1 Wouter van Rossum,1

Gijsbertus J. Verkerke2 and Gerhard Rakhorst2

1University of Twente, Faculty of Technology and Management, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede,The [email protected] of Groningen, Biomedical Engineering, The Netherlands

In the second half of inter-organizational product development, the new product is likely to face

significant design changes. Our study focused on the adequacy of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to

support the collaborative partners to steer and align the accompanying design activities. It quantitatively

supported discussions between researchers, engineers, manufacturers and future users involved in the

development of a voice-producing prosthesis. These discussions focused on the planning of respectively the

product design objectives, design changes, and design activities. This product design planning was based

on the product requirements relevant to the diverse groups involved, a pro-active view on the market

circumstances, the available knowledge, skills and resources, lead-time and costs. The outcomes showed

that the AHP is an adequate tool for R&D managers to support inter-organizational product

development.

1. Introduction

N ew product development is increasingly con-ducted in inter-organizational networks. Motiva-

tions to enter these networks include expectations toverify windows of market opportunity, to gain accessto complementary knowledge, skills and resources, todivide risks, and to reduce lead-times and developmentcosts (Bruce et al., 1995). Yet, communication betweenthe inter-organizational groups is complex, due to therelative high cognitive and cultural differences, geo-graphic distances, diverging interests, and the manifoldinterdependent relationships (Hauptman and Hirji,1999). Due to this complexity the expectations ofentering the networks are often not met. Failingcommunication may result in product outcomes withlittle market value, withdrawal or loss of control by a

collaborative party, increased lead-times and costs(Bruce et al., 1995).

Communication between various groups is para-mount in new product development, especially betweendevelopment and user groups (e.g. Allen, 1993). Thesedevelopment and user groups need to share informa-tion regarding each other’s viewpoints in order todefine feasible, realistic and comprehensive designobjectives (Tarasewich and Suresh, 1999) that matchunique user needs (Cooper, 1985). Communicationbetween the cross-functional development groupsincluding senior management is relevant to increasethe amount of skills and resources available to theproduct development team (Ancona and Caldwell,1992), and to carefully plan the application of theseskills and resources in fulfilling the design objectives(Zirger and Maidique, 1990). The planning needs to

R&D Management 32, 5, 2002. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 451108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

take account of the product requirements of the users,the reciprocal requirements of the development part-ners (Iansiti, 1995), lead-time, costs (Rothwell, 1992)and market strategy (Cooper, 1985). Consensus on thisplanning supports the partners to keep enlisting thenecessary commitment and input (Bruce et al., 1995).

Defining the product design planning is not onlyrelevant during the early stages of a new productdevelopment project, but in the latter stages as well.User needs are likely to have become better articulated,or changed (Mullins and Sutherland, 1998). Othermarket circumstances may have altered, as caused bytechnological advances, competitive product introduc-tions or regulation. Research findings or incompatiblesubsystem designs are likely to dictate changes in thedesign activities, posing new demands on the skills andresources. Accordingly, a rigid adherence to the initialproduct design planning may hamper new productsuccess (Bruce et al., 1995). Gersick found thatsuccessful teams significantly changed their planningaround their project’s temporal midpoint, and matchedit with the external product requirements and availableresources (Gersick, 1986). At this time, the awarenessof incompatible product requirements of differentdesigners (Allen, 1993), the improved understandingof the contextual requirements on the product, and thefelt need for progress (Gersick, 1986) are likely to callfor significant design changes.

In our view, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) issuitable to support inter-organizational partners todefine their product design planning. In new productdevelopment, the AHP has been successfully applied tosupport the go=no-go decision for project selection(Calantone et al., 1999). However, this tool is unknownfor its value to support decision-making in a ‘go’project. Our research aims to elaborate the adequacyof using the team version of the AHP to support theproduct design planning in inter-organizational pro-duct development. We applied this version to supportthe product design planning of an inter-organizationalproject in its temporal final half.

2. Multi-criterion decision analysis to supportproduct design planning

Despite the importance of defining a product designplanning, this activity often receives too little systema-tic attention. Gupta and Wilemon (1990) found that aninadequate definition of the new product objectives isthe most common reason for product developmentdelays. Relevant performance criteria are easilyignored in the objectives. Because objectives areattentional controls, they will result in lower perfor-mance on criteria they do not directly address (Shalley,1995). Overall, the product design planning needs to beattuned to the product requirements relevant to thediverse groups involved, market circumstances, avail-

able knowledge, skills and resources, lead-time andcosts. Product design planning can be enhanced by theuse of a method that supports the various developmentand user groups involved in new product developmentto analyse these multifaceted factors.

Besides this analytic support, decision support isbeneficial for the exposition of disagreements, contra-diction and lack of information. This urges the projectmembers on sharing more information to better under-stand their judgements and to expand their view on thenew product objectives (Henig and Buchanan, 1996).When the same evidence still results in different finalperceptions, it can only be the result of differentinterpretations of the relevance of the factors presented(Lockett and Naude, 1998). In new product develop-ment these differences are commonly related to diver-ging time-senses, motives, goals, loyalty, and senses ofresponsibility (Souder, 1987). Forming a critical degreeof consensus and mutual understanding of the reasonsfor continuing differences is essential for continuinggroup and task commitment (Gear et al., 1999).

Tools for multi-criteria decision analysis can analy-tically support the inter-organizational partners toconstruct a product design planning composed of themultifaceted factors. They support the decision-mak-ing task to evaluate a finite number of decisionalternatives under a finite number of performancecriteria. In addition, they can facilitate the exchange ofinformation and consensus formation through struc-turing the decision-making process and by makingexplicit the disagreements among group members(Timmermans and Vlek, 1996). The most commonlyused tools for multi-criteria decision analysis are theelimination and choice translating reality (ELECTRE),the simple multi-attribute rating technique (SMART),the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and the multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) (Lootsma and Schuijt,1997).

These tools particularly vary in their approach tomodel the preferences of the decision-makers for thealternatives (Lootsma, 2000). Based on the decision-makers’ preference for one alternative in each pair ofalternatives concerning the respective criteria, ELEC-TRE only ranks the alternatives in a complete orincomplete order (Roy, 1991). In the AHP, a nine-point scale ranging from extreme preference toindifference refines the preferences for the alternatives(Saaty, 1989). In SMART, the performance of thealternatives is expressed in grades on a 0–100 scale(Von Winterfeldt and Edwards, 1986). MAUT intro-duces a utility function for assigning a value betweenzero and one to reflect how well the alternatives satisfythe criteria (Von Winterfeldt and Edwards, 1986).

While ELECTRE, AHP and SMART are moreoriented towards a straightforward support of informa-tion exchange, MAUT is more focused on deriving amathematically sophisticated preference model. In defin-ing new product objectives, the essence lies in supporting

Marjan Hummel et al.

452 R&D Management 32, 5, 2002 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

the information-sharing processes between the hetero-geneous experts. The relatively easy to use ELECTRE,AHP and SMART satisfy this need to a higher extent. Innew product objectives, trade-offs between productrequirements are legitimate. Accordingly, insight isrequired in the importance of these weighting factorsand the corresponding performance of the new productsolutions. Of the four tools, only ELECTRE does notsupport these essential analyses. As SMART keeps aholistic view on the performance of the alternatives,AHP pairwise compares the performance of the alter-native new products, thus providing a competitive pointof reference (Lootsma and Schuijt, 1997), which isrelevant in new product development (Smith, 1995).Moreover, the redundant pairwise comparisons in theAHP allow a check on the inconsistency in judgements,indicating the need for sharing additional information(Henig and Buchanan, 1996). Due to these factors, weconsider the AHP to be the most adequate tool formulti-criteria decision analysis to support the definitionof a product design planning.

3. Empirical focus

The empirical focus of our case study is on thedevelopment of a voice-producing prosthesis. Potentialend users of the prosthesis are laryngectomized people,who have been treated for cancer in the larynx byhaving their larynx including the vocal folds removed.An inserted shunt valve between the trachea andoesophagus enables most of these persons to use airfrom the lungs for voice production. However, thisairflow generates a very low-pitched and gruff voice,which is particularly unnatural for females. Four yearsago, a research group at a Dutch university incollaboration with other universities, a universityhospital and industrial firm started the developmentof a voice-producing prosthesis that can be insertedinto the shunt valve. This prosthesis aims to enhancethe quality of the voices of laryngectomized people (DeVries et al., 2000). At the time of this case study, a firstprototype was built with geometric and materialparameters derived from numerical simulation.

Clinical tests of this prototype provided the productdevelopers with the first application outcomes. The

results that were not yet satisfactory pressed the teamto discuss their product design planning. At that timeno competing voice-producing prosthesis was on themarket, although an alternative clinically tested voice-producing prosthesis was likely to be introduced in thenear future.

4. Research methodology

Our case study aims to elaborate the adequacy ofSaaty’s AHP implemented in the software package‘Team Expert Choice’ to support the product designplanning in the final half of inter-organizationalproduct development. Accordingly, we applied thismethod to construct the product design planning of thevoice-producing prosthesis, involving technical devel-opers including researchers, engineers and a manufac-turer, as well as user groups of the prosthesis includingphysicians and a laryngectomized person (Table 1).We analysed the adequacy of its use based on theproject members’ sharing of information and consen-sus formation about the product design planning, andthe value of this planning to R&D management.

Supported by an independent facilitator, the mainnew product development partners constructed theproduct design planning. Prior to the panel session,every panel member had received factual informationabout the attributes of the known prototypes of voice-producing prostheses. The first stage of the panelsession started with the determination of the targetmarket of the project and the most threatening,competing voice-producing prosthesis in this market.A brainstorming session followed about the productrequirements relevant to the qualities of these voice-producing prostheses. These requirements were incor-porated in a hierarchical structure. This structure iscomposed of the design objective to convert the currentquality of the prosthesis into a pursuable quality, themain product requirements, sub-requirements andthree alternatives: the competing prosthesis, thecurrent prosthesis and the pursued prosthesis. Theinitial individual judgements on pairwise comparisonsbetween the importances of the requirements andbetween the qualities of the alternatives were collectedby means of a questionnaire. The most important or

Table 1. Professional background and activities of the panel members.

No. Profession Core new product activity

T1 Manufacturer Production ENT instrumentsU1 Potential user In vivo testingU2 Physician In vivo testingT2 Mechanical engineer In vitro testingU3 Physician In vitro testing, user needs assessmentU4 Physician In vivo testingT3 Mechanical engineer Co-ordination and technical designT4 Mechanical engineer Technical design

Product design planning

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 R&D Management 32, 5, 2002 453

most preferred factor of each pair of factors wasassigned a score from 1 to 9, of which 1 representsequal importance or quality and 9 extremely highimportance or quality. The next focus was to unite thediverse perspectives of the panel members on the samesets of comparisons. Using hand-held radiographickeypads, the panel members gave, at the same time andin a group setting, their judgements on each pairwisecomparison. Individual judgements were projected ona screen, allowing the members of the panel to discussthe rationales behind their individual scores. They wereallowed to change their initial choice and finaljudgements were inserted after these discussions. Theimportance of the requirements and qualities of thevoice-producing prostheses were estimated accordingto the eigenvector approach of the AHP.

In the second stage of the panel session, brainstorm-ing focused on design changes to enhance the quality ofthe current prototype to the pursued quality. Discus-sions about the influences of the product changes onthe product requirements were guided by the panelmembers’ projected, iterative judgements. These judge-ments were based on a linear 7-point scale, rangingfrom strong, negative influence (��) to strong,positive influence (þþþ). Using the direct ratingtechnique of the AHP, the weighted overall influenceon product quality was computed for each designchange. In order of decreasing overall improvement,the design changes were analysed for their worthinessof investment in terms of costs, time and resources.Design activities to elaborate the approved designchanges were assigned to the team members.

The sharing of information was analysed by thecontents of the decision factors, and by comparing theevaluators’ weighting factors and priorities, and theirinconsistency ratios prior to and after the discussions.The consensus formation during the panel discussionswas analysed by comparing the variance between thepanel members’ weighting factors and priorities priorto and after the discussions. These comparisons werebased on t-tests with a two-tailed significance level ofp¼ 0:02. The value of the outcomes and the adequacyof the support by Team Expert Choice were analysedbased on propositions, rated by the panel members ona 7-point Likert scale (see Appendix). These proposi-tions focused on the contents of the discussions, thesupport by the AHP, felt freedom to disagree,consensus formation, quality of the outcomes, correct-ness of the outcomes, commitment to the outcomes,and adequacy of the outcomes. In addition, analysis ofthe actual use of the outcomes was based ondocumentation and interviews with the developmentpartners involved.

5. Results

The quality of the pursued prosthesis needed to beattuned to an opportunity in the market in which onlyone competing voice-producing prosthesis was likely tobe introduced in the near future. Figure 1 shows thecorresponding AHP structure, including the relevantmain and sub-requirements in this market, and thealternative voice-producing prostheses. In the panel

R. LIFE-SPANS. VARIATION IN BASIC FREQUENCIEST. FIT IN CURRENT TREATMENTU. TRAINING REQUIRED

CLINICAL APPLICATION

A. CLEANING COMPLICATIONSB. EXCHANGING COMPLICATIONS C. LONG TERM COMPLICATIONSSAFETY

D. TIMBREE. INTONATIONF. LOUDNESSG. DYNAMICSH. AUDIBILITY

QUALITY OF VOICE

I. PLACEMENTJ. CLEANINGK. DIRECTLY INTO EFFECTL. PHONATION PRESSUREM. FLOW REQUIRED

EASE OF USE

N. NO PROTRUSIONO. EXISTING PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES P. PRODUCTION COST PRICEQ. FIT IN SHUNT VALVES

PRODUCTION

PROSTHESIS COMPETITOR

PROSTHESISCURRENT

PROSTHESIS PURSUED

COMPAREVOICE-PRODUCING PROSTHESES

Figure 1. The AHP structure.



session three prostheses were compared: the currentprosthesis, the competing prosthesis and the pursuedmodel of the current prosthesis.

Table 2 represents the relative importances of themain and sub-requirements and the relative qualities ofthe alternative voice-producing prostheses concerningthe sub-requirements. Basically, the competing pros-thesis has a higher overall quality than the currentprosthesis, despite the current prosthesis’ merits to forexample the dynamics of the voice (G), and the fit inshunt valves (Q). The product development teamstrives to surpass this level, as reflected in the higheroverall quality of the pursued prosthesis. To this goal,safety is the most important main requirement toconsider. The team strives to decrease the probabilityof each type of complication in order to be able to excelits competitor on safety. In this respect, complicationsrelated to cleaning (A) are most important to take intoaccount.

The panel group’s weighting factors before and afterthe discussions differed on average with 37%, resultingin a significant change of 9 of the 89 weighting factors(independent t-test, two-tailed p¼ 0:02). There were nosignificant differences between the changes of the usersubgroup (on average 41%) and the technical devel-opment subgroup (on average 33%) (paired-samplest-test, two-tailed p¼ 0:02). On average, the individualpanel members reduced the inconsistency in theirjudgements with 65% during the discussions. The finalgroup judgements, expressed in the geometric mean ofthe individual judgements, have an overall inconsis-

tency ratio of 0.10. This value is acceptable accordingto the guidelines provided by Saaty (1989).

Furthermore, the panel group reduced 64% of theprior variance between the individual members’weighting factors. The reduction of the variance withinthe user and within the technical development sub-group was respectively 66 and 69%. The reduction ofthe variance between these subgroups was somewhatlower: 43%. Nevertheless, no significant differencesbetween the subgroups were found for 87 finalweighting factors, which is 98% of all factors(independent t-test, two-tailed p¼ 0:02).

While referring to the design objective to convert thecurrent quality into the pursued quality, 13 potentialdesign changes were suggested. Table 3 shows a fewstriking examples of the influences of these designchanges on the quality of the prosthesis.

Research efforts dedicated to most design changeswere considered to be useful investments beneficial tothe quality of the prosthesis. For example, integratingthe lip in the shaft has particularly potential to enhanceprosthesis’ safety, ease of use, production and clinicalapplication, and the pre-stress on the lip can eventuatein diverse improvements on the voice quality. Con-versely, the front-load mechanism is one of the designchanges not anticipated to enhance the overall quality.It is, however, considered to be worth exploration sinceit is the only design change that focuses on the desiredimprovement of the ease of positioning (I) of thedevice. The use of less resonating material and theconcept of a modular flap are design changes that are

Table 2. Relative importances of the requirements (in italic) and relative qualities of the alternatives.

Requirements Safety Quality of voice Ease of use Production Application0.56 0.23 0.10 0.04 0.08

Voice-producing A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T. U.Prostheses 0.57 0.32 0.11 0.17 0.09 0.21 0.05 0.48 0.09 0.10 0.43 0.12 0.25 0.42 0.11 0.10 0.37 0.19 0.33 0.41 0.08

Competing prosthesis0.24 0.31 0.15 0.31 0.08 0.05 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.36 0.24 0.38 0.36 0.46 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.40 0.18 0.19 0.51

Current prosthesis0.18 0.13 0.22 0.13 0.25 0.21 0.16 0.36 0.21 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.26 0.12 0.11 0.27 0.29 0.62 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.15

Pursued prosthesis0.59 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.68 0.74 0.55 0.55 0.70 0.50 0.60 0.48 0.38 0.42 0.77 0.64 0.62 0.29 0.49 0.66 0.67 0.34

Table 3. Examples of design changes: quality improvements, investments and relations with requirements.

Design changes Total Invest Safety Quality of voice Ease of use Production Application

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T. U.

Lip in shaft 1.00 Yes þþ 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 þþ 0 0 0 þþþ þ þþþ – þ 0 þþþ 0Pre-stress 0.37 Yes 0 0 0 þþ 0 þþ 0 þ 0 – 0 – þþ 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0Front-load mechanism �0.21 Yes 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 0 þþ 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 0 0Less resonating material 0.21 No 0 0 0 0 þ þ þ þ 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 – 0 0 0Modular lip �0.63 No – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 – – þþþ 0 0 0 0

Notes: For each design change, the column ‘Total’ shows the improvement of the weighted overall quality, normalized by the highest rateddesign change.The column ‘Invest’ shows the acceptability of investment in the design changes in terms of money, resources and time.



disposed of definitively due to their negative conse-quences on respectively lead-time, and the quality ofthe voice-producing prosthesis. Finally, explicit designactivities to elaborate the ten potentially worthwhiledesign changes, including numerical simulation, pro-totype building, in vitro and in vivo testing, wereassigned to several members of the new productdevelopment team.

The average panel rating on each proposition aboutthe adequacy of the panel session was a 6 on the 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree tostrongly agree. These results entail that the panelmembers were satisfied with the contents discussed atthis specific stage of new product development, and thesupport by the AHP. Furthermore, they appraisedtheir satisfaction with the consensus formation, theopportunity to disagree, the quality of the outcomes,their confidence in the correctness of the outcomes,and their commitment to the outcomes to be reason-ably high. The session was thought to constitute areasonable foundation for further collaboration in theproject.

Currently, one year after the panel session, eight ofthe ten acceptable design changes have been elabo-rated. Two of these eight design changes will not beimplemented due to, for one unanticipated and for theother anticipated, negative effects on the quality of theprosthesis. Studies on the remaining two designchanges have been postponed due to a replacementof the responsible manufacturer in the productdevelopment team. This change in the membershipcomposition was induced by patent concerns.

6. Conclusions and discussion

Inter-organizational product development needs to bemonitored and controlled at significant points in thenew product process (Bruce et al., 1995). We appliedthe AHP to steer and align the inter-organizationalpartners’ design activities in the temporal second halfof the development of a voice-producing prosthesis.The AHP supported systematic discussions betweencollaborating researchers, developers, manufacturersand future users of the prosthesis. Particularly toinnovative products, dialogues between these cross-functional groups are essential to articulate andanalyse realistic design objectives. Moreover, thesedialogues tend to result in a more comprehensive viewon the product requirements. In our case, the require-ments focused on function (e.g. effects on quality of thevoice), side effects (e.g. safety aspects), user context(e.g. training required, ease of use), clinical practice (fitwith current treatment practices), production (e.g. fitwith existing production techniques, low cost price)and market environment (e.g. fit in various shuntvalves, different basic frequencies to benefit both malesand females). This versatile view on product quality

reduces the chance of later product redesigns or lostcommitment by one of the collaborating partners. Forinstance, guarding the fit with existing productiontechniques or medical treatment practice will decreasethe chance of expensive redesign or withdrawal fromthe collaboration by the manufacturer or the physi-cians in a later stage.

The prioritization of these heterogeneous require-ments facilitates the weighting of one requirementagainst another in making design choices. For in-stance, adapting the pre-stress of the lip is thought tolower the ease of use and the life span of the prosthesis,as shown in Table 3. Nevertheless, the aimed improve-ment of the quality of the voice was deemed morerelevant. Due to this mutual understanding, physiciansas well as engineers were persuaded to elaborate theidea on pre-stress. On each requirement, the achievedand pursued quality of the voice-producing prosthesiswas established in reference to the quality of apotentially competing voice-producing prosthesis. Incontrast to SMART, the AHP explicitly focuses onthese comparisons between competing alternatives.This information supports the team in grounding theirdesign choices not only on the importance of theproduct requirements to the overall quality of voice-producing prostheses, but on their competitive strategyas well. For example, the front-load mechanism, citedin Table 3, is the only design change that may decreasethe competitive weakness concerning the ease ofposition (I) of the voice-producing prosthesis. Accord-ingly, this design change is thought to be valuable tothe competitive strategy, despite its negative effects onthe overall quality of the voice-producing prosthesis.Attuning the product design planning to an impendingproduct introduction is not only a proactive means todeal with market changes, it also guards the team fromcreating competitive weaknesses due to the over-emphasis of a limited set of product advantages.

Finally, the design changes were screened for theirimpact on the attainable resources, time and money.Accordingly, the investment in less resonating materialis not granted due to the accompanying increase oflead-time of the project. To elaborate the acceptabledesign changes, design activities were assigned todevelopment partners with adequate resources, knowl-edge and skills. All partners were committed to applytheir knowledge, resources or skills according to plan,with the exception of the withdrawn partner. In casecircumstances change or appear to be misinterpreted,the development partners can easily adapt the planningof the design activities based on the quantitativeanalyses of the design changes.

The significant shifts in some of the weightingfactors that reflect the priorities of the productrequirements and competitive strategy, and the sig-nificant reduction of the inconsistencies suggest thatthe group members shared new information. Never-theless, the outcomes about the inconsistencies may



partly be attributed to the AHP scale (Salo andHamalainen, 1997), and learning effects on how toapply the AHP. Still it is meaningful to the quality ofthe product design planning that after the discussionsno excessive inconsistencies were found between thepairwise comparisons of the individual decision-ma-kers. The reduction of the variance in weighting factorsbetween the panel members suggests that the discus-sions enhanced the degree of consensus between theuser and development groups. An emphasis onconsensus through all stages of decision-making isnot always desirable (Islei et al., 1999), and can causepressure to conform. Yet, mutual agreement about therationales basic to the need to change the new productdesign is essential in inter-organizational productdevelopment to create commitment to the designactivities. Therefore, normative rules should emphasizethe need to focus on the confrontation of task-relateddisagreements, while avoiding social pressure towardsgroup conformance. Since the partners indicated theyfelt free to give their opinion and were satisfied withthe attained degree of consensus, the reduction ofvariance due to pressure to conform does not seem tobe dominant.

A drawback of our method is that the comparisonson the product requirements and design changes arerather labour-intensive. Bounded rationality mayinduce versatile yet superficial analyses. Consequently,less clear-cut analyses or solutions may be overlookedin the desire for progress. In our application, thepresumed effects of the accepted design changes arereasonably in line with the desired design improve-ments. However, the most striking dissent was causedby the neglect of the desire to decrease long-termcomplications of the voice-producing prosthesis. Thedevelopment team became aware only after the panelsession of the need to brainstorm on ideas to decreasethese complications.

The AHP was valued as an adequate tool tosupport the temporal second half of the inter-organizational product development project. In con-trast to MAUT that accentuates the mathematicalsophistication of the outcomes, the AHP’s supportfocused on the sharing of information about theproduct design planning. Consequently, the AHPhelped the users and the development partners toconstruct convincing rationales for making designchoices that involved numerous trade-offs related toproduct quality, competitive strategy, resources, lead-time, and costs. The application of ELECTRE wouldnot have provided mathematical support to analysingthese trade-offs. We consider the AHP, to beappropriate for R&D managers to steer and alignthe design activities in inter-organizational networks.It supports the development partners in meeting theirexpectations for participation in inter-organizationalnetworks, even when market circumstances havechanged.

Our method evaluates the performance of a newproduct relative to competing products. Still, it can beapplied to new products with diverging marketpositions. Two extremes are a radically new productthat is pushed into the market by its technologicaldevelopers, and an incremental new product that ispulled into the market by its envisaged users. Most newproducts, however, are a combination of thesescenarios. Even though information initially is likelyto prevail about the technological solutions in amarket-push project, and information about userneeds in a market-pull project, the design of theseproducts ultimately has to comply with both techno-logical requirements and user needs. Despite theexistence of limited information, the development ofnew products needs guidance from new productobjectives that are based on a comprehensive rangeof product requirements.

References

Allen, T.J. (1993) Managing the Flow of Technology:Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technologi-

cal Information within the R&D Organization. CambridgeMA: MIT Press.

Ancona, D.G. and Caldwel, D.F. (1992) Bridging theboundary: external activity and performance in organiza-

tional teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665.Bruce, M., Leverick, F., Littler, D. and Wilson, D. (1995)Success factors for collaborative product development: a

study of suppliers of information and communicationtechnology. R&D Management, 25, 33–44.

Calantone, R.J., Di Benedetto, C.A., and Schmidt, J.B.

(1999) Using the analytic hierarchy process in new productscreening. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16,1, 65–76.

Cooper, R.G. (1985) Selecting winning new product projects:using the NewProd System. Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 2, 34–44.

De Vries, M.P., van der Plaats, A., van der Torn, M.,

Mahieu, H.F., Schutte, H.K. and Verkerke, G.J. (2000)Design and in vitro testing of a voice-producing element forlaryngectomized patients. International Journal of Artificial

Organs, 23, 7, 462–472.Gear, A.E., Minkes, A.L. and Read, M.J. (1999) On interactivecommunication and decision making. International Journal of

Technology Management, 17, 1–2, 208–222.Gersick, C.J.G. (1986) Time and transition in work teams:toward a new model of group development. Academy of

Management Journal, 31, 9–41.Gupta, A.K. and Wilemon, D.L. (1990) Accelerating thedevelopment of technology-based new products. CaliforniaManagement Review, 32, 24–44.

Hauptman, O. and Hirji, K.K. (1999) Managing integrationand coordination in cross-functional teams: an interna-tional study of concurrent engineering product develop-

ment. R&D Management, 29, 2, 179–191.Henig, M.I. and Buchanan, J.T. (1996) Solving MCDMproblems: process concepts. Journal of Multi-Criteria

Decision Analysis, 5, 3–21.



Iansiti, M. (1995) Technology integration: managing techno-logical evaluation in a complex environment. ResearchPolicy, 24, 4, 521–542.

Islei, G., Lockett, G. and Naude, P. (1999) Judgementalmodelling as an aid to scenario planning and analysis.Omega, The International Journal of Management Science,

27, 61–73.Lockett, G. and Naude, P. (1998) The stability of judge-mental modelling: an application in the social services.

Group Decision and Negotiation, 7, 41–53.Lootsma, F.A. (2000) Multi-criteria decision analysis, anoverview. In Kluwer’s Encyclopedia of Mathematics.

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Lootsma, F.A. and Schuijt, H. (1997) The multiplicativeAHP, SMART and ELECTRE in a common context.Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6, 185–196.

Mullins, J.W. and Sutherland, D.J. (1998) New productdevelopment in rapidly changing markets: an exploratorystudy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15,

224–236.Rothwell, R. (1992) Successful industrial innovation: criticalfactors for the 1990s. R&D Management, 22, 221–239.

Roy, B. (1991) The outranking approach and the foundationof ELECTRE methods. Theory and Decision, 31, 49–73.

Saaty, T.L. (1989) Group decision making and the AHP. In:Golden, B.L., Wasil, E.A. and Harker, P.T. (eds) The

Analytic Hierarchy Process; Applications and Studies.Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Salo, A.A. and Hamalainen, R.P. (1997) On the measure-

ment of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process.Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6, 309–319.

Shalley, C.E. (1995) Effects of coaction, expected evaluation,

and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy ofManagement Journal, 38, 2, 483–503.

Smith, G.E. (1995) Framing product design: using design

communication to facilitate user learning. Journal ofBusiness and Industrial Marketing, 10, 5, 6–21.

Souder, W. (1987) Managing New Product Innovation.

Lexington MA: Lexington Books.Tarasewich, P. and Suresh, K.N. (1999) Designing forquality. Industrial Management, July–August, 18–21.

Timmermans, D. and Vlek, C. (1996) Effects on decision

quality of supporting multi-attribute evaluation in groups.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,68, 2, 158–170.

Von Winterfeldt, D. and Edwards, W. (1986) DecisionAnalysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Zirger, B.J. and Maidique, M.A. (1990) A model of newproduct development: an empirical test. ManagementScience, 36, 867–883.

Appendix

1. All criteria of significant importance were included in the product design planning . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. I consider a systematic product design planning important in this stage of the project . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. The AHP provides a satisfactory support for this type of decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. I would be willing to use the AHP for other similar decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. I felt completely free to disagree or to make extreme judgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. The outcomes reflect my judgements sufficiently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 77. I am satisfied with the quality of the outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 78. I have confidence in the correctness of the outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 79. I feel commitment to the evaluation outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 710. The design planning is a good basis for the collaboration in the coming stage of the project . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

strongly mostly somewhat neutral somewhat mostly stronglydisagree disagree disagree agree agree agree



product design planning with the analytic hierarchy process in inter–organizational networks

Documents