Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) Driven New Product Development Using Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)

  IJETT-book-cover  International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT)          
  
© 2019 by IJETT Journal
Volume-67 Issue-5
Year of Publication : 2019
Authors : Naveen Singh Parihar, Payal Bhargava
  10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V67I5P205

MLA 

MLA Style: Naveen Singh Parihar, Payal Bhargava "Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) Driven New Product Development Using Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)" International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology 67.5 (2019): 27-30.

APA Style: Naveen Singh Parihar, Payal Bhargava (2019). Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) Driven New Product Development Using Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, 67(5), 27-30.

Abstract
Today's product domain includes an incredible range of brands and models with a highly complex set of features. The project describes issues that support product discovery and selection in domains that include a variety of alternatives that include a complex set of features. Some online shopping sites use the Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) directly to provide product selection assistance. The MAUT approach is attractive because of its solid theoretical foundation, but there are several reasons why it is not appropriate for people's decision making

Reference
[1] James S. Dyer, and Peter C., 1992. “Multi Criteria Decision Making, Multi attribute Utility Theory”, “Management Science”, Vol. 38, No. 5, 1992.
[2] Ji-Hyung Park and Kwang-KyuSeo, 2005. “A knowledge-based Approximate Life Cycle Assessment system for Evaluating Environmental Impacts of Product Design Alternatives in a Collaborative Design Environment,” “Science Direct, Advance Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 147-154.
[3] Margoluis R., Stem C., Salafsky N. and Brown M. 2009. “Design Alternatives for evaluating the impact of conservation project, “Environmental program and Policy Evaluation: Addressing Methodological Challenges, New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 85-96.
[4] M.D. Bovea and B. Wang. Integration of Customer, Cost and Environmental Requirements in Product Design: An Application of GQFD.
[5] Nai-Jen Chang and Cher-Min Fong, 2010. “Green Product Quality, Green Corporate Image, Green Customer Satisfaction, and Green Customer Loyalty”, “African Journal of Business Management”, Vol. 4(13), pp. 2836-2844, 2010.
[6] Ola Isaksson, Sven Keski-Seppala and Steven D. Eppinger, 2000. “Evaluation of Design Process Alternatives using Single Flow Graphs”, “Journal of Engineering Design”, ISSN 1466-1387 online 2000, Taylor & Francis Ltd.
[7] Pramen P. Shrestha and Niranjan Mani, 2012. “Impact of Design Cost on Design Bid Build Project Performance”, “Construction Research Congress”, 2012.
[8] Ralph Schafer, “Rules for Using Multi-Attribute Utility Theory for Estimating a User’s Interests”, DFKI GmbH, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, 66123 Saarbrücken.
[9] S.R. Gangurde, 2011. “Ranking of Product Design Alternatives using Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods”, ICOQM- 10, June 2011.
[10] TettehAkyene, 2012. “Cell Phone Evaluation Base on Entropy and TOPSIS”, “International Journal of Research in Business”, ISSN: 2046-7141, Vol. 1, Issue. 12, pp. 09-15.
[11] Thomas L. Saaty, 2008. “Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, “International Journal of Services Sciences”, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2008.
[12] Theodore S Geiger and David M Dilts, 1996. “Automated Design –to-Cost: Integrating Costing into the Design Decision”, “Computer-Aided Design, Volume 28, No. 6/7, pp. 423-436, 1996.
[13] Tucker J. Marion, 2009, “A Framework for Balancing Efficiency and Effectiveness in Innovative Product Design”, “International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED. 24-27August 2009.
[14] The Eco-indicator 99, “A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment green procurement-policy”.
[15] www.xuru.org/rt/expR.asp
[16] Pi-hsuan Liu, “Three dimensional quality function deployment for environment with cost estimation for evaluating green design alternatives”.

Keywords
Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Multi Attribute Utility Theory