SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 19 Sayı: 37

EVALUATING COMPETITIVENESS IN PRODUCT DESIGN BY USING ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

ÜRÜN TASARIMINDA REKABETÇİLİĞİN ANALİTİK HİYERARŞİ SÜRECİ YÖNTEMİYLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Hüseyin Özkal Özsoy(ENDÜSTRİ ÜRÜNLERİ TASARIMI BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-5531-3539
Pages
655–677
Publication Date
2020-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

At the final sections the findings were interpreted and conclusions about the use of the method were presented.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method in the evaluation of the competitive properties of industrial product designs is investigated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After giving information about the usage of the method and the related literature, a field study is presented in which 5 vacuum cleaner designs were evaluated to find the one that would be the most competitive in markets.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:At the final sections the findings were interpreted and conclusions about the use of the method were presented.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ev Araçları Tasarımı · Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci · Rekabetçilik

Abstract

In this study, the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method in the evaluation of the competitive properties of industrial product designs is investigated. After giving information about the usage of the method and the related literature, a field study is presented in which 5 vacuum cleaner designs were evaluated to find the one that would be the most competitive in markets. During this study, initially the main objective and the appropriate evaluation criteria were determined followed by the determination and comparison of the importance values of the criteria and design alternatives. Afterwards, design alternatives were evaluated by using AHP method-specific tools and the performance values of the 5 design alternatives were found. These values were listed in a descending order, determining the competitiveness of each design alternative according to each other. At the final sections the findings were interpreted and conclusions about the use of the method were presented.

Özet

Bu çalışmada endüstri ürün tasarımlarının rekabetçi özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesinde Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) yöntemi kullanımı incelenmiştir. Yöntemin kullanımı ve ilgili literatür hakkında bilgi verildikten sonra 5 elektrik süpürgesi tasarımın değerlendirilip piyasada en rekabetçi olacak tasarımın belirlendiği bir alan çalışması sunulmuştur. Alan çalışmasında öncelikle ana hedef ve buna uygun değerlendirme ölçütleri belirlenmiş, ölçüt ve tasarım alternatiflerinin birbirlerine göre önem dereceleri incelenmiştir. Sonrasında tasarım alternatifleri yöntemce sağlanan araçlar yardımıyla değerlendirilmiş ve eldeki 5 tasarımın başarım değerleri ortaya çıkartılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, büyükten küçüğe sıralanmış ve en yüksek başarım değerine sahip tasarım, en rekabetçi ürün olarak belirlenmiştir. Sonuç bölümünde bu bulgular yorumlanmış, yöntemin sağladığı faydalar açıklanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özsoy, H. Ö. (2020). EVALUATING COMPETITIVENESS IN PRODUCT DESIGN BY USING ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 37, 655–677. https://ajindex.com/articles/1502556

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (64)

  1. Ahmad, M. N., Maidin, N. A., Rahman, M. H. A., & Osman, M. H. (2017). Conceptual Design Selection of Manual Wheelchair for Elderly by Analytical Hierarchy Process ( AHP ) Method: A Case Study, 12(17), 6710–6719.
  2. An, S. H., Kim, G. H., & Kang, K. I. (2007). A case-based reasoning cost estimating model using experience by analytic hierarchy process. Building and Environment, 42(7), 2573–2579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.06.007
  3. Ayağ, Z. (2005). An integrated approach to evaluating concept design alternatives in a new product development environment. International Journal of Production Research, 43(4), 687–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540512331311831
  4. Ayağ, Z. (2015). Cad software evaluation for product design to exchange data in a supply chain network. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 4(1), 30–38. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84949765522&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
  5. Basak, I. (2002). On the use of information criteria in analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 141(1), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00238-7
  6. Battistoni, E., Fronzetti Colladon, A., Scarabotti, L., & Schiraldi, M. M. (2013). Analytic hierarchy process for new product development. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 5(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5772/56816
  7. Bayrakçı, O. (Ed.). (2012). Corporate identity and design trend researches on small electrical home appliances (1st ed.). İstanbul: MSGSÜ Publications.
  8. Berger, S., Dertouzos, M. L., Lester, R. K., Solow, R. M., & Thurow, L. C. (1989). Toward a new industrial American. Scientific Am, 260(June), 21–29. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a224888.pdf#page=13
  9. Braunschweig, T., & Becker, B. (2004). Choosing research priorities by using the analytic hierarchy process: an application to international agriculture. R&D Management, 34(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2004.00324.x
  10. Cao, D., Leung, L. C., & Law, J. S. (2008). Modifying inconsistent comparison matrix in analytic hierarchy process: A heuristic approach. Decision Support Systems, 44(4), 944–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2007.11.002
  11. Chandran, B., Golden, B., & Wasil, E. (2005). Linear programming models for estimating weights in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers and Operations Research, 32(9), 2235–2254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2004.02.010
  12. Cheng, S. C., Chou, T. C., Yang, C. L., & Chang, H. Y. (2005). A semantic learning for content-based image retrieval using analytical hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 28(3), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2004.12.011
  13. Chou, Y. C., Hsu, Y. Y., & Yen, H. Y. (2008). Human resources for science and technology: Analyzing competitiveness using the analytic hierarchy process. Technology in Society, 30(2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.12.007
  14. D’Ippolito, B. (2014). Technovation The Importance of Design for Firms’ Competitiveness: A Review of the Literature. Technovation, 34, 716–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.01.007
  15. De Felice, F., & Petrillo, A. (2011). A multiple choice decision analysis: an integrated QFD – AHP model for the assessment of customer needs. International Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology, 2(9), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijest.v2i9.63849
  16. Freeman, C. (1994). The economics of technical change. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 18(5), 463–514. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035286
  17. García-Cascales, M. S., & Lamata, M. T. (2009). Selection of a cleaning system for engine maintenance based on the analytic hierarchy process. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 56(4), 1442–1451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2008.09.015
  18. Güngör, İ., & İşler, D. B. (2005). Analitik Hiyerarşi Yaklaşımı İle Otomobil Seçimi. ZKU Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(2), 21–33. Retrieved from http://194.27.40.129/index.php/zkesbe/article/view/106
  19. Gupta, S., Singh, S. K., Agrawal, K., & Nagaraju, D. (2015). Comparison of Fuzzy Ahp and Topsis Evaluations. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(14), 6072–6080.
  20. Hafeez, K., Malak, N., & Zhang, Y. B. (2007). Outsourcing non-core assets and competences of a firm using analytic hierarchy process. Computers and Operations Research, 34(12), 3592–3608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2006.01.004
  21. Hambali, A., Sapuan, S. M., Ismail, N., & Nukman, Y. (2009). Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process in the design concept selection of automotive composite bumper beam during the conceptual design stage. Scientific and Research Essay, 4(4), 198–211.
  22. Hambali, A., Sapuan, S. M., Ismail, N., & Nukman, Y. (2009). Composite manufacturing process selection using analytical hierarchy process. International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, 4(1), 49–61. Retrieved from http://repository.um.edu.my/73385/1/P7 _IJMME Nukman.pdf
  23. Hambali, A., Sapuan, S. M., Napsiah, I., & Nukman, Y. (2008). Use of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for selecting the best design concept. Jurnal Teknologi, 49(A), 1–18. Retrieved from http://www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my/index.php/jurnalteknologi/article/view/188/178
  24. Harputlugil, T., Gültekin, A. T., Prins, M., & Topçu, Y. I. (2014). Architectural design quality assessment based on analytic hierarchy process: A case study (1). Metu Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 31(2), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2014.2.8
  25. Hertenstein, J. H., Platt, M. B., & Veryzer, R. W. (2013). What Is ‘Good Design’?: An Investigation of the Complexity and Structure of Design. Design Management Journal, 8(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmj.12000
  26. Hsiao, S. (2002). Concurrent design method for developing a new product. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 29(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(01)00048-8
  27. Hurley, W. J. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process: A note on an approach to sensitivity which preserve rank order. Computers and Operations Research, 28(2), 185–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00125-2
  28. Jenab, K., Sarfaraz, A., & Ameli, M. T. (2013). A Fuzzy conceptual design selection model considering conflict resolution. Journal of Engineering Design, 24(4), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2012.728203
  29. Karagiannidis, A., Papageorgiou, A., Perkoulidis, G., Sanida, G., & Samaras, P. (2010). A multi-criteria assessment of scenarios on thermal processing of infectious hospital wastes: A case study for Central Macedonia. Waste Management, 30(2), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.08.015
  30. Koçak, A. (2003). Yazılım Seçiminde Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi Yaklaşımı Ve Bir Uygulama. Ege Academic Review, 3(1), 67–77. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ege/journl/v3y2003i1p67-77.html
  31. Kuruüzüm, A., & Atsan, N. (2001). Analitik Hi̇yerarşi̇ Yöntemi̇nin İşletmeci̇li̇k Alanındaki̇ Uygulamaları. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F Dergisi, (1), 83–105. Retrieved from http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423868948.pdf
  32. Kwong, C. K., Bai, & H., & Bai, H. (2003). Determining the Importance Weights for the Customer Requirements in QFD Using a Fuzzy AHP with an Extent Analysis Approach. IIE Transactions, 35(May), 619–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170390214482
  33. Lai, V. S., Trueblood, R. P., & Wong, B. K. (1999). Software selection: A case study of the application of the analytical hierarchical process to the selection of a multimedia authoring system. Information & Management, 36(4), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(99)00021-X
  34. Lee, D. J., & Hwang, J. (2010). Decision support for selecting exportable nuclear technology using the analytic hierarchy process: A Korean case. Energy Policy, 38(1), 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.069
  35. Min, H. (1994). Location analysis of international consolidation terminals using the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Business Logistics, 15(2), 25. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=573951&Fmt=7&clientId=20175&RQT=309&VName=PQD
  36. Moretti, I. C., Aldo, B. J., & Colmenero, J. C. (2017). Using the analytic hierarchy process for selecting prototypes in the development process of fashion garment products. Acta Scientiarum. Technology, 39(3), 367. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascitechnol.v39i3.30053
  37. Myers, J. H., & Alpert, M. I. (1968). Determinant buying attributes: Meaning and Measurement. Journal of Marketing, 32, 13–20.
  38. Nagahanumaiah, Ravi, B., & Mukherjee, N. P. (2007). Rapid tooling manufacturability evaluation using fuzzy-AHP methodology. International Journal of Production Research, 45(5), 1161–1181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540600622431
  39. Özden, H. Ü. (2008). Analitik Hiyerarşi Yönetimi İle İlkokul Seçimi. Marmara Üniversitesi İkdisadi ve İdari Birimler Dergisi, 24(1), 299–320.
  40. Peko, I., Gjeldum, N., & Bilić, B. (2018). Application of AHP, Fuzzy AHP and PROMETHEE Method in Solving Additive Manufacturing Process Selection Problem. Tehnicki Vjesnik - Technical Gazette, 25(2), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20170124092906
  41. Pineda-Henson, R., Culaba, A. B., & Mendoza, G. A. (2002). Evaluating environmental performance of pulp and paper manufacturing using the analytic hierarchy process and life-cycle assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819802320971614
  42. Prabhu, T. P., Chaudhari, H. B., Pathak, A. G., & Rajhans, N. R. (2018). Ideation Selection of a New Product Using Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision Making and Promethee. Industrial Engineering Journal, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.26488/IEJ.10.7.49
  43. Ramadhan, R. H., Wahhab, H. I. A.-A., & Duffuaa, S. O. (1999). The use of an analytical hierarchy process in pavement maintenance priority ranking. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 5(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552519910257041
  44. Roy, R., & Riedel, J. C. k. h. (1997). Design and innovation in successful product competition. Technovation, 17(10), 537–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00050-3
  45. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill.
  46. Saaty, T. L. (1986). Axiomatic Foundations of the AHP. Management Science, 32(7), 841–855. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.841
  47. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Services Sciences, 1(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
  48. Saaty, T. L., & Özdemir, M. S. (2003). Why the Magic Number Seven Plus or Minus Two. Mathemetical and Computer Modelling, 38(3–4), 233–244. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-7177(03)90083-5
  49. Sharma, M. J., Moon, I., & Bae, H. (2008). Analytic hierarchy process to assess and optimize distribution network. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 202(1), 256–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2008.02.008
  50. Stein, W. E., & Mizzi, P. J. (2007). The harmonic consistency index for the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(1), 488–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.10.057
  51. Suarez, F. F., & Utterback, J. M. (1995). Dominant Designs and the Survival of Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 415–430. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486786?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
  52. Toksarı, M., & Toksarı, D. M. (2011). Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) yaklaşımı kullanılarak hedef pazarın belirlenmesi. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 38, 51–70.
  53. Trueman, M., & Jobber, D. (1998). Competing Through Design. Long Range Planning, 31(4), 594–605.
  54. Ulrich, & Eppinger. (2011). Product Design and Development (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  55. Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
  56. Walsh, V. (1996). Design, innovation and the boundaries of the firm. Research Policy, (25), 509–529.
  57. Wang, Y. M., Liu, J., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2008). An integrated AHP-DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 54(3), 513–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.09.002
  58. Wind, Y., & Saaty, T. L. (1980). Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.26.7.641
  59. Wray, G. R. (1991). Design or decline--a national emergency? Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 205(B), 153–170. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1243/PIME_PROC_1991_205_065_02
  60. Xu, J. Z., Wang, L. J., & Lu, J. (2008). A study of AHP- fuzzy comprehensive evaluation on the development of eco-enterprise. 2008 International Conference on Management Science and Engineering 15th Annual Conference Proceedings, ICMSE, (20070217069), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMSE.2008.4668919
  61. Xuning, P., & Feng, D. (2009). Information systems risk evaluation based on the AHP-Fuzzy algorithm. Proceedings - 2009 International Conference on Networking and Digital Society, ICNDS 2009, 2, 178–180. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNDS.2009.124
  62. Yılmaz, M. (2010). Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHS) ve Bir Uygulama: Lider bir Kütüphane Müdürü Seçimi. Türk Kütüphaneciliği Dergisi, 24(2), 206–234. Retrieved from http://www.tk.org.tr/index.php/tk/article/viewArticle/593
  63. Zhou, Y. D., & Shi, M. L. (2009). Rail transit project risk evaluation based on AHP model. 2009 2nd International Conference on Information and Computing Science, ICIC 2009, 3(1), 236–238. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIC.2009.265
  64. Ahmad, M. N., Maidin, N. A., Rahman, M. H. A., & Osman, M. H. (2017). Conceptual Design Selection of Manual Wheelchair for Elderly by Analytical Hierarchy Process ( AHP ) Method: A Case Study, 12(17), 6710–6719.