Abstract

Go/no-go decisions require engineering design teams to evaluate whether a concept is worth further investment of resources. These decisions can be difficult when product success depends on multiple stakeholders in addition to the end-user. This study proposes the Stakeholder Agreement Metric (SAM) framework to estimate the level of agreement between stakeholder preferences via the distance between optimal designs calculated from a preference model derived from conjoint analysis. The framework was tested in an empirical case study describing the design and piloting of a hand tool for informal electronic waste workers in Thailand. Data from a follow-up assessment indicate the SAM estimate aligned with future metrics of stakeholder satisfaction. The case study also qualitatively compared SAM to the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Data collection issues with AHP illustrated some of the practical limitations of the framework. This study suggests that the SAM framework is a promising tool to further explore as a way to support designers making go/no-go decisions that involve multiple stakeholders. Further exploration should include additional case studies to investigate potential outcomes of different SAM values and comparing multiple stakeholder groups.

References

1.
Ulrich
,
K.
,
Steven
,
E.
, and
Yang
,
M. C.
,
2020
,
Product Design and Development
, 7th ed.,
McGraw-Hill
,
New York
.
2.
Jiao
,
J.
, and
Chen
,
C.-H.
,
2006
, “
Customer Requirement Management in Product Development: A Review of Research Issues
,”
Concurrent Eng.
,
14
(
3
), pp.
173
185
. 10.1177/1063293X06068357
3.
Dieter
,
G.
, and
Schmidt
,
L.
,
2012
,
Engineering Design
, 5th ed.,
McGraw-Hill Higher Education
,
New York
.
4.
Donaldson
,
K.
,
Ishii
,
K.
, and
Sheppard
,
S.
,
2006
, “
Customer Value Chain Analysis
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
,
16
(
4
), pp.
174
183
. 10.1007/s00163-006-0012-8
5.
Freeman
,
R. E.
,
2010
,
Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach
,
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge
.
6.
Balachandra
,
R.
,
1984
, “
Critical Signals for Making Go/No-Go Decisions in New Product Development
,”
J. Prod. Innovat. Manag.
,
1
(
2
), pp.
92
100
. 10.1111/1540-5885.120092
7.
Atkin
,
D.
,
Chaudhry
,
A.
,
Chaudry
,
S.
,
Khandelwal
,
A. K.
, and
Verhoogen
,
E.
,
2017
, “
Organizational Barriers to Technology Adoption: Evidence From Soccer-Ball Producers in Pakistan
,”
Q. J. Econ.
,
132
(
3
), pp.
1101
1164
. 10.1093/qje/qjx010
8.
Ortbal
,
K.
,
Frazzette
,
N.
, and
Mehta
,
K.
,
2016
, “
Stakeholder Journey Mapping: An Educational Tool for Social Entrepreneurs
,”
Procedia Eng.
,
159
, pp.
249
258
. 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.170
9.
Velasquez
,
M.
, and
Hester
,
P.
,
2013
, “
An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods
,”
Int. J. Oper. Res.
,
10
(
2
), pp.
56
66
.
10.
Papageorgiou
,
E.
,
Eres
,
M. H.
, and
Scanlan
,
J.
,
2016
, “
Value Modelling for Multi-Stakeholder and Multi-Objective Optimisation in Engineering Design
,”
J. Eng. Design
,
27
(
10
), pp.
697
724
. 10.1080/09544828.2016.1214693
11.
Michalek
,
J.
,
Ebbes
,
P.
,
Adigüzel
,
F.
,
Feinberg
,
F. M.
, and
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
,
2011
, “
Enhancing Marketing With Engineering: Optimal Product Line Design for Heterogeneous Markets
,”
Int. J. Res. Mark.
,
28
(
1
), pp.
1
12
. 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.08.001
12.
De Korvin
,
A.
, and
Shipley
,
M.
,
1993
, “
A Dempster-Shafer-Based Approach to Compromise Decision Making With Multiattributes Applied to Product Selection
,”
IEEE T. Eng. Manage.
,
40
(
1
), pp.
60
67
. 10.1109/17.206652
13.
Saaty
,
T.L.
,
1988
,
What Is the Analytic Hierarchy Process?
G.
Mitra
, ed., Vol.
F48
,
Springer
,
Berlin, Heidelberg
, pp.
109
121
.
14.
Ramanujan
,
D.
,
Bernstein
,
W. Z.
,
Choi
,
J.-K.
,
Koho
,
M.
,
Zhao
,
F.
, and
Ramani
,
K.
,
2014
, “
Prioritizing Design for Environment Strategies Using a Stochastic Analytic Hierarchy Process
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
136
(
7
), p.
071002
. 10.1115/1.4025701
15.
Wang
,
J.
, and
Li
,
M.
,
2015
, “
Redundancy Allocation for Reliability Design of Engineering Systems With Failure Interactions
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
137
(
3
), p.
031403
. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029320
16.
Ishizaka
,
A.
, and
Labib
,
A.
,
2009
, “
Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits and Limitations
,”
Or Insight
,
22
(
4
), pp.
201
220
. 10.1057/ori.2009.10
17.
Michalek
,
J. J.
,
2008
, “
Design for Market Systems: Integrating Social, Economic, and Physical Sciences to Engineer Product Success
,”
Mech. Eng.-CIME
,
130
(
11
), pp.
32
37
.
18.
Chen
,
W.
,
Hoyle
,
C.
, and
Wassenaar
,
H. J.
,
2012
,
Decision-Based Design: Integrating Consumer Preferences Into Engineering Design
,
Springer Science & Business Media
,
London
.
19.
Li
,
H.
, and
Azarm
,
S.
,
2000
, “
Product Design Selection Under Uncertainty and With Competitive Advantage
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
122
(
4
), pp.
411
418
. 10.1115/1.1311788
20.
He
,
L.
,
Chen
,
W.
,
Hoyle
,
C.
, and
Yannou
,
B.
,
2012
, “
Choice Modeling for Usage Context-Based Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
134
(
3
), p.
031007
. 10.1115/1.4005860
21.
Wassenaar
,
H. J.
, and
Chen
,
W.
,
2003
, “
An Approach to Decision-Based Design With Discrete Choice Analysis for Demand Modeling
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
125
(
3
), pp.
490
497
. 10.1115/1.1587156
22.
Williams
,
N.
,
Azarm
,
S.
, and
Kannan
,
P.
,
2008
, “
Engineering Product Design Optimization for Retail Channel Acceptance
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
130
(
6
), p.
061402
. 10.1115/1.2898874
23.
Michalek
,
J. J.
,
Feinberg
,
F. M.
, and
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
,
2005
, “
Linking Marketing and Engineering Product Design Decisions Via Analytical Target Cascading
,”
J. Prod. Innovat. Manag.
,
22
(
1
), pp.
42
62
. 10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00102.x
24.
Blessing
,
L. T.
, and
Chakrabarti
,
A.
,
2009
,
DRM: A Design Reseach Methodology
,
Springer
,
London
.
25.
Mitchell
,
R. K.
,
Agle
,
B. R.
, and
Wood
,
D. J.
,
1997
, “
Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts
,”
Acad. Manag. Rev.
,
22
(
4
), pp.
853
886
. 10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
26.
Green
,
P.
, and
Srinivasan
,
V.
,
1978
, “
Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook
,”
J. Consum. Res.
,
5
(
2
), pp.
103
123
. 10.1086/208721
27.
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
, and
Wilde
,
D. J.
,
2000
,
Principles of Optimal Design: Modeling and Computation
,
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge
.
28.
Wilson
,
D. R.
, and
Martinez
,
T.
,
1997
, “
Improved Heterogeneous Distance Functions
,”
J. Artif. Intell. Res.
,
6
, pp.
1
34
. 10.1613/jair.346
29.
Aha
,
D. W.
,
Kibler
,
D.
, and
Albert
,
M. K.
,
1991
, “
Instance-Based Learning Algorithms
,”
Mach. Learn.
,
6
(
1
), pp.
37
66
. 10.1007/bf00153759
30.
Perkins
,
D. N.
,
Drisse
,
M. -N. B.
,
Nxele
,
T.
, and
Sly
,
P. D.
,
2014
, “
E-Waste: A Global Hazard
,”
Ann. Global Health
,
80
(
4
), pp.
286
295
. 10.1016/j.aogh.2014.10.001
31.
Vanderbei
,
R. J.
,
2015
,
Linear Programming
,
Springer
,
New York
.
32.
Becker
,
G. M.
,
DeGroot
,
M. H.
, and
Marschak
,
J.
,
1964
, “
Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method
,”
Behav. Sci.
,
9
(
3
), pp.
226
232
. 10.1002/bs.3830090304
You do not currently have access to this content.