AN ABSTRACT
AN
ABSTRACT OF
OF THE
THE THESIS
THESIS OF
OF
Stefan Meier
Meier for
for the
the degree
degree of
of Master
Master of
of Science
Science in
in Mechanical
Mechanical Engineering
Enciineerinq presented
presented
Stefan
on September
on
September 09,
09, 2004.
2004.
Title: Quality
Title:
Quality Driven
Driven Collaborative
Collaborative Decision
Decision Making
Making for
for Product
Product Develoiment
Develoiment Under
Under the
the
Influence of
Influence
of Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness
Abstract
Abstract approved:
approved:
Redacted for Privacy
Ping Ge
Ping
Ge
The focus
The
focus of
of this
this study
study is
is the
the effective
effective prioritization
prioritization of
of customer
customerrequirements
requirementsinin
collaborative product
collaborative
product development.
development. The
The CR
CR priorities
priorities are
are often
often retrieved
retrieved by
by
questioning and
and interviewing
interviewing targeted
targeted customers.
customers. But
But the
the targeted
targeted customer
customer
questioning
might not
not always
always be
be easily
easily questioned,
questioned, because
because they
they might
might not
not always
always be
be
might
obvious or
or clearly
clearly known.
known. If
If customers
customers might
might be
be known,
known, they
they might
might not
not be
be able
able
obvious
to
to distinct
distinct the
the priorities
priorities for
for CR's,
CR's, because
because everything
everything is
is important
important to
to them.
them.
Moreover
Moreover concerns
concerns of
of the
the developer's
developer's organization
organization and
and the
the society
society might
might not
not get
get
the
the necessary
necessary attention
attention and
and itit might
might be
be asked
asked too
too much
much from
from the
the customer
customer to
to
trade
trade off
off all
all customer
customer requirements
requirements (CR's)
(CR's) by
by their
their own.
own. Because
Because the
the resources
resources
for an
an extensive
extensive customer
customer interviewing
interviewing might
might lack
lack anyway
anyway the
the stakeholders
stakeholders
for
might prioritize
might
prioritize the
the CR's
CR's on
on their
their own.
own.
Efforts
Efforts have
have already
already been
been undertaken
undertaken to
to support
support cross-functional
cross-functional stakeholder
stakeholder
groups
groups in
in finding
finding priorities
priorities of
of CR's.
CR's. Most
Most of
of the
the investigated
investigated methods
methods lacked
lacked the
the
ability to
ability
to distinct
distinct the
the importance
importance of
of CR's
CR's by
by a
a relative
relative amount
amount or
or were
were not
not able
able
to integrate
integrate the
the interdependency
interdependency of
of stakeholders
stakeholders in
in other
other ways
ways than
than a
a tiresome
tiresome
to
negotiation
negotiation
processes.
processes.
With
With
the
the
proposed
proposed
Urn-Scheme
Urn-Scheme
approach
approach
the
the
stakeholders register
stakeholders
register their
their own
own individual
individual priorities
priorities based
based on
on their
their perceptions
perceptions of
of
what the
what
the relative
relative priorities
priorities of
of the
the CR's
CR's might
might be.
be. Furthermore
Furthermore the
the method
method
supports the
supports
the stakeholders
stakeholders in
in considering
considering the
the opinions
opinions of
of all
alt other
other stakeholders.
stakeholders.
The
The extent
extent of
of taking
taking others
others and
and own
own opinion
opinion into
into account
account is
is based
based on
on quantified
quantified
social interdependencies,
interdependencies, i.e.
i.e. in
in this
this study
study measured
measured trust
trust and
and trustworthiness
trustworthiness
social
into
into the
the capability
capability of
of every
every voter
voter to
to understand
understand costumers'
costumers' perceived
perceived desired
desired
product quality.
quality. The
The summed
summed up
up trustworthiness
trustworthiness in
in prioritizing
prioritizing CR's
CR's of
of every
every
product
stakeholder is
is used
used in
in a
a further
further step
step to
to finally
finally transform
transform the
the individual
individual priorities
priorities
stakeholder
to
to relative
relative priorities
priorities of
of CR's
CR's from
from the
the whole
whole group.
group.
With
With the
the amplification
amplification of
of votes
votes from
from the
the stakeholders,
stakeholders, who
who are
are trusted
trusted to
to
prioritize
prioritize better
better than
than others,
others, an
an improvement
improvement of
of the
the decision
decision making
making process
process will
will
be achieved.
achieved. A
A careful
careful developed,
developed, easily
easily to
to understand
understand mathematical
mathematical framework
framework
be
builds
builds the
the fundament
fundament for
for manifold
manifold analysis
analysis of
of the
the obtained
obtained voting
voting results,
results, e.g.
e.g.
consensus
consensus analysis,
analysis, priority
priority significance
significance check.
check. Moreover
Moreover the
the framework
framework makes
makes
the
the proposed
proposed method
method transparent
transparent and
and the
the obtained
obtained results
results well
well documented
documented for
for
later reference.
reference.
later
©
Copyright by
by Stefan
Stefan Meier
Meier
© Copyright
September
September 09,
09, 2004
2004
All Rights
Rights Reserved
Reserved
All
Quality
Quality Driven
Driven Collaborative
Collaborative Decision
Decision Making
Making for
for Product
Product
Development
Development Under
Under the
the Influence
Influence of
of Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness
by
Stefan
Stefan Meler
Meier
A THESIS
A
THESIS
submitted
submitted to
to
Oregon State
Oregon
State University
University
in partial
partial fulfillment
fulfillment of
of
in
the
the requirements
requirements for
for the
the
degree
degree of
of
Master of
Master
of Science
Science
Presented
Presented September
September 09,
09, 2004
2004
Commencement June
Commencement
June 2005
2005
Master of
of Science
Science thesis
thesis of
of Stefan
Stefan Meier
Meier
Master
presented on
on September
September 09,
09, 2004.
2004.
presented
APPROVED:
APPROVED:
Redacted for Privacy
Major Professor
Professor representing
representing Mechanical
Mechanical Engineering
Engineering
Major
Redacted for Privacy
Head of
Head
of the
the Department
Department oo,-f4chanical
chanicalEngineering
Engineering
Redacted for Privacy
Dean
Deanof
ofthe
theGraduate
Grad uateh
understand that
that my
my thesis
thesis will
will become
become part
part of
of the
the permanent
permanent collection
collection of
of Oregon
Oregon
II understand
State University
University libraries.
libraries. My
My signature
signature below
below authorizes
authorizes release
release of
of my
State
my thesis
thesis to
to any
any
reader upon
reader
upon request.
request.
Redacted for Privacy
Stan
anMeier,
Meier, Author
Author
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The
The author
author expresses
expresses sincerest
sincerest appreciation
appreciation for
for the
the good
good and
and interesting
interesting work
work with
with Dr.
Dr.
Ping
Ping Ge
Ge and
and Dr.
Dr. Ping-Hung
Ping-Hung Hsieh.
Hsieh. Only
Only through
through the
the helpful
helpful and
and meaningful
meaningful discussions
discussions
with them
them this
this thesis
thesis have
have come
come to
to be
be true.
true.
with
The
The author
author gratefully
gratefully thanks
thanks Dr.
Dr. Ge
Ge for
for her
her understanding
understanding and
and commitment
commitment to
to this
this
work,
work, as
as well
well as
as the
the helpful
helpful input
input of
of her
her structured
structured thinking
thinking and
and giving
giving him
him the
the
opportunity to
to enhance
enhance his
his personal
personal skills.
skills.
opportunity
The
The author
author sincerely
sincerely thanks
thanks Dr.
Dr. Hsieh
Hsieh for
for his
his critical
critical and
and challenging
challenging questions
questions to
to
improve the
the research
research work
work and
and for
for his
his large
large contribution
contribution to
to the
the technical
technical part
part of
of this
this
improve
thesis.
thesis.
The
The author
author also
also thanks
thanks Dr.
Dr. Timothy
Timothy C.
C. Kennedy
Kennedy and
and Dr.
Dr. Michael
Michael H.
H. Freilich,
Freilich, who
who both
both
committed time
time and
and efforts
efforts to
to this
this thesis
thesis in
in the
the author's
author's committee.
committee.
committed
The
The author
author would
would like
like to
to express
express his
his thanks
thanks to
to Adele
Adele and
and Hans
Hans Neukomm,
Neukomm, who
who
supported
supported and
and helped
helped him
him to
to accommodate
accommodate in
in the
the states.
states. He
He also
also thanks
thanks Chris
Chris Bell
Bell for
for
his mental
mental and
and advisory
advisory support
support during
during the
the author's
author's time
time at
at OSU.
OSU.
his
The
The author
author also
also thanks
thanks his
his parents,
parents, Trudi
Trudi and
and Peter
Peter Meier,
Meier, who
who with
with their
their unconditional
unconditional
support
support and
and great
great love
love assured
assured him
him in
in his
his actions
actions and
and supported
supported him,
him, so
so that
that the
the study
study
abroad was
was possible
possible for
for him.
him.
abroad
The author
The
author also
also thanks
thanks his
his two
two roommates,
roommates, Caroline
Caroline Chopard
Chopard and
and Christoph
Christoph Pluess,
Pluess,
who helped
who
helped him
him to
to overcome
overcome the
the stressful
stressful moments
moments of
of his
his study.
study.
After
After all
all the
the author
author likes
likes to
to express
express his
his dearest
dearest thanks
thanks to
to Dorothee
Dorothee Marti
Marti for
for her
her
support, tolerance
tolerance and
and love
love during
during the
the time
time of
of the
the extended
extended studies
studies far
far away.
away.
support,
Thank you
you all
all very
very much,
much, this
this thesis
thesis is
is also
also your
your working
working
Thank
TABLE OF
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
Introduction......................................................................................................
Introduction...................................................................................................... 1
1
Background
Background Review
Review ............................................................................................
............................................................................................ 7
7
2
2
2.1
2.1
Quality
Quality Related
Related Background
Background .........................................................................
......................................................................... 7
7
2.1.1
2.1.1 Definition
Definition of
of Quality
Quality .................................................................................
................................................................................. 7
7
2.1.2
2.1.2 Customer
Customer Requirements
Requirements Versus
Versus Engineering
Engineering Requirements
Requirements.........................
.........................88
2.1.3
2.1.3 Prioritization
Prioritization of
of CR's
CR's ...............................................................................
10
...............................................................................10
2.2
2.2
Preferential
Preferential Voting
Voting .....................................................................................
11
..................................................................................... 11
2.2.1
2.2.1 Existing
Existing Approaches
Approaches in
in Preferential
Preferential Voting
Voting ...............................................
12
............................................... 12
2.2.2 Pairwise
2.2.2
Pairwise Comparison
Comparison Rules
Rules .....................................................................
14
.....................................................................14
2.2.2.1 Majority
2.2.2.1
Majority Voting
Voting Rule
Rule ........................................................................
14
........................................................................ 14
2.2.2.2
2.2.2.2 Condorcet
Condorcet Winner
Winner Rule
Rule ....................................................................
14
....................................................................14
2.2.3
Rating Scale
Scaleand
2.2.3 Rating
and Mean
Mean ...........................................................................
15
...........................................................................15
2.2.4 Multiple
2.2.4
Multiple Comparison
Comparison Rules
Rules ......................................................................
17
......................................................................17
2.2.4.1
2.2.4.1 Plurality
Plurality Voting
Voting ................................................................................
17
................................................................................ 17
2.2.4.2 Rank
Rank Scoring
Scoring Rule
Rule ...........................................................................
2.2.4.2
17
...........................................................................17
2.2.4.3
2.2.4.3 Rating
Rating Scale
Scale and
and Building
Building Mean
Mean ........................................................
18
........................................................18
2.2.4.4 Multivoting
2.2.4.4
Multivoting Rule
Rule ..............................................................................
19
.............................................................................. 19
2.2.5 Interdependent
Interdependent Voters
Voters ...........................................................................
2.2.5
22
...........................................................................22
2.3
2.3
Human
Human Social
Social Dynamics
Dynamics (HSD)
(HSD) ...................................................................
23
...................................................................23
2.3.1
2.3.1 Social
Social Network
Network and
and Trust
Trust Network
Network ..........................................................
23
..........................................................23
2.3.2
2.3.2 Trust
Trust as
as Key
Key Factor
Factor in
in HSD
HSD Environments
Environments ................................................
24
................................................ 24
2.3.2.1
2.3.2.1 Definition
Definition of
of Trust
Trust ...........................................................................
24
...........................................................................24
2.3.2.2
2.3.2.2 Requisites
Requisites for
for Trust
Trust .........................................................................
26
.........................................................................26
2.4
2.4
Trust Measurement
Trust
Measurement ...................................................................................
27
................................................................................... 27
2.4.1 A
A Model
Model of
of Trust
Trust Measurement
Measurement ...............................................................
2.4.1
27
...............................................................27
2.4.2 Instrument
2.4.2
Instrument of
of Measuring
Measuring Trust
Trust and
and Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness.................................
28
................................. 28
3
3
Methodology Overview
Methodology
Overview .....................................................................................
30
..................................................................................... 30
3.1
3.1
Objective and
Objective
and Requirements
Requirements for
for the
the Method
Method ...............................................
............................................... 30
30
TABLE OF
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS (Continued)
(Continued)
3.2
3.2
Technical and
Technical
and Social
Social Connectedness
Connectedness in
in Product
Product Development
Development .......................
30
....................... 30
3.3
3.3
Approach: Prioritizing
Prioritizing Customer
Customer Requirements
Requirements (CR)
(CR) with
with Consideration
Consideration of
of
Approach:
Stakeholder Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness ................................................................................
Stakeholder
31
................................................................................ 31
3.4
3.4
Urn
Urn Scheme
Scheme as
as Carrier
Carrier of
of the
the Process
Process .........................................................
37
......................................................... 37
Method
Method ............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
4
4
4.1
4.1
Numerical Framework
Framework of
of Urn-Scheme
Urn-Scheme .........................................................
Numerical
39
......................................................... 39
4.1.1
4.1.1 Registration
Registration of
of Individual
Individual Priorities
Priorities ..........................................................
40
.......................................................... 40
4.1.2 Updating
Updating Individual
Individual Priorities
Priorities ..................................................................
4.1.2
40
.................................................................. 40
4.1.3 Unifying
4.1.3
UnifyingIndividual
Individual Priorities
Priorities of
of CR's
CR's ........................................................
41
........................................................ 41
4.1.4
4.1.4 Relative
Relative Importance
Importance of
of k-th
k-th CR
CR ...............................................................
41
............................................................... 41
4.2
4.2
Trust Measurement
Measurement ...................................................................................
Trust
42
................................................................................... 42
4.2.1
4.2.1 Trust
Trust Used
Used to
to Prioritize
Prioritize CR's
CR's ....................................................................
42
.................................................................... 42
4.2.2
4.2.2 Adjusted
Adjusted Trust
Trust Model
Model .............................................................................
44
............................................................................. 44
4.2.3 Measurement
4.2.3
Measurement Instrument
Instrument for
for Trust
Trust .........................................................
47
......................................................... 47
4.2.3.1 Taxonomy
Taxonomy of
of Survey
Survey Questions
Questions ........................................................
4.2.3.1
48
........................................................ 48
4.2.3.2 Final
Final Composition
Composition of
of Survey
Survey .............................................................
4.2.3.2
50
............................................................. 50
4.2.4 Trust
Trust Value
Value Based
Based on
on Likert
Likert Score
Score ...........................................................
4.2.4
53
........................................................... 53
4.3
4.3
Weights
Weights for
for the
the Updating
Updating Urn-Scheme
Urn-Scheme ........................................................
54
........................................................ 54
4.3.1 Weights
Weights for
for Updating
Updating the
the Individual
IndividualPriorities
Priorities(Oh)
(Oij) ...................................
4.3.1
56
................................... 56
4.3.2 Weights
4.3.2
Weights for
for Unifying
Unifying the
the Updated
Updated Individual
Individual Priorities
Priorities (wi)
(wi) .......................
56
....................... 56
5
5
Possible Scenarios
Scenarios and
and Discussion
Discussion .....................................................................
Possible
58
..................................................................... 58
5.1
5.1
Results Interpretation
Results
Interpretation ................................................................................
................................................................................ 58
58
5.1.1
5.1.1 CASE
CASE 1:
1: Clear
Clear Distinction
Distinction ........................................................................
........................................................................ 58
58
5.1.2 CASE
5.1.2
CASE 2:
2: Clustery
Clustery Distinction
Distinction ...................................................................
................................................................... 59
59
5.2
5.2
Relative Importance
Importance Scale
Scale..........................................................................
Relative
.......................................................................... 60
60
5.2.1
5.2.1 Significance
Significance of
of the
the Relative
Relative Importance
Importance ...................................................
................................................... 61
61
5.3
5.3
Hypothetical Case
Hypothetical
Case Study
Study ............................................................................
62
............................................................................ 62
iv
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
5.3.1 Setting
Setting
5.3.1
.62
.62
5.3.2 Pool
Pool of
5.3.2
of CR's
CR's ...........................................................................................
62
........................................................................................... 62
5.3.3 Initial
Initial Prioritization
Prioritization .................................................................................
5.3.3
63
................................................................................. 63
5.3.4 Social
Social Network
Network Determined
Determined by
by TW-Measurement
TW-Measurement .....................................
5.3.4
64
..................................... 64
5.3.5 Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness of
of Stakeholders
Stakeholders .............................................................
5.3.5
65
............................................................. 65
5.3.6 Outputs
Outputs of
of the
the Urn-Scheme
Urn-Scheme ....................................................................
.................................................................... 66
5.3.6
66
5.3.6.1 Individual
5.3.6.1
Individual Priorities
Priorities ..........................................................................
66
.......................................................................... 66
5.3.6.2 Relative
Relative Importance
Importance After
After Using
Using the
the Method
Method .....................................
..................................... 67
5.3.6.2
67
5.3.6.3 Relative
Relative Importance
Importance Scale
Scale ................................................................
................................................................ 68
5.3.6.3
68
5.3.6.4 Significance
Significance Check
Check ...........................................................................
........................................................................... 69
5.3.6.4
69
5.3.7 Danger
....................................................................... 69
5.3.7
Danger of
of Selective
Selective Trust
Trust .......................................................................
69
5.4
5.4
Further Analysis
Analysis Capability
Capability .........................................................................
......................................................................... 71
Further
71
5.4.1
5.4.1 Degree
............................................... 71
DegreeofofConsensus
Consensus and
and Gamesmanship
Gamesmanship ...............................................
71
5.4.2 Biases
Biases ...................................................................................................
5.4.2
73
................................................................................................... 73
5.4.2.1 Power
Power .............................................................................................
............................................................................................. 73
5.4.2.1
73
5.4.2.2 Bias
Bias from
from the
the Integration
Integration of
of the
the Trust
Trust in
in Prioritizing
Prioritizing ..........................
5.4.2.2
.......................... 74
74
................................................................................ 75
5.4.2.3 Combined
Combined Bias
Bias ................................................................................
5.4.2.3
75
5.5
5.5
Verification and
and Validation
Validation ..........................................................................
Verification
.......................................................................... 75
75
5.5.1
Validationprocess
processof
ofthe
the Proposed
Proposed Prioritization
Prioritization Method
Method ..........................
5.5.1 Validation
.......................... 78
78
5.5.1.1 Setting
Setting of
of the
the Pilot
Pilot Tests
Tests ..................................................................
5.5.1.1
79
.................................................................. 79
5.5.1.2 Assumptions
Assumptions of
of the
the Prioritization
Prioritization Method
Method and
and Experiment
Experiment Specifications
Specifications
5.5.1.2
............................................................................................. 80
80
.............................................................................................
5.5.1.3 Measures
Measures in
in the
the Pilot
Pilot Tests
Tests ..............................................................
5.5.1.3
.............................................................. 83
83
5.5.1.4 Choice
Choice of
of Subjects
Subjects for
for the
the Pilot
Pilot Tests
Tests ................................................
5.5.1.4
................................................ 83
83
5.5.1.5 Setting
Setting of
of the
the Field
Field Tests
Tests .................................................................
5.5.1.5
................................................................. 83
83
5.5.1.6 Assumptions
Assumptions of
of the
the Method
Method to
to be
be Validated
Validated by
by the
the Field
Field Tests
Tests ...........
5.5.1.6
........... 85
85
5.5.1.7 Measures
Measures in
in the
the Field
Field Tests
Tests ..............................................................
5.5.1.7
.............................................................. 85
85
V
TABLE
TABLE OF
OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS (Continued)
(Continued)
5.5.1.8
5.5.1.8 Choice
Choice of
of Subjects
Subjects for
for the
the Field
Field Test
Test .................................................
85
................................................. 85
5.5.2
5.5.2 Validation
Validation Process
Process for
for the
the TW-Measurement
TW-Measurement ............................................
85
............................................ 85
5.5.2.1 Three
5.5.2.1
Three Part
Part Validation
Validation Process
Process ...........................................................
........................................................... 86
86
5.5.2.2
Setting of
of the
the Pilot
Pilot Tests
Tests for
for the
the TW-Measurement
TW-Measurement ............................
5.5.2.2 Sethng
88
............................ 88
5.5.2.3 Qualitative
5.5.2.3
Qualitative Survey
Survey About
About TW-Items
TW-Items ..................................................
89
.................................................. 89
5.5.2.4 Validation
5.5.2.4
Validation of
of Taxonomy
Taxonomy of
of TW-Measurement
TW-Measurement ....................................
90
.................................... 90
5.5.2.5
5.5.2.5 Measures
Measures for
for the
the Pilot
Pilot Tests
Tests .............................................................
91
............................................................. 91
5.5.2.6
5.5.2.6 Field
Field Tests
Tests of
of the
the TW-Measurenient
TW-Measurement .................................................
93
................................................. 93
6
6
Conclusion and
and Future
Future Work
Work .............................................................................
Conclusion
94
............................................................................. 94
6.1
6.1
Concluding Remarks
Concluding
Remarks on
on Proposed
Proposed Prioritization
Prioritization Method
Method ...............................
94
............................... 94
6.2
6.2
Thoughts
Thoughts on
on Further
Further Research
Research Efforts
Efforts ........................................................
95
........................................................95
6.2.1 Extension
Extension of
of the
the Urn-Scheme
Urn-Scheme Method
Method ......................................................
6.2.1
...................................................... 95
95
6.2.1.1 Power
Power Issues
Issues ..................................................................................
6.2.1.1
95
.................................................................................. 95
6.2.1.2 Degree
Degree of
of Consensus
Consensus .......................................................................
6.2.1.2
96
....................................................................... 96
6.2.1.3 Voting
6.2.1.3
Voting Group
Group Reconstruction
Reconstruction ............................................................
96
............................................................ 96
6.2.2 Weighting
Weighting Methods
Methods ................................................................................
6.2.2
................................................................................ 96
96
6.2.2.1 Trust-Model
6.2.2.1
Trust-Model and
and TW-Measurement
TW-Measurement Improvement
Improvement..............................
96
.............................. 96
6.2.2.2
6.2.2.2 Other
Other Social
Social Factors
Factors ........................................................................
........................................................................ 97
97
6.2.3 Different
6.2.3
Different Design
Design Stage
Stage ...........................................................................
97
........................................................................... 97
6.2.4 Fit
6.2.4
Fit Into
Into Real
Real World
World Design
Design Applications
Applications ...................................................
97
................................................... 97
77
Contribution to
Contribution
to Knowledge
Knowledge and
and Design
Design Practice
Practice .................................................
99
................................................. 99
References
References ...........................................................................................................
........................................................................................................... 101
101
LIST
LIST OF
OF FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure
Ficiure
1.1
1.1 Concerns
Concerns from
from Different
Different Customers
Customers Embody
Embody Product
Product Quality
Quality ................................
................................ 22
1.2
1.2 Major
Major Aspects
Aspects Contributing
Contributing to
to Product
Product Quality
Quality and
and Costumer
Costumer Satisfaction
Satisfaction ..............
.............. 33
2.1
2.1 Overview
Overview of
of Different
Different Voting
Voting Rules
Rules ....................................................................
13
.................................................................... 13
2.2 Model
2.2
Model of
of Trust
Trust [Mayer
[Mayer 1995]
1995] ............................................................................
27
............................................................................ 27
3.1 Technical
3.1
Technical and
and Social
Social Connectedness
Connectedness in
in Concurrent
Concurrent Product
Product Development
Development ............
............ 31
31
3.2 Determination
Determination of
of Relative
Relative Importance
Importance of
of CR's
CR's After
After Defining
Defining a
a CR's
CR's Pool
Pool and
and Before
Before
3.2
Relating CR's
Relating
CR's to
to an
an Engineering
Engineering Strategy
Strategy..........................................................
34
.......................................................... 34
3.3 Urns
3.3
Urns are
are Used
Used to
to Register
Register the
the Stakeholder's
Stakeholder's Voting
Voting ............................................
38
............................................ 38
4.1
4.1 Prioritization
Prioritization Using
Using an
an Updating
Updating Urn-Scheme
Urn-Scheme .....................................................
39
..................................................... 39
4.2 Effect-Chain
Effect-Chain connecting
connecting Trust
Trust with
with finding
finding relative
relative Importance
Importance of
of CR's
CR's ................
4.2
43
................ 43
4.3
4.3 Adjusted
Adjusted Trust
Trust Model
Model .......................................................................................
....................................................................................... 45
45
4.4 Taxonomy
Taxonomy of
of Survey
Survey Questions
Questions .........................................................................
4.4
49
......................................................................... 49
4.5
4.5 Trust-Network
Trust-Network Among
Among Stakeholders
Stakeholders ..................................................................
.................................................................. 55
55
5.1
5.1 The
The Run
Run of
of the
the Prioritization
Prioritization Method
Method Shows
Shows a
a Clear
Clear Distinction
Distinction Between
Between CR's
CR's ......
...... 58
58
5.2
The Pareto
Pareto Chart
Chart Reveals
Reveals aa Clustery
Clustery Importance
Importance Hierarchy
Hierarchy.................................
5.2 The
59
................................. 59
5.3 The
The Relative
Relative Importance
Importance Scale
Scale ..........................................................................
5.3
60
.......................................................................... 60
5.4
5.4 Hypothetical
Hypothetical Distribution
Distribution of
of Individual
Individual Priorities
Priorities in
in the
the Urns
Urns ................................
63
................................ 63
5.5
5.5 Trustworthy
Trustworthy Network
Network with
with Out-/Incoming
Out-/Incoming Tie
Tie Strengths
Strengths Attached
Attached .......................
64
....................... 64
5.6 The
5.6
The Pareto
Pareto Chart
Chart of
of the
the Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness of
of Each
Each Stakeholder
Stakeholder Reveals
Reveals Differences
Differences
AmongStakeholders .......................................................................................
....................................................................................... 65
65
AmongStakeholders
5.7 Pareto
5.7
Pareto Chart
Chart of
of Individual
Individual Priorities
Priorities ...................................................................
66
................................................................... 66
5.8 The
5.8
The Box
Box Plot
Plot Shows
Shows the
the Median
Median and
and Distribution
Distribution of
of the
the Individual
Individual Prioritization
Prioritization ...
... 67
67
5.9. Individual,
5.9.
Individual, Updated
Updated Individual
Individual and
and Unified
Unified Individual
Individual Relative
Relative Priorities
Priorities ..............
.............. 67
67
5.10 Relative
5.10
Relative Importance
Importance Scale
Scale ..............................................................................
.............................................................................. 68
68
5.11
5.11 Pareto
Pareto Chart
Chart with
with Relative
Relative Importance
Importance of
of CR's
CR's with
with and
and without
without Selective
Selective Trust.
Trust. 70
70
5.12 Relative
5.12
Relative Importance
Importance Scale
Scale with
with Selective
Selective Trust
Trust and
and without
without ..............................
71
.............................. 71
LIST
LIST OF
OF FIGURES
FIGURES (Continued)
(Continued)
5.13 Analysis
5.13
Analysis of
of Individual
IndividualPrioritization
PrioritizationofofCR
CR3
3 and
andCR
CR7
7 ........................................
........................................ 73
73
5.14
5.14 The
The Taxonomy
Taxonomy Model
Model of
of the
the TW-Measurement
TW-Measurement ................................................
................................................ 87
87
vi"
VIII
LIST OF
LIST
OF TABLES
TABLES
Table
Table
Page
Page
4.1. Composition
4.1.
Composition of
of the
the Survey
Survey Questions
Questions for
for Trust
Trust Measurement
Measurement in
in prioritizing
prioritizing
Customer Requirements
Requirements ..................................................................................
Customer
.................................................................................. 50
50
4.1 (Continued)
(Continued) .....................................................................................................
4.1
..................................................................................................... 51
51
4.1 (Continued)
4.1
(Continued) .....................................................................................................
..................................................................................................... 52
52
5.1 Significance
Significance Check
Check of
of Discrepancies
Discrepancies Among
Among any
any two
two Relative
Relative Importance
Importance Indexes
Indexes of
of
5.1
CR's
CR's
............................................................................................................... 61
...............................................................................................................
61
5.1 (Continued)
(Continued) .....................................................................................................
5.1
..................................................................................................... 62
62
5.2 Pool
5.2
Pool of
of CR's
CR's .....................................................................................................
..................................................................................................... 63
63
5.3 Significance
Significance of
of Difference
Difference in
in Prioritization
Prioritization ..........................................................
5.3
.......................................................... 69
69
5.4
5.4 Validation
Validation Process
Process ............................................................................................
............................................................................................ 76
76
5.4 (Continued)
5.4
(Continued) .....................................................................................................
..................................................................................................... 77
77
5.4 (Continued)
(Continued) .....................................................................................................
5.4
..................................................................................................... 78
78
ix
Ix
II dedicate
dedicate this
this work
work to
to my
my parents,
parents,
Trudi and
and Peter
Peter Meier,
Meier,
Trudi
who II hold
who
hold in
in many
many ways
ways as
as good
good examples
examples for
for my
my life.
life.
QUALITY
QUALITY DRIVEN
DRIVEN COLLABORATIVE
COLLABORATIVE DECISION
DECISION MAKING
MAKING FOR
FOR
PRODUCT
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT UNDER
UNDER THE
THE INFLUENCE
INFLUENCE OF
OF
TRUSTWORTHINESS
TRUSTWORTHINESS
1 INTRODUCTION
1
INTRODUCTION
High
High quality
quality in
in general
general has
has not
not only
only been
been the
the goal
goal to
to increase
increase economic
economic profit,
profit,
but to
but
to enrich
enrich the
the quality
quality of
of human
human life
life in
in the
the long
long run.
run. But
But what
what is
is to
to be
be
understood as
understood
as Product
Product Quality?
Quality? Based
Based on
on a
a survey
survey published
published in
in Time
Time (Nov.
(Nov. 13,
13,
1989),
1989), product
product quality
quality is
is perceived
perceived by
by the
the consumer
consumer through
through its
its associated
associated
performance
performance attributes
attributes in
in Reliability,
Reliability, Maintainability,
Mainta/nabil/ty, Durability,
Durability, Looks,
Looks, Desiqn,
Des,qn,
the use
use of
of latest
latest Technology
the
the
Technologyand
andthe
thenumber
numberof
ofFeatures.
Features. Although
Although the
consumer
consumer might
might be
be the
the most
most important
important customer
customer group,
group, they
they are
are not
not the
the only
only
one
one to
to be
be satisfied.
satisfied. There
There are
are further
further external
external and
and internal
internal customers',
customers', which
which
have
have also
also concerns.
concerns. If
If these
these further
further customer
customer categories
categories are
are considered
considered as
as well,
well,
the
understanding of
of product
product quality
quality should
should be
be extended
extended accordingly.
accordingly.We
Wemay
may
the understanding
therefore
interpret product
product quality
quality as
as embodiment
embodiment of
of concerns
concernsfrom
fromconsumers,
consumers,
therefore interpret
the
the developer's
developer's organization
organization and
and of
of the
the society
society (Fig.
(Fig. 1.1).
1.1).
It is
It
is a
a product
product developer's
developer's aim
aim to
to address
address these
these concerns
concerns through
through collecting
collecting and
and
analyzing
analyzing customer
customer data
data and
and formulating
formulating the
the costumer
costumer requirements
requirements by
by
incorporating
incorporating consumer,
consumer, organizational
organizational and
and societal
societal concerns
concerns (Fig.
(Fig. 1.2).
1.2). The
The
stakeholders
stakeholders will
will have
have to
to perceive
perceive what
what is
is important
important to
to all
all costumers,
costumers, in
in order
order to
to
prioritize CR's.
prioritize
CR's.
1lnternal customers
1lnternal
customers might
might be
be e.g.
e.g. stakeholders,
stakeholders, marketers
marketers and
and organization
organization strategist,
strategist,
manufacturer, assembly
assembly and
and shipping
shipping personnel
personnel and
and service
service personnel,
personnel, whereas
whereas further
further external
external
manufacturer,
customers
customers might
might be
be e.g.
e.g. suppliers,
suppliers, standards
standards organizations,
organizations, environmental
environmental organizations,
organizations,
insurance and
insurance
and health
health organizations
organizations and
and the
the society
society in
in general
general[UlIm.
[UlIm.2003].
2003].
2
Reliability
Duri'\
Maintainabi\ Consumer
Concerns
Economic Benefit
Looks, design
Organizational
Latest Technology,J/
nce ms
Number of feature,/
Environmentally benign Product
Life Quality improvemeni'\
Saving Scarce World Resource
Manufacturabil ity
Concerns
Product Strategy
Corporate image
Assembly Concerns
Societal
Concerns
Shipping Concerns
Service Concerns
Legal StandardsI
Insurance_Concerns/7
Health Concern
Product quality
Figure 1.1 Concerns from Different Customers Embody Product Quality
The stakeholders generate individual priority lists based on their individual
understanding of customer's concerns. There will therefore exist several
different opinions what is most important to the customer. In a common
process the different opinions are unified by a wearisome negotiation process
including all stakeholders. Instead of this troublesome negotiation process, we
introduce a unifying procedure based on trust in prioritizing as a social factor
among the stakeholders to facilitate the group decision making to a unified CR
priority list (Fig. 1.2). The unified relative CR priorities are used to develop
engineering strategies and solutions to yield a real product that satisfies the
customers' needs through usage. Every step shown in Figure 1.2 may affect the
quality of the final product from early on.
The challenge that a product developer faces at the early design stage is what
attributes the product has to have in the form of Customer Requirements (CR's)
without neglecting a customer category. Given practical constraints, such as
budget, personnel and time, not all customer requirements may be equally
treated and/or fully satisfied. A trade-off among the CR's is needed to achieve
high product quality and yet remain within the given constraints. In order to
make a trade-off between CR's, their relative importance for the product quality
4
4
from customer
from
customer interactions
interactions but
but he
he also
also points
points out
out the
the necessity
necessity to
to let
let these
these
inquiries be
inquiries
be performed
performed by
by professional
professional market
market research
research firms
firms in
in order
order to
to get
get
reliable
reliable data.
data. In
In our
our point
point of
of view
view the
the uncertainty
uncertainty using
using only
only customer
customer data
data for
for
the negotiation
the
negotiation process
process might
might not
not only
only stem
stem from
from the
the data
data collection
collectionmethod,
method,
but from
but
from the
the difficulty
difficulty to
to choose
choose the
the correct
correct targeted
targeted or
or average
average customer
customer and
and
even
even more
more from
from the
the customer's
customer's indecisiveness
indecisiveness of
of how
how important
important a
a product
product
attribute is
attribute
is for
for him/her
him/her [Lai
[Lai 1998]
1998] relative
relative to
to others.
others. Moreover
Moreover lack
lack of
of resources
resources
might
might limit
limit the
the investigation
investigation of
of data
data from
from the
the customers
customers about
about the
the importance
importance
of
of specified
specified CR.
CR. In
In reality,
reality, the
the group
group of
of stakeholders
stakeholders has
has to
to negotiate
negotiate the
the final
final
relative
relative importance
importance themselves.
themselves. Their
Their judgment
judgment will
will be
be based
based on
on
their
their
understanding or
understanding
or perception
perception of
of the
the targeted
targeted market
market and
and their
their interpretation
interpretation of
of
the customer
the
customer data
data to
to weight
weight the
the requirements
requirements of
of all
all customers
customers appropriately.
appropriately.
The
The stakeholders
stakeholders may
may have
have different
different understanding
understanding and
and interpretation
interpretation of
of the
the
customer data,
customer
data, which
which leads
leads to
to different
different prioritization
prioritization of
of CR's
CR's (see
(see Fig.
Fig. 1.2).
1.2). It
It is
is
important that
important
that a
a method
method is
is available
available to
to unify
unify the
the prioritization
prioritization results
results of
of CR's
CR's
perceived by
perceived
by individual
individual stakeholders,
stakeholders, so
so that
that a
a group
group decision
decision can
can be
be reached.
reached.
Several
Several existing
existing approaches
approaches have
have been
been found
found in
in the
the literature
literature facilitating
facilitating group
group
decision-making.
decision-making. In
In a
a collaborative
collaborative decision
decision making
making environment,
environment, a
a simple
simple way
way
is majority
is
majority voting
voting if
if only
only two
two items
items have
have to
to be
be compared.
compared. If
If there
there are
are more
more than
than
two alternatives
two
alternatives to
to vote
vote for,
for, plurality
plurality voting
voting is
is used
used in
in the
the sense
sense of
of majority
majority
voting. Majority
Majority rules
rules might
might have
have the
the limitation,
limitation, that
that aa poor
poor alternative
alternative might
might
voting.
win
win [Moul.
[Moul. 1988],
1988], although
although itit would
would loose
loose in
in pairwise
pairwise comparisons
comparisons with
with every
every
other alternative.
other
alternative. The
The Borda
Borda count
count and
and Condorcet
Condorcet Winner
Winner [Moul.
[Moul. 1988]
1988] method
method
emerged early
emerged
early on
on as
as technique
technique to
to rank
rank different
different alternatives;
alternatives; both
both eliminate
eliminate
partly
partly the
the shortcomings
shortcomings of
of plurality
plurality voting.
voting. The
The Analytical
Analytical Hierarchy
Hierarchy Process
Process
(AHP) [Saaty
(AHP)
[Saaty 1982],
1982], uses
uses a
a thorough
thorough pairwise
pairwise comparison
comparison based
based on
on a
a scale
scale
value, i.e.
value,
i.e. this
is
this item
item is
six
six time
time more
more important
important than
than this
this one.
one. Pairwise
Pairwise
comparison methods
comparison
methods tend
tend to
to be
be very
very time
time consuming
consuming because
because all
all permutations
permutations
of
of items
items have
have to
to be
be examined.
examined. Less
Less time
time consuming
consuming are
are approaches
approaches using
using
multiple
multiple voting
voting rules
rules [Froyd].
[Froyd]. Multiple
Multiple voting
voting rules
rules use
use different
different mechanisms
mechanisms to
to
5
5
select
select the
the preferred
preferred winner.
winner. The
The rules
rules might
might be
be based
based on
on an
an assigned
assigned scale
scale
value and
value
and by
by building
building of
of the
the mean
mean over
over all
all voters
voters or
or on
on a
a score
score related
related to
to the
the
achieved
achieved rank
rank and
and then
then summed
summed up
up over
over all
all stakeholders.
stakeholders. In
In the
the multivoting
multivoting
approache
approache each
each stakeholder
stakeholder gets
gets a
a fixed
fixed amount
amount of
of votes,
votes, which
which he/she
he/she might
might
distribute among
distribute
among the
the items
items to
to prioritize.
prioritize. Nominal
Nominal group
group techniques
techniques (NGT)
(NGT) are
are
applying multiple
multiple comparison
comparison rules.
rules. These
These techniques
techniques provide
provide a
a step-by-step
step-by-step
applying
structure from
structure
from the
the generation
generation of
of aa CR
CR pool
pool up
up to
to prioritization
prioritizationof
ofCR's.
CR's.
For almost
For
almost all
all the
the prioritization
prioritization methods
methods found
found in
in the
the literature
literature the
the stakeholders
stakeholders
have
have the
the same
same influence
influence on
on the
the outcome.
outcome. In
In our
our point
point of
of view
view this
this is
is a
a
limitation, because
limitation,
because differences
differences among
among stakeholders
stakeholders exist
exist in
in many
many perspectives
perspectives
and
and should
should be
be considered
considered when
when prioritizing
prioritizing CR's.
CR's. The
The uncertainty
uncertainty of
of perceiving
perceiving
what CR's
CR's are
are more
more important
important and
and the
the nature
nature of
of negotiation
negotiation carry
carry the
the problem
problem
what
from
from exact
exact engineering
engineering into
into the
the playground
playground of
of social,
social, psychological,
psychological, and
and
cognitive effects.
effects. The
The task
task of
of prioritizing
prioritizing CR's
CR's asks
asks for
for knowledge
knowledge about
about the
the
cognitive
requirements of
of external
external and
and internal
internal customers,
customers, as
as well
well as
as specific
specific knowledge
knowledge
requirements
about
about the
the product
product itself.
itself. The
The stakeholders
stakeholders have
have to
to be
be committed
committed to
to the
the product
product
quality, be
be interested
interested in
in the
the success
success of
of the
the product
product and
and ought
ought not
not pursue
pursue
quality,
egoistic motives.
egoistic
motives. Otherwise
Otherwise the
the prioritization
prioritization might
might be
be manipulated
manipulated or
or not
not
handled with
with the
the necessary
necessary respect.
respect. The
The collaborative
collaborative decision
decision making
making process
process
handled
therefore
therefore ought
ought to
to account
account for
for difference
difference in
in experience,
experience, expertise,
expertise, interests,
interests,
commitment,
commitment, motivations,
motivations, objectives
objectives and
and power.
power. These
These factors
factors are
are all
all part
part of
of
the
the social
social sphere
sphere the
the stakeholders
stakeholders emit.
emit. People
People are
are naturally
naturally paying
paying attention
attention to
to
such
such differences
differences in
in the
the way
way e.g.
e.g. they
they interact,
interact, listen
listen to
to advice
advice or
or rely
rely on
on each
each
other.
other. Therefore
Therefore itit isis suggested
suggested that
that in
in order
order to
to make
make effective
effective collaborative
collaborative
decisions
decisions the
the differences
differences among
among stakeholders
stakeholders have
have to
to be
be considered
considered and
and social
social
effects to
to be
be accounted
accounted for
for in
in a
a CR's
CR's prioritizing
prioritizing method.
method. In
In one
one of
of the
the paper
paper
effects
preceding this
preceding
this thesis
thesis [Meier
[Meier 2004],
2004], trust
trust has
has already
already been
been introduced
introduced as
as a
a key
key
social factor
social
factor in
in group
group decision
decision making.
making. Trust
Trust is
is well
well suited
suited for
for the
the purpose
purpose
"differentiating stakeholders"
stakeholders" as
as itit spans
spans over
over different
different levels
levels of
of stakeholder's
stakeholder's
"differentiating
personality,
personality,
i.e.
i.e.
expertise,
expertise,
integrity and
integrity
and
benevolence.
benevolence.
In the
In
the proposed
proposed
trustworthiness (TW-)
trustworthiness
(TW-) measurement
measurement method
method the
the difference
difference in
in capability
capability among
among
stakeholders
stakeholders to
to understand
understand the
the customers'
customers' perceived
perceived desired
desired product
product quality
quality is
is
quantified and
quantified
and serves
serves as
as a
a basis
basis for
for combining
combining each
each stakeholder's
stakeholder's individual
individual
prioritization.
prioritization.
In
In this
this thesis
thesis a
a complete
complete method
method with
with mathematical
mathematical framework
framework is
is presented
presented in
in
order to
order
to find
find relative
relative importance
importance of
of CR's.
CR's. Hereby
Hereby an
an Urn-Scheme
Urn-Scheme is
is used
used to
to
record
record the
the transformation
transformation of
of individual
individual priorities
priorities to
to updated
updated priorities,
priorities, moreover
moreover
to a
to
a group
group unified
unified set
set of
of priorities.
priorities. The
The integration
integration of
of organizational
organizational and
and societal
societal
factors,
factors, particularly
particularly trust
trust and
and trustworthiness
trustworthiness has
has been
been attempted.
attempted.
7
7
2
2 BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND REVIEW
REVIEW
2.1 Quality
2.1
Quality related
related Background
Background
The
The focus
focus of
of this
this study
study is
is to
to increase
increase the
the product
product quality
quality through
through a
a better
better
integration of
integration
of what
what is
is important
important to
to the
the costumers.
costumers. It
It is
is therefore
therefore necessary
necessary to
to
understand what
understand
what product
product quality
quality in
in the
the eyes
eyes of
of the
the costumer
costumer stand
stand for.
for. The
The
following section
following
section will
will further
further examine
examine the
the terminology
terminology and
and deeper
deeper meaning
meaning of
of
product
product quality.
quality.
DEFINITION
DEFINITION OF
OF QUALITY
QUALITY
2.1.1
2.1.1
First of
First
of all
all itit has
has to
to be
be understood,
understood, that
that product
product quality
quality is
is not
not depending
depending on
on one
one
but all
but
all steps
steps along
along the
the product
product development
development process.
process. Product
Product quality
quality cannot
cannot be
be
manufactured into
manufactured
into a
a product,
product, it
it has
has to
to be
be build
build into
into it.
it. We
We might
might define
define product
product
quality like
like following:
following: "The
"The product
product quality
quality is
is aa composite
composite of
of factors
factors that
that are
are in
fn
quality
the
responsibility of
of the
the desiqn
desiqn engineer.
engineer. Thus
Thus the
the decLcions
decisions made
the responsibility
made during
durfng the
the
desiqn process
design
process determine
determ/ne the
the product's
product's quality
quality as
as perceived
perceived by
by the
the custome,"
custome,"
[UlIm. 2003].
[UlIm.
2003]. In
In other
other words
words product
product quality
quality consideration
consideration starts
starts with
with starting
starting
the product
the
product development.
development.
The central
The
central question
question of
of the
the first
first steps
steps in
in the
the product
product development
development is
is to
to find
find out
out
what the
what
the customer
customer wants
wants and
and perceives
perceives as
as product
product quality.
quality. In
In order
order to
to know
know
"what" the
"what"
the customers
customers want,
want, the
the targeted
targeted customer
customer has
has first
first to
to be
be determined.
determined.
In UlIman
In
UlIman three
three main
main categories
categories of
of customers
customers are
are distinguished,
distinguished, i.e.
i.e. Consumer,
Consumer,
Producerand
to
Producer and Marketer/Sales
Marketer/Sales personal.
personal. The
The three
three categories
categories will
will all
all contribute
contribute to
the
the list
list of
of necessary
necessary product
product features.
features. Please
Please note
note that
that even
even if
if the
the consumers
consumers
will form
will
form the
the largest
largest customer
customer group,
group, they
they are
are not
not the
the only
only one.
one. Therefore
Therefore
product
product quality
quality will
will not
not only
only be
be determined
determined by
by consumer
consumer requirements,
requirements, but
but also
also
by
by
manufacturing
manufacturing
(manufacturability,
(manufacturability,
use
use
of
of
standard
standard
parts,
parts,
resource
resource
conservatism, existing
conservatism,
existing facilities
facilities etc.)
etc.) and
and managerial
managerial aspects,
aspects, which
which have
have to
to be
be
considered as
considered
as well
well (attraction,
(attraction, corporate
corporate image,
image, cost
cost generation
generation etc.).
etc.). An
An often
often
neglected quality
neglected
quality attribute
attribute of
of aa product
product is
is its
its societal
societal and
and environmental
environmental
[.1
[SI
acceptability. Because
acceptability.
Because of
of the
the scarce
scarce world
world resources
resources environmental
environmental concerns
concerns
will become
will
become major
major product
product quality
quality focuses
focuses in
in future.
future. The
The challenging
challenging task
task of
of
integrating all
integrating
all customers
customers with
with all
all their
their concerns
concerns (refer
(refer to
to Fig.
Fig. 1.1)
1.1) in
in a
a product
product
development,
development, is
is what
what stakeholders
stakeholders are
are doing
doing at
at an
an early
early stage.
stage.
Once the
Once
the targeted
targeted customers
customers are
are determined,
determined, itit has
has to
to be
be analyzed,
analyzed, what
what these
these
customers perceive
customers
perceive as
as product
product quality
quality and
and formulize
formulize product
product specifications
specifications in
in
form
form of
of Customer
Customer Requirements
Requirements (CR's).
(CR's). This
This might
might happen
happen by
by performing
performing
customer surveys,
customer
surveys, interviews,
interviews, using
using focus
focus groups,
groups, making
making observations
observations etc.
etc. An
An
often
often used
used approach
approach to
to determine
determine what
what customer
customer wants
wants is
is to
to examine
examine what
what
satisfies them.
them. Hereby
Hereby Kano's
Kano's Model
Model of
of Customer
Customer Satisfaction
Satisfaction gives
gives hand
hand to
to
satisfies
proceed methodically.
methodically. Kano
Kano divides
divides product
product attributes
attributes into
into three
three categories:
categories:
proceed
threshold (basic),
(basic), performance
performance and
and excitement,
excitement, i.e.
i.e. needs,
needs, wants
wants and
and whishes
whishes
threshold
of the
of
the customers.
customers. A
A competitive
competitive product
product meets
meets basic
basic attributes,
attributes, maximizes
maximizes
performance
performance attributes
attributes and
and includes
includes as
as many
many excitement
excitement attributes
attributes as
as possible
possible
at
at a
a cost
cost tolerated
tolerated by
by the
the market
market [UlIm.
[UlIm. 2003
2003 and
and Otto
Otto 2001].
2001]. In
In other
other words
words if
if
basic
basic attributes
attributes
met, performance
performancemaximized
maximized and
and many
many excitement
excitement
are
are met,
attributes
attributes realized
realized the
the customer
customer will
will be
be highly
highly satisfied
satisfied with
with the
the product
product and
and
therefore perceives
perceives the
the product
product as
as a
a high
high quality
quality product.
product.
therefore
In
In a
a formulation
formulation process
process the
the explicitly
explicitly spoken,
spoken, but
but also
also often
often implicit
implicit vague
vague
simpleexpressions
expressions of
of
descriptions
descriptions of
of the
the customers
customers are
are broken
broken down
down in
in simple
requirements and
requirements
and product
product specifications,
specifications, i.e.
i.e. customer
customer requirements
requirements (CR's).
(CR's).
2.1.2
CUSTOMER
2.1.2 CUSTOMER
REQUIREMENTS
REQUIREMENTS
REQUIREMENTS
REQUIREMENTS
VERSUS
VERSUS
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
Customer Requirements
Customer
Requirements are
are simply
simply stated
stated description
description of
of needs,
needs, wants
wants and
and
whishes of
whishes
of the
the customer
customer derived
derived from
from interactions
interactions with
with customers.
customers. Hereby
Hereby the
the
statements are
are not
not yet
yet bound
bound to
to any
any targets
targets but
but to
to actions,
actions, which
which have
have to
to be
be
statements
fulfilled and
fulfilled
and satisfied.
satisfied. The
The words
words of
of customers
customers might
might be
be used
used and
and the
the
statements
statements are
are usually
usually in
in an
an affirmative
affirmative form.
form. Terms
Terms like
like easy
easy to
to lift,
lift, is
is compact
compact
in size,
size, moves
moves fast
fast etc.
etc. are
are used
used to
to circumscribe
circumscribe the
the required
required feature
feature of
of the
the
in
product. The
product.
The purpose
purpose of
of CR's
CR's are
are to
to describe
describe the
the task
task of
of a
a design
design without
without
determining or
determining
or fixing
fixing the
the included
included functions.
functions. The
The customer
customer is
is only
only interested
interested
that the
that
the product
product fulfills
fulfills his/her
his/her requirements,
requirements, usually
usually the
the "how"
"how" is
is from
from little
little
interest to
interest
to him/her
him/her if
if the
the purposed
purposed function
function is
is fulfilled
fulfilled properly.
properly. The
The formulation
formulation
of CR's
of
CR's incidentally
incidentally avoids
avoids to
to restrict
restrict designs
designs by
by terminology
terminology to
to a
a certain
certain
concept
concept in
in order
order to
to not
not anticipate
anticipate the
the creative
creative designing
designing process.
process.
The
The attributes
attributes described
described by
by the
the CR's,
CR's, might
might be
be product
product features
features of
of many
many
functional attributes
functional
attributes together,
together, e.g.
e.g. moving
moving fast
fast is
is a
a function
function of
of e.g.
e.g. traction,
traction,
power and
power
and radius
radius of
of used
used wheels.
wheels. In
In other
other words
words CR's
CR's ought
ought only
only describe
describe the
the
"what" and
"what"
and not
not the
the "how".
"how". This
This
is
is
the
the main
main difference
difference to
to Engineering
Engineering
Requirements (ER's)
Requirements
(ER's) and
and actually
actually is
is the
the reason
reason why
why CR's
CR's are
are needed.
needed. A
A
collection of
collection
of CR
CR categories
categories in
in [UlIm.
[Ullm. 2003]
2003] helps
helps to
to gather
gather and
and structure
structure the
the
CR's.
CR's.
In contrast
In
contrast to
to the
the CR's
CR's the
the ER's
ER's are
are already
already focused
focused on
on how
how the
the CR
CR might
might be
be
satisfied or
or described
described in
in more
more physical
physical ways.
ways. In
In a
a designing
designing effort
effort the
the CR's
CR's have
have
satisfied
to be
to
be translated
translated into
into ER's
ER's which
which will
will lead
lead to
to a
a rigid
rigid set
set of
of design
design specifications.
specifications.
While
While translating
translating CR
CR to
to ER,
ER, the
the CR
CR has
has to
to be
be understood
understood well
well and
and might
might first
first be
be
described by
by engineering
engineering units.
units. In
In the
the example
example of
of moving
moving fast
fast as
as CR,
CR, the
the CR
CR
described
might be
might
be translated
translated into
into traction
traction
force
force (N),
(N), power
power
torque (Nm)
torque
(Nm) and
and radius
radius
of wheels
of
wheels (m).
(m). IfIf there
there are
are difficulties
difficultiesto
todescribe
describethe
theCR
CRby
byunits,
units, itit might
might
indicate
indicate that
that this
this CR
CR is
is not
not yet
yet fully
fully understood
understood or
or might
might have
have to
to be
be further
further
decomposed. Sometimes
Sometimes the
the determination
determination of
of ER's
ER's already
already involve
involve a
a lot
lot of
of
decomposed.
designing
designing work
work and
and might
might therefore
therefore not
not be
be manageable
manageable at
at such
such an
an early
early stage.
stage.
In such
In
such a
a case
case the
the translation
translation process
process might
might be
be lead
lead ultimately
ultimately into
into the
the concept
concept
stage. The
The translation
translation process
process from
from CR's
CR's to
to ER's
ER's is
is a
a further
further step
step of
of building
building
stage.
quality into
into the
the product.
product. The
The link
link between
between quality
quality at
at an
an early
early stage
stage is
is the
the
quality
perception of
perception
of what
what the
the customer
customer will
will satisfy.
satisfy. This
This is
is what
what CR's
CR's describe
describe and
and
which are
which
are translated
translated into
into ER's.
ER's. A
A method
method which
which uses
uses this
this chain
chain of
of logic
logic in
in order
order
to build
to
build quality
quality into
into the
the product
product is
is presented
presented next.
next.
10
10
2.1.3
2.1.3
PRIORITIZATION OF
OF CR'S
CR'S
PRIORITIZATION
An
An accepted
accepted method
method how
how quality
quality is
is built
built into
into the
the product
product is
is the
the quality
quality function
function
deployment
deployment (QFD).
(QFD). QFD
QFD supports
supports the
the fundamental
fundamental processes
processes at
at an
an early
early stage
stage
of
of product
product development
development with
with strong
strong integration
integration of
of the
the customer's
customer's voice
voice (VOC)
(VOC)
[Akao 1990,
[Akao
1990, Cohen
Cohen 1995].
1995]. QFD
QFD helps
helps to
to develop
develop specifications
specifications or
or goals
goals for
for the
the
product, how
product,
how the
the competition
competition meets
meets the
the goal,
goal, what
what is
is important
important to
to the
the
customer and
customer
and numerical
numerical targets
targets to
to work
work towards
towards [UlIm.
[UlIm. 2003].
2003]. QFD
QFD provides
provides a
a
method
method to
to convert
convert the
the customer
customer requirements
requirements into
into engineering
engineering specifications.
specifications.
Given constraints
constraints on
on resources
resources (e.g.
(e.g. time,
time, money
money and
and personnel)
personnel) it
it is
is not
not only
only
Given
necessary to
to know
know what
what the
the customer
customer requires,
requires, but
but how
how relative
relative important
important it
it is
is
necessary
for
for him/her.
him/her. The
The initial
initial distinction
distinction between
between the
the customer
customer requirements
requirements (CR's)
(CR's)
based
based on
on Kano's
Kano's model
model are
are the
the categories
categories wants
wants (i.e.
(i.e. like-to-have),
like-to-have), needs
needs
(must-have) and
(must-have)
and desires
desires
(i.e.
(i.e.
wish-to-have)
wish-to-have)
[Lai
[Lai
1998].
1998].
The
customer
The customer
him/herself might
him/herself
might not
not be
be capable
capable to
to rank
rank the
the importance
importance of
of the
the customer
customer
requirements
requirements further
further more
more than
than these
these categories.
categories. For
For the
the customer
customer everything
everything
might be
be important
important and
and yet
yet the
the CR's
CR's have
have to
to be
be traded
traded off.
off.
might
In Engineering
Engineering Design
Design only
only little
little research
research has
has been
been found
found prioritizing
prioritizing customer
customer
In
requirements. The
The selection
selection of
requirements.
of alternatives
alternatives and
and design
design concepts
concepts has
has in
in
comparison attracted
comparison
attracted
engineering
engineering
decisions.
decisions.
a
a
lot
lot more
more attention
attention for
for research
research around
around making
making
Nevertheless
Nevertheless
provided
provided
methods,
methods,
especially
especially
matrix
matrix
methods
methods based
based on
on weighted
weighted sums
sums have
have been
been favored
favored searching
searching relative
relative
importance
importance of
of CR's.
CR's. Good
Good examples
examples for
for such
such methods
methods are
are the
the planning
planningmatrix
matrix
integrated
integrated in
in Quality
Quality Function
Function Deployment
Deployment (QFD)
(QFD) or
or the
the Analytical
Analytical Hierarchy
Hierarchy
Process (AHP)
Process
(AHP) introduced
introduced by
by Saaty
Saaty [Saaty
[Saaty 1982].
1982].
QFD
QFD proposes
proposes the
the use
use of
of the
the planning
planning matrix,
matrix, where
where as
as the
the costumer
costumer
importance,
the satisfaction
satisfaction of
of the
the customer,
customer, the
the competitive
competitive satisfaction
satisfaction
importance, the
performance,
performance, the
the goal,
goal, improvement
improvement ratio,
ratio, sales
sales importance,
importance, are
are used
used to
to find
find a
a
normalized weight
normalized
weight [Cohen
[Cohen 1995]
1995] of
of each
each CR.
CR. In
In extensive
extensive customer
customer inquiries
inquiries
the weights
weights of
of each
each CR
CR might
might be
be found.
found. Cohen
Cohen suggests
suggests letting
letting a
a professional
professional
the
11
11
market research
market
research organization
organization perform
perform these
these surveys
surveys rather
rather do
do this
this by
by the
the
development
development team
team themselves.
themselves. UlIman
UlIman describes
describes several
several techniques
techniques to
to assess
assess
either ordinal
ordinal or
or relative
relative importance
importance with
with the
the customer
customer together
together [UlIm.
[UlIm. 2003].
2003].
either
The
The key
key requirements
requirements for
for extensive
extensive customer
customer inquiries
inquiries are
are a)
a) the
the targeted
targeted
customer has
customer
has to
to be
be clearly
clearly determined
determined and
and b)
b) there
there have
have to
to be
be sufficient
sufficient
resources to
to gather
gather the
the data.
data. Often
Often in
in engineering
engineering projects
projects neither
neither of
of these
these
resources
requirements are
are fulfilled.
fulfilled. An
An alternative
alternative to
to extensive
extensive customer
customer inquiries
inquiries is
is that
that
requirements
the cross-functional
cross-functional stakeholder
stakeholder group
group decides
decides on
on the
the importance
importance of
of each
each CR
CR on
on
the
their own
own [Cohen
[Cohen 1995].
1995]. In
In such
such a
a case
case itit is
their
is necessary
necessary that
that the
the voice
voice of
of all
all
customers
customers are
are adequately
adequately represented
represented within
within the
the group
group of
of stakeholder
stakeholder group.
group.
Using
Using stakeholders'
stakeholders' judgment
judgment and
and perception
perception for
for the
the final
final prioritization
prioritization might
might
lead to
to errors
errors in
in CR
CR priorities,
priorities, what
what might
might lead
lead in
in the
the worst
worst case
case to
to rejection
rejection
lead
from
from the
the targeted
targeted customers.
customers. Therefore
Therefore a
a good
good prioritization
prioritization methodology
methodology is
is
needed
needed which
which minimizes
minimizes this
this risk.
risk.
Although QFD
QFD provides
provides a
a very
very structured
structured way
way of
of transforming
transforming customer
customer
Although
requirements into
into engineering
engineering specifications,
specifications, it
it doesn't
doesn't specify
specify means
means on
on how
how
requirements
group
group interactions
interactions and
and CR's
CR's trade
trade offs
offs might
might be
be carried
carried out.
out. Furthermore,
Furthermore, there
there
is
is a
a lacking
lacking of
of negotiation
negotiation strategies
strategies based
based on
on the
the stakeholders'
stakeholders' interactions
interactions
with each
each other,
other, which
which has
has prevented
prevented the
the QFD
QFD methods
methods from
from providing
providing
with
sufficient support
support to
to collaborative
collaborative decisions
decisions on
on CR
CR and
and its
its prioritization
prioritization needed
needed
sufficient
at
at the
the early
early design
design stage.
stage. According
According Lai
Lai et
et al.
al. [Lai
[Lai 1998]
1998] only
only an
an effective
effective group
group
decision
decision making
making process
process may
may apply
apply to
to achieve
achieve correct
correct CR's
CR's and
and their
their ranking
ranking in
in
a
a case
case where
where the
the stakeholders
stakeholders will
will make
make the
the final
final prioritization
prioritization by
by their
their own.
own.
The following
following sections
sections reviews
reviews further
further literature
literature on
on making
making effective
effective group
group
The
decisions in
in order
order to
to find
find CR
CR priorities.
priorities.
decisions
2.2 preferential
preferential Voting
Voting
2.2
Finding
Finding the
the relative
relative importance
importance of
of CR's
CR's involves
involves two
two main
main problems:
problems: (a)
(a) how
how are
are
the different
different concerns
concerns of
of the
the customers
customers represented
represented best
best in
in a
a methodical
methodical way
way to
to
the
find relative
relative importance
importance of
of CR's
CR's and
and (b)
(b) how
how is
is that
that done
done in
in a
a satisfying
satisfying way
way by
by
find
12
12
stakeholders
stakeholders with
with different
different perception
perception of
of what
what is
is important
important to
to the
the costumers?
costumers?
According
these two
two questions
questions literature
literature has
has been
been studied
studied trying
trying to
toanswer
answer
According these
them,
them, where
where as
as the
the second
second problem
problem has
has been
been emphasized
emphasized because
because whatever
whatever
method is
is used
used to
to solve
solve (a)
(a) a
a way
way of
of how
how combining
combining different
different stakeholder
stakeholder
method
opinion
opinion is
is still
still needed.
needed.
The
literature review
review has
has been
been extended
extended to
to literature
literature concerning
concerningSocial
SocialChoice,
Choice,
The literature
where
where prioritizing
prioritizing methods
methods are
are encountered
encountered for
for voting,
voting, ranking
ranking and
and prioritizing
prioritizing
purposes.
purposes. The
The main
main issue
issue to
to answer
answer question
question (b)
(b) is
is how
how individual
individual orders
orders of
of
preferences
might be
be combined
combined to
to one
one single
single order
order or
or in
in our
our case
caseto
toone
oneset
setof
of
preferences might
relative
relative importance.
importance. In
In other
other words
words what
what major
major effect
effect is
is used
used to
to combine
combine the
the
opinions
opinions of
of the
the stakeholders?
stakeholders? The
The majority
majority of
of the
the found
found methods
methods in
in Social
Social
Choice
Choice are
are using
using an
an averaging
averaging approach
approach over
over all
all stakeholder
stakeholder votes,
votes, or
or building
building
sums
sums of
of votes
votes and
and the
the item
item with
with the
the biggest
biggest score
score wins.
wins. In
In the
the following
following
sections
sections findings
findings are
are documented
documented more
more detailed.
detailed.
2.2.1
2.2.1
EXISTING
EXISTING APPROACHES
APPROACHES IN
IN PREFERENTIAL
PREFERENTIAL VOTING
VOTING
The
The so-called
so-called voting
voting rules
rules are
are fundamental
fundamental underlying
underlying mechanisms
mechanisms to
to resolve
resolve a
a
conflicting situation.
conflicting
situation. We
We are
are interested
interested
in
in
understanding
understanding how
how different
different
preferential voting
preferential
voting rules
rules might
might be
be applied
applied to
to solve
solve a
a prioritization
prioritization problem.
problem.
Usually a
Usually
a voting
voting rule
rule is
is chosen
chosen according
according to
to the
the preferences
preferences of
of the
the stakeholders
stakeholders
in
in advance.
advance.
Figure
Figure 2.1
2.1 summarizes
summarizes voting
voting rules
found
rules found
in
in
our investigation.
our
investigation. A
A major
major
difference among
among voting
voting rules
rules is
is how
how many
many items
items are
are simultaneously
simultaneously compared.
compared.
difference
IfIf two
two items
items are
are compared
compared with
with each
each other,
other, pairwise
pairwise comparison
comparison rules
rules are
are
applied,
applied, where
where itit does
does not
not matter
matter ifif more
more than
than two items
items exist,
exist, but
but ifif all
all items
items
have
have to
to be
be compared
compared with
with each
each other
other until
until the
the voting
voting result
result is
is obtained.
obtained. Rules
Rules in
in
the
the other
other main
main group
group compare
compare clusters
clusters of
of similar
similar preferred
preferred items,
items, i.e.
i.e. multiple
multiple
comparisons.
comparisons. Pairwise
Pairwise comparison
comparison rules
rules are
are generally
generally more
more accurate,
accurate, where
where as
as
multiple
multiple comparison
comparison rules
rules are
are much
much faster.
faster.
13
13
Preferential
Preferential Voting
Voting
Rules
Rules
Voting Rules
Voting
Rules using
using
independent
independent
Voters
Voters
Pairwise
Pairwise
Comparison
Comparison
Voting Rules
Voting
Rules using
using
interdependent
interdependent
Voters
Voters
Multiple
Multiple
Comparison
Comparison
Majority
Majority
Voting Rule
Rule
Voting
Plurality
Plurality
Voting
Voting
Condorcet
Condorcet
Winner Rule
Winner
Rule
Rank Scoring
Scoring
Rank
Rules
Rules
Rating Scale
Scale
Rating
and
and Mean
Mean
Rating Scale
Scale
Rating
and Mean
and
Mean
Multiple
Multiple
Comparison
Comparison
Multivoting
Multivoting
Rules
Rules
Multivoting
Multivoting
Rules
Rules
Figure 2.1
2.1 Overview
Overview of
of Different
Different Voting
Voting Rules
Rules
Figure
Another
Another difference
difference addresses
addresses ifif the
the voters
voters are
are assumed
assumed to
to be
be independent
independent or
or
interdependent.
interdependent. Usually
Usually voting
voting rules
rules are
are specifically
specifically designed
designed to
to guarantee
guarantee the
the
independence and
and neutrality
neutrality of
of the
the voters.
voters. But
But situations
situations exist
exist (particularly
(particularly in
in
independence
engineering
engineering
problems)
problems)
where
where
the group
group
the
agrees to
to
agrees
bestow
bestow the
the
more
more
experienced, and/or
and/or the
the more
more knowledgeable,
knowledgeable, and/or
and/or more
more authoritative
authoritative group
group
experienced,
members
members with
with more
more voting
voting power.
power. In
In such
such cases
cases independence
independence or
or neutrality
neutrality of
of
the voters
voters might
might thus
thus be
be interfered
interfered with
with the
the aim
aim to
to obtain
obtain a
a voting
voting result
result that
that
the
better
better considers
considers the
the objective,
objective, such
such as
as maximizing
maximizing customer
customer satisfaction.
satisfaction.
14
14
2.2.2
2.2.2
PAIRWISE
PAIRWISE COMPARISON
COMPARISON RULES
RULES
2.2.2.1
2.2.2.1
Majority
Majority Voting
Voting Rule
Rule
Voting is
Voting
is basically
basically understood
understood as
as democratic
democratic process
process to
to find
find the
the preference
preference of
of
the majority
the
majority or
or approval
approval of
of the
the majority.
majority. The
The majority
majority voting
voting rule
rule implies
implies that
that
between two
between
two items,
items, the
the one
one with
with more
more votes
votes will
will win.
win. In
In the
the case
case of
of two
two items
items
to choose
to
choose from,
from, the
the majority
majority vote
vote is
is unambiguously
unambiguously the
the fairest
fairest [Moul.
[Moul. 1988]
1988] in
in
Social
Social Choice.
Choice. A
A good
good example
example of
of majority
majority voting
voting rules
rules are
are political
political elections
elections
and voting
and
voting for
for measures.
measures. Despite
Despite its
its long
long use
use and
and wide
wide spread
spread in
in our
our society,
society,
majority voting
majority
voting has
has limitations
limitations when
when applied
applied on
on more
more than
than two
two items.
items.
Considering these
Considering
these limitations,
limitations, plain
plain majority
majority voting
voting should
should only
only be
be used
used for
for
pairwise comparisons
pairwise
comparisons between
between two
two decision
decision alternatives.
alternatives.
2.2.2.2
2.2.2.2
Condorcet
Condorcet Winner
Winner Rule
Rule
In
In order
order to
to surpass
surpass the
the limitation
limitation of
of plurality
plurality vote,
vote, Condorcet
Condorcet (1785)
(1785) suggested
suggested
to select
to
select the
the alternative
alternative as
as the
the most
most important,
important, which
which wins
wins over
over every
every other
other
alternative
alternative in
in a
a pairwise
pairwise comparison.
comparison. The
The Condorcet
Condorcet Winner
Winner is
is usually
usually found
found by
by
letting the
letting
stakeholders rank
individually. The
rank the
the items
the stakeholders
items individually.
The resulting
resulting item
item
sequences are
sequences
are then
then separated
separated and
and each
each equal
equal sequence
sequence counted.
counted.In
Inpairwise
pairwise
comparisons between
allallitems
comparisons
between
itemsthe
theone
oneitem
itemwith
withthe
themore
morewins
winsover
over all
all
sequences
sequences has
has to
to be
found. This
search has
be found.
This search
has to
to be
be repeated
repeated over
over all
all
permutations. The
permutations.
The Condorcet
Condorcet Winner
Winner is
is the
the item
item which
which had
had most
most pairwise
pairwise wins.
wins.
Although
Although the
the method
method provides
provides an
an accurate
accurate and
and fair
fair result,
result, a
a vote
vote might
might not
not
produce a
a Condorcet
Condorcet winner
winner and
and usually
usually take
take a
a long
long time
time to
to be
be performed.
performed. The
The
produce
method as
method
as well
well does
does not
not account
account for
for only
only slight
slight differences
differences among
among candidates,
candidates,
it applies
applies rigid
it
rigid ranks,
ranks, which
which might
might eliminate
eliminate nonlinear
nonlinear preferences
preferences among
among
candidates.
candidates.
L_
15
15
2.2.3
2.2.3
RATING
RATING SCALE
SCALE AND
AND MEAN
MEAN
Rating scale
scale and
and mean
mean building
building reduces
reduces the
the limitations
limitations according
according the
the rigidity
rigidity of
of
Rating
ranks and
and is
is robust
robust against
against rank
rank reversal
reversal by
by elimination
elimination or
or adding
adding of
of items
items from
from
ranks
and/or to
to the
the list.
list. Usually
Usually rating
rating scale
scale voting
voting is
is applied
applied by
by assigning
assigning a
a value
value
and/or
from aa specified
specified scale
scale to
to an
an item
item to
to be
be voted
voted for
for and
and calculating
calculating the
the mean
mean of
of
from
the
the values
values voted
voted by
by all
all stakeholders.
stakeholders. In
In this
this way
way no
no direct
direct comparison
comparison among
among
the items
items has
has to
to be
be performed.
performed. In
In a
a pairwise
pairwise modification
modification of
of this
this voting
voting rule
rule a
the
ratio scale
scale value,
value, is
is collaboratively
collaboratively assigned
assigned to
to a
a pairwise
pairwise comparison.
comparison. In
In other
other
ratio
words the
words
the stakeholders
stakeholders compare
compare two
two items
items and
arid have
have to
to chose
chose a
a discrete
discrete scale
scale
value of
of how
how many
many times
times more
more important
important item
item AA is
is over
over item
item B.
B. In
Inthe
thepopular
popular
value
Analytical Hierarchy
Hierarchy Process
Process (AHP)
(AHP) every
every discrete
discrete item
item is
is pairwisely
pairwisely compared
compared in
in
Analytical
this way.
this
way. The
The scale
scale in
in AHP
AHP ranges
ranges from
from one
one to
to nine
nine and
and its
its reciprocal
reciprocal values,
values,
i.e. one
i.e.
one for
for equally
equally important
important and
and nine
nine for
for a
a lot
lot more
more important
important and
and 1/9
1/9 if
if much
much
less important
less
important with
with any
any values
values as
as intermediate
intermediate levels.
levels. At
At the
the beginning
beginning of
of
applying
applying AHP
AHP a
a decision
decision criteria
criteria hierarchy
hierarchy is
is defined.
defined. This
This might
might be
be done
done with
with
brainstorming possible
possible criteria
criteria and
and then
then using
using an
an affinity
affinity process
process to
to structure
structure
brainstorming
the
the criteria
criteria into
into a
a hierarchy,
hierarchy, i.e.
i.e. criteria
criteria decomposition.
decomposition. The
The prioritization
prioritization might
might
start from
start
from any
any level
level of
of the
the hierarchy,
hierarchy, but
but usually
usually itit makes
makes sense
sense to
to start
start at
at the
the
bottom. The
bottom.
The items
items for
for comparison
comparison are
are arranged
arranged in
in an
an
NxN-matrix,
NxN-matrix,
where
where N
N is
is
the total
total number
number of
of items
items to
to be
be prioritized.
prioritized. Then
Then the
the ratio
ratio scale
scale values
values are
the
are
assigned to
to each
each element
element in
in the
the matrix.
matrix. IfIf e.g.
e.g. the
the row
row item
item isis 33 times
timesmore
assigned
more
important than
important
than the
the column
column item,
item, the
the according
according element
element in
in the
the matrix
matrix will
will
receive the
receive
the value
value 3
3 but
but if
if it
it is
is opposite,
opposite, then
then the
the element
element will
will be
be 1/3.
1/3. Then
Then the
the
next element
element in
in the
the matrix
matrix has
has to
to be
be agreed
agreed upon
upon by
by the
the stakeholders.
stakeholders. All
All
next
diagonal
diagonal elements
elements are
are obviously
obviously one,
one, i.e.
i.e. equally
equally important
important the
the pairwise
pairwise
comparisons are
comparisons
are only
only performed
performed once,
once, i.e.
i.e. the
the values
values
in
in
the matrix
matrix are
are
the
reciprocal symmetric
symmetric to
to the
the diagonal
diagonal of
of ones.
ones. All
All these
these comparisons
comparisons are
reciprocal
are strongly
strongly
focused
focused on
on a
a specific
specific criterion
criterion of
of the
the initially
initially chosen
chosen hierarchy
hierarchy level.
level. The
The
priorities
priorities of
of all
all items
items corresponding
corresponding to
to the
the examined
examined criterion
criterion are
are found
found by
by
summing
summing up
up the
the elements
elements in
in a
a row
row of
of each
each item
item and
and normalize
normalize them
them to
to the
the total
total
16
sum of
sum
of all
all these
these sums.
sums. For
For every
every other
other criteria
criteria on
on this
this hierarchy
hierarchy level,
level, a
a new
new
pairwise
pairwise comparison
comparison matrix
matrix has
has to
to be
be filled
filled out
out and
and its
its normalized
normalized priorities
priorities
calculated.
calculated. The
The priorities
priorities of
of each
each criterion
criterion are
are then
then summed
summed up,
up, whereas
whereas the
the
weights
weights for
for the
the criterion
criterion are
are also
also found
found by
by a
a comparison
comparison matrix
matrix [Saaty
[Saaty 1982].
1982].
If there
If
there are
are a
a lot
lot items
items to
to be
be compared,
compared, the
the use
use of
of the
the AHP
AHP is
is extremely
extremely time
time
consuming. Different
consuming.
Different approaches
approaches tried
tried to
to simplify
simplify the
the procedure,
procedure, hence
hence to
to use
use
the
the accuracy
accuracy but
but limit
limit the
the scope
scope of
of AHP.
AHP. Karlsson
Karlsson et
et al.
al. [Karl.
[Karl. 1997]
1997] applied
applied the
the
AHP on
AHP
on items
items considering
considering Cost
Cost and
and Value
Value as
as only
only criteria.
criteria. The
The priority
priority results
results
are then
are
then displayed
displayed in
in a
a 2D
2D diagram,
diagram, i.e.
i.e. Cost-Value-Chart.
Cost-Value-Chart. The
The chart
chart has
has three
three
sectors,
sectors, i.e.
i.e. high
high (high
(high customer
customer value,
value, low
low cost),
cost), medium
medium and
and low
low priority
priority (high
(high
cost, low
cost,
low customer
customer value).
value). The
The visualization
visualization of
of the
the relative
relative priorities
priorities is
is very
very clear
clear
and
and supports
supports the
the decision
decision analysis.
analysis. Similar
Similar work
work was
was proposed
proposed by
by Park
Park et
et al.
al.
[Park
[Park 1999],
1999], where
where priority
priority and
and risk
risk are
are compared
compared of
of each
each attribute.
attribute. The
The group
group
consensus is
consensus
is found
found by
by the
the statistical
statistical mean.
mean. The
The proposed
proposed charts
charts are
are divided
divided by
by
different priority
different
priority bins
bins (i.e.
(i.e. priority
priority classes)
classes) to
to record
record relative
relative importance
importance of
of the
the
attribute. The
attribute.
The kinds
kinds of
of priority
priority bins
bins are
are chosen
chosen for
for different
different issues,
issues, e.g.
e.g. Return
Return
on
on investment,
investment, Risk
Risk reduction.
reduction. Prioritization
Prioritization equilibrium
equilibrium between
between the
the voting
voting
model
model and
and bin
bin model
model is
is then
then searched
searched for.
for.
The big
The
big disadvantage
disadvantage of
of all
all pairwise
pairwise comparison
comparison rules
rules are
are the
the high
high time
time
consumption of
consumption
of comparing
comparing pairwise
pairwise all
all items.
items. Although
Although the
the methods
methods might
might
deliver
deliver consistent
consistent results
results the
the slow
slow and
and tiresome
tiresome process
process to
to get
get to
to the
the priorities
priorities
might not
might
not be
be practical
practical for
finding relative
for finding
relative priorities
priorities at
at an
an early
early stage.
stage.
Furthermore there
Furthermore
there is
is not
not aa documented
documented way
way how
how aa stakeholder
stakeholdergroup
groupmight
mightget
get
to an
to
an agreed
agreed comparison
comparison value
value other
other than
than building
building the
the mean
mean or
or the
the sum
sum of
of
individual votes;
individual
votes; the
the initial
initial problem
problem how
how to
to combine
combine different
different stakeholders'
stakeholders'
opinions
opinions interdependently
interdependently to
to one
one is
is not
not resolved.
resolved. Therefore
Therefore and
and because
because of
of the
the
big time-consumption
big
time-consumption the
the authors
authors decided
decided not
not to
to use
use a
a pairwise
pairwise comparative
comparative
approach. In
approach.
In contrast
contrast to
to the
the pairwise
pairwise comparison,
comparison, multiple
multiple comparison
comparison rules
rules are
are
faster
faster because
because of
of the
the reduced
reduced amount
amount of
of comparisons
comparisons necessary.
necessary. The
The following
following
section
section is
is dedicated
dedicated to
to multiple
multiple comparison
comparison rules.
rules.
17
17
2.2.4
2.2.4
MULTIPLE
MULTIPLE COMPARISON
COMPARISON RULES
RULES
2.2.4.1
2.2.4.1
Plurality Voting
Voting
Plurality
If majority
If
majority vote
vote is
is used
used where
where more
more than
than two
two items
items have
have to
to be
be compared,
compared, itit is
is
called plurality
plurality vote.
vote. Every
Every stakeholder
stakeholder writes
writes his
his favorite
favorite item
item or
or candidate
candidate on
on aa
called
paper and
and the
the item
item with
with the
the most
most numbers
numbers wins
wins the
the election.
election. Around
Around 1783
1783
paper
Borda
Borda and
and Condorcet
Condorcet manifested
manifested already
already that
that plurality
plurality vote
vote might
might elect
elect a
a poor
poor
candidate which
which might
might loose
loose in
in pairwise
pairwise comparisons
comparisons with
with some
some of
of the
the other
other
candidate
items. They
They demonstrated
demonstrated that
that majority
majority vote
vote should
should hence
hence only
only be
be used
used in
in a
a
items.
pairwise comparisons.
comparisons.
pairwise
2.2.4.2
2.2.4.2
Rank
Rank Scoring
Scorina Rule
Rule
Borda (1781)
(1781) [Moul.
[Moul. 1988]
1988] suggested
suggested in
in order
order to
to surpass
surpass the
the limitation
limitation of
of the
the
Borda
plurality vote
vote rule
rule by
by using
using a
a rank
rank scoring
scoring rule,
rule, which
which today
today is
is known
known as
as Borda
Borda
plurality
count. Stakeholders
Stakeholders have
have to
to rank
rank the
the items
items or
or candidates
candidates according
according to
to their
their
count.
liking. Borda
Borda proposed
proposed ifif there
there are
are N-items
N-items to
to rank,
rank, the
the best
best rank
rank should
should get
get N-i
N-i
liking.
points,
points, the
the second
second best
best N-2
N-2 and
and so
so on.
on. The
The candidate
candidate with
with the
the most
most points
points
would win
win the
the election.
election. Borda
Borda linked
linked the
the rank
rank to
to a
a scoring
scoring system
system by
by a
a linear
linear
would
relation, i.e.
i.e. if
relation,
if there
there are
are nine
nine candidates
candidates to
to vote
vote on,
on, voter
voter A
A might
might rank
rank
candidate 3
3 most
most favorite,
favorite, therefore
therefore in
in voter's
voter's A
A ballot,
ballot, candidate
candidate 3
3 would
would get
get 8
8
candidate
rank points.
rank
points. The
The next
next ranked
ranked candidate
candidate would
would get
get 7
7 and
and so
so forth.
forth. Slight
Slight
differences in
differences
in importance
importance in
in voter's
voter's A
A ranking
ranking are
are lost
lost due
due to
to the
the rigid
rigid score
score
system of
of the
the Borda
Borda count.
count. Modifications
Modifications of
of the
the Borda
Borda [Fox
[Fox 1987]
1987] count
count are
are
system
using
using larger
larger point
point difference
difference between
between the
the ranks
ranks and
and might
might assign
assign different
different
slopes to
slopes
to different
different stakeholders
stakeholders in
in order
order to
to consider
consider a
a "power"
"power" hierarchy
hierarchy among
among
stakeholders. Limitations
Limitations of
of the
the original
original Borda
Borda count
count might
might be
be rank
rank reversal
reversal ifif
stakeholders.
an
an item
item is
is eliminated
eliminated from
from aa list
list [Scott
[Scott 2003]
2003] and
and Borda
Borda count
count might
might be
be prone
prone
to manipulation
to
manipulation from
from coalitions
coalitions among
among the
the stakeholders
stakeholders [Fox
[Fox 1987].
1987]. In
In our
our case
case
the linear
linear relation
relation between
between rank
rank and
and score
score limits
limits the
the Borda
Borda count
count rule
rule on
on ordinal
ordinal
the
results only
results
only and
and might
might not
not account
account for
for slight
slight preference
preference differences,
differences, hence
hence we
we
are not
are
not able
able to
to use
use it
it to
to find
find the
the relative
relative importance
importance of
of CR's.
CR's.
2.2.4.3
2.2.4.3
Ratina Scale
Mean
Ratincj
Scale and
and Buildinci
Buildinci Mean
Rating scale
Rating
scale and
and building
building mean,
mean, as
as already
already introduced
introduced in
in the
the section
section of
of pairwise
pairwise
comparisons, might
comparisons,
might surpass
surpass the
the limitations
limitations of
of plurality
plurality voting
voting as
as well.
well. In
In an
an
often
often applied
applied version
version of
of this
this rule,
rule, every
every stakeholder
stakeholder gets
gets cards
cards between
between 1
1 and
and
9, one
9,
one for
for not
not important
important and
and nine
nine for
for very
very important.
important. Then
Then each
each item
item is
is voted
voted
on,
on, by
by holding
holding up
up the
the card
card of
of the
the preference
preference each
each stakeholder
stakeholder wishes
wishes to
to express
express
for the
for
the item.
item. The
The total
total amount
amount of
of points
points or
or the
the mean
mean is
is recorded
recorded for
for each
each item.
item.
At
At the
the end
end a
a Pareto
Pareto chart
chart might
might reveal
reveal the
the differences
differences among
among the
the importance
importance of
of
items [Fox
items
[Fox 1987,
1987, Gundy
Gundy 1988].
1988]. The
The mean
mean and
and the
the distribution
distribution will
will be
be used
used to
to
draw conclusions
about the
the absolute
absolute priorities
priorities and
draw
condusions about
and consensus
consensus of
of the
the voted
voted
items. The
items.
The use
use of
of a
a rating
rating scale
scale gives
gives an
an absolute
absolute new
new character
character to
to the
the voting
voting
results, because
results,
because the
the items
items have
have not
not necessarily
necessarily to
to be
be compared
compared with
with each
each
other. This
other.
This makes
makes the
the voting
voting process
process fast.
fast. In
In some
some cases
cases this
this might
might also
also be
be
used to
used
to manipulate
manipulate or
or even
even distort
distort the
the voting
voting result.
result. Stakeholders
Stakeholders might
might use
use
their influence
their
influence to
to vote
vote every
every item
item with
with 9
9 or
or 1,
1, i.e.
i.e. gamesmanship
gamesmanship and
and honest
honest
voting
voting might
might get
get lost
lost or
or the
the stakeholder
stakeholder might
might perceive
perceive everything
everything as
as very
very
important
important and
and don't
don't make
make any
any importance
importance distinction
distinction themselves
themselves anymore.
anymore. The
The
rating
rating scale
scale doesn't
doesn't support
support the
the necessary
necessary trade
trade off
off process
process among
among CR's,
CR's, which
which
would be
would
be actually
actually needed
needed to
to prioritize
prioritize CR's.
CR's. Therefore
Therefore the
the discrepancies
discrepancies in
in
importance among
importance
among items
items might
might get
get averaged
averaged out
out or
or lost
lost during
during the
the voting.
voting.
In
In summary
summary neither
neither Borda
Borda count
count nor
nor Rating
Rating Scale
Scale might
might be
be used
used to
to express
express
relative differences
relative
differences in
in the
the importance
importance as
as we
we plan
plan to
to achieve.
achieve. Nevertheless
Nevertheless rating
rating
scales
scales or
or rank
rank scoring
scoring rules
rules are
are already
already applied
applied for
for group
group techniques,
techniques, e.g.
e.g.
Nominal
Nominal Group
Group techniques
techniques (NGT).
(NGT). The
The straight
straight forward
forward structure
structure and
and the
the
possibility to
to generate
generate a
a list
list of
of items,
items, to
to narrow
narrow this
this list
list down
down and
and to
to prioritize
prioritize
possibility
its items
its
items lead
lead to
to a
a wide
wide acceptance
acceptance of
of NGT
NGT [VanD.
[VanD. 1974].
1974]. Although
Although itit is
is a
a group
group
technique
technique itit emphasizes
emphasizes the
the contribution
contribution of
of the
the individual
individual and
and therefore
therefore protects
protects
19
19
the more
the
more timid
timid group
group members.
members. NGT's
NGT's major
major application
application in
in the
the field
field of
of product
product
development might
might be
be the
the generation
generation of
of a
a CR
CR pool.
pool. The
The generation
generation of
of items
items is
is
development
based
on an
an individual
brainstorming, followed
based on
individual brainstorming,
followed
by aa
by
collection of
collection
of all
all
stakeholder's lists.
stakeholder's
lists. Then
Then the
the items
items are
are compared
compared to
to each
each other.
other. For
For this
this purpose
purpose
each
each stakeholder
stakeholder ranks
ranks silently
silently the
the items
items according
according his/her
his/her liking.
liking. The
The item
item most
most
important to
important
to the
the stakeholder
stakeholder will
will get
get the
the highest
highest score.
score. The
The scoring
scoring system
system has
has
to be
to
be agreed
agreed in
in advance.
advance. The
The scores
scores for
for each
each item
item are
are then
then added
added up
up and
and a
a
Pareto chart
chart might
might be
be drawn
drawn to
to display
display the
the result.
result. The
The way
way of
of voting
voting might
might be
be
Pareto
adjusted to
adjusted
to the
the decision
decision making
making procedure
procedure of
of the
the group
group [VanD.
[VanD. 1974].
1974]. Because
Because
conflicting negotiations
conflicting
negotiations don't
don't interrupt
interrupt the
the decision
decision process;
process; the
the NGT
NGT is
is fast
fast and
and
ensures the
ensures
the participation
participation of
of every
every stakeholder.
stakeholder. A
A slight
slight modification
modification to
to even
even
shorten
shorten this
this time
time consumption
consumption and
and to
to protect
protect the
the individual
individual creativity
creativity even
even more
more
[Fox 1989],
[Fox
1989], introduced
introduced the
the Improved
Improved NGT
NGT (INGT)
(INGT) [Fox
[Fox 1987].
1987]. The
The main
main
difference to
difference
to the
the standard
standard NGT
NGT is
is that
that participants
participants submit
submit their
their suggestions
suggestions for
for
the collection
collection of
of items
items in
in advance
advance of
of the
the meeting.
meeting. Because
Because of
of that
that each
each
the
participants will
participants
will invest
invest some
some time
time to
to create
create own
own thoughts
thoughts about
about the
the problem.
problem.
The decision
The
decision making
making process
process through
through NGT
NGT usually
usually has
has a
a high
high group
group acceptance
acceptance
and
and provides
provides creative
creative solutions.
solutions. NGT
NGT has
has already
already been
been applied
applied for
for QFD
QFD
purposes. Recognizing
purposes.
Recognizing the
the need
need for
for a
a quality
quality related
related effective
effective group
group decision
decision
making, i.e.
making,
i.e. prioritization
prioritization method
method in
in QFD
QFD Lai
Lai et
et al.
al. [Lai
[Lai 1998]
1998] have
have proposed
proposed a
a
modification to
modification
to NGT,
NGT, which
which integrates
integrates communication
communication among
among team
team members
members
and
and preference
preference for
for CR's
CR's of
of each
each individual
individual team
team member.
member. Despite
Despite the
the wide
wide
possibilities of
possibilities
of application
application of
of NGT
NGT and
and INGT,
INGT, the
the limitations
limitations inherent
inherent in
in the
the used
used
voting
voting rules
rules restrict
restrict the
the group
group technique
technique in
in practical
practical use
use for
for finding
finding the
the relative
relative
importance
importance of
of CR's.
CR's.
2.2.4.4
2.2.4.4
Multivoting
Multivoting Rule
Rule
The
The main
main limitation
limitation of
of rank
rank scoring
scoring rules
rules in
in order
order to
to find
find relative
relative priorities,
priorities, i.e.
i.e.
the
the rigid
rigid rank-score
rank-score relation,
relation, is
is surpassed
surpassed by
by multivoting
multivoting rules.
rules. In
In multivoting
multivoting
[Froyd], i.e.
[Froyd],
i.e. Point
Point Assignment
Assignment [Fox
[Fox 1987]
1987] each
each stakeholder
stakeholder is
is assigned
assigned the
the
20
20
same
same amount
amount of
of votes,
votes, which
which he/she
he/she distributes
distributes openly
openly over
over all
all compared
compared
items.
items. The
The importance
importance is
is found
found by
by summing
summing up
up the
the number
number of
of votes
votes an
an item
item
has
has gotten.
gotten. Usually
Usually to
to prevent
prevent gamesmanship
gamesmanship the
the total
total votes
votes placed
placed at
at one
one item
item
is
is restricted.
restricted. The
The way
way the
the votes
votes are
are recorded
recorded might
might be
be sticking
sticking dots
dots ore
ore beans.
beans.
A
different colors
colors of
of sticking
sticking dots
dots for
for every
every stakeholder.
stakeholder.
A variant
variant version
version uses
uses different
With
With assignment
assignment of
of different
different colors
colors to
to each
each stakeholder
stakeholder the
the capability
capability to
to
comprehend and
comprehend
and analyze
analyze the
the voting
voting result
result is
is improved
improved compared
compared to
to unique
unique
colored dots
colored
dots or
or beans
beans [Gundy
[Gundy 1988]
1988] and
and an
an imbalance
imbalance in
in voting
voting might
might be
be
spotted
spotted instantly.
instantly. Multivoting
Multivoting provides
provides fast
fast results
results and
and the
the group
group acceptance
acceptance
and
and involvement
involvement is
is good.
good. Multivoting
Multivoting will
will make
make itit possible
possible that
that not
not only
only ordinal
ordinal
information
information is
is determined
determined but
but also
also the
the relative
relative difference
difference might
might be
be recorded.
recorded. By
By
distributing different
distributing
different amount
amount of
of sticking
sticking dots
dots or
or beans
beans to
to some
some stakeholders,
stakeholders,
difference
difference in
in voting
voting power
power might
might be
be realized.
realized. Using
Using such
such an
an open
open process
process might
might
not
not always
always support
support neutral
neutral voting.
voting. Late
Late voters
voters might
might get
get influenced
influenced seeing
seeing the
the
votes of
votes
of previous
previous voters.
voters. ItIt might
might be
be necessary
necessary to
to hide
hide every
every stakeholders
stakeholdersvote
vote
or
or e.g.
e.g. shield
shield the
the glasses
glasses for
for the
the beans
beans [Fox
[Fox 1987].
1987]. A
A modification
modification of
of the
the
Nominal Group
Nominal
Group Technique
Technique found
found in
in the
the Team
Team Training
Training Workbook
Workbook from
from Arizona
Arizona
State
State University
University [Bell.
[Bell. 1994]
1994] uses
uses the
the NGT
NGT as
as basis,
basis, but
but instead
instead of
of using
using aa rank
rank
score or
score
or a
a rating
rating scale
scale rule,
rule, a
a multivoting
multivoting rule
rule is
is applied.
applied. Another
Another way
way how
how
multivoting rules
multivoting
rules might
might be
be applied
applied in
in a
a design
design environment
environment shows
shows the
the priority
priority
matrix.
The priority
priority matrix,
matrix, uses
uses group
group negotiated
negotiated and
and weighted
weighted criteria
criteriato
to
matrix. The
prioritize items
prioritize
items [Bell.
[Bell. 1994],
1994], similar
similar to
to the
the planning
planning matrix
matrix previously
previously referred
referred
to.
to. In
In an
an L-shaped
L-shaped matrix
matrix the
the items
items which
which have
have to
to be
be compared
compared are
are allocated
allocated in
in
rows,
rows, where
where each
each criterion
criterion gets
gets a
a separate
separate column.
column. Multivoting
Multivoting rules
rules might
might be
be
applied
applied to
to first
first vote
vote for
for every
every item
item with
with respect
respect to
to each
each criterion
criterion and
and then
then the
the
relative weights
relative
weights for
for the
the criteria
criteria might
might be
be determined
determined also
also by
by multivoting.
multivoting.
Weighted
Weighted sums
sums might
might be
be calculated
calculated for
for every
every row
row across
across all
all criteria.
criteria. These
These
results might
results
might be
be normalized
normalized by
by the
the total
total sum
sum of
of the
the weighted
weighted sums.
sums. This
This
normalized
normalized value
value might
might then
then be
be denounced
denounced as
as the
the relative
relative importance
importance values.
values.
21
21
The documentation
The
documentation through
through a
a prioritization
prioritization matrix
matrix is
is orderly
orderly and
and is
is always
always
reproducible.
reproducible.
In summary
summary the
the multivoting
multivoting rule
rule provides
provides a
a fast
fast and
and transparent
transparent comparison
comparison
In
technique without
without restricting
restricting the
the voter
voter into
into aa rigid
rigid rank
rank score
score relation
relation and
and takes
takes
technique
relative discrepancies
discrepancies in
in the
the perceived
perceived importance
importance by
by the
the stakeholders
stakeholders into
into
relative
account. The
account.
The only
only limitation
limitation of
of multivoting
multivoting rules,
rules, as
as well
well as
as all
all other
other investigated
investigated
methods, is
is that
that none
none of
of them
them goes
goes beyond
beyond the
the independent
independent use
use of
of votes.
votes.
methods,
Therefore we
we might
might conclude
conclude that
that although
although the
the methods
methods involve
involve all
all group
group
Therefore
members
members they
they actually
actually only
only correspond
correspond to
to a
a mathematical
mathematical aggregation
aggregation of
of
opinions of
opinions
of individual
individual decision
decision maker
maker and
and the
the needed
needed negotiations
negotiations are
are
suppressed
suppressed
or
or
have to
to
have
be performed
performed additionally
be
additionally by
by the
the stakeholders
stakeholders
themselves. The
themselves.
The use
use of
of synergies,
synergies, hidden
hidden stakeholder
stakeholder hierarchies
hierarchies and
and
knowledge
knowledge about
about product
product quality
quality within
within and
and among
among the
the group
group of
of stakeholders
stakeholders is
is
not
supported.
not supported.
The
The sole
sole mathematical
mathematical combination
combination of
of individual
individual priorities
priorities might
might lead
lead to
to a
a fair
fair
win
win of
of the
the majority
majority opinion.
opinion. In
In Social
Social Choice
Choice this
this might
might be
be desirable,
desirable, in
in "Product
"Product
Development"
Development" Choice
Choice the
the aim
aim is
is to
to maximize
maximize the
the product
product quality
quality and
and this
this might
might
not
not always
always be
be achieved
achieved by
by following
following the
the opinion
opinion of
of the
the majority.
majority. Some
Some of
of the
the
stakeholder might
might be
be better
better qualified
qualified to
to perceive
perceive what
what CR's
CR's are
are important,
important,
stakeholder
might have
have more
more knowledge
knowledge about
about the
the customer,
customer, or
or might
might have
have a
a stronger
stronger
might
intuition
intuition etc.,
etc., thus
thus such
such differences
used to
to improve
differences might
might be
be used
improve aa sole
sole
mathematical
mathematical combination
combination of
of votes.
votes. Without
Without considering
considering that
that group
group of
of voters
voters
might act
might
act interdependently
interdependently and
and might
might have
have different
different capabilities
capabilities to
to actually
actually
prioritize CR's,
prioritize
CR's, the
the actual
actual collaborative
collaborative part
part is
is missing.
missing. So
So problem
problem (b)
(b) is
is actually
actually
the search
search for
for a
a method
method which
which not
not only
only provides
provides a
a framework
framework to
to aggregate
aggregate
the
individual
individual and
and independent
independent votes
votes but
but also
also to
to incorporate
incorporate hidden
hidden information
information
about the
the interdependence
interdependence of
of the
the group
group members
members without
without having
having to
to perform
perform
about
tiresome actual
actual negotiations.
negotiations. The
The only
only obstacle
obstacle to
to do
do so,
so, is
is to
to determine
determine a
a fair
fair
tiresome
way
way to
to measure
measure such
such differences
differences among
among stakeholders.
stakeholders. The
The following
following section
section
presents
presents a
a method
method which
which already
already has
has this
this difference
difference of
of stakeholders
stakeholders in
in mind
mind
22
22
and shows
shows a
a way
way how
how votes
votes might
might be
be gathered
gathered with
with protection
protection of
of the
the individual
individual
and
sovereignty but
but with
with taking
taking interdependency
interdependency into
into account.
account.
sovereignty
2.2.5
2.2.5
INTERDEPENDENT
INTERDEPENDENT VOTERS
VOTERS
The difference
difference between
between independence
independence and
and interdependence
interdependence is
is that
that the
the sum
sum of
of
The
achievements of
of independent
independent parts,
parts, does
does not
not reach
reach the
the level
level of
of achievements
achievements
achievements
from interdependently
interdependently connected
connected parts.
parts. Interdependency
Interdependency is
is the
the motivator
motivator to
to
from
work in
in groups
groups and
and teams.
teams. The
The carriers
carriers of
of interdependence
interdependence are
are group
group dynamics
dynamics
work
and
and synergies
synergies among
among participants
participants which
which are
are used
used to
to foster
foster the
the individual
individual
performance.
performance.
Such
Such
interdependent
interdependent
effects
effects
are
are
applied
applied
in
in
Successive
Successive
Proportionate additive
additive Numeration,
Numeration, or
or renamed
renamed Social
Social Participatory
Participatory Allocative
Allocative
Proportionate
Network (SPAN)
(SPAN) voting
voting [Fox
[Fox 1987,
1987, Gundy
Gundy 1988].
1988]. It
It was
was presented
presented in
in the
the 70'es
70'es
Network
by
by MacKinnon
MacKinnon et
et al.
al. [MacK.
[MacK. 1966a,
1966a, MacK.
MacK. 1966b,
1966b, MacK.
MacK. 1969,
1969, MacK.
MacK. 1976]
1976] as
as a
a
method, which
which determines
determines relative
relative differences
differences between
between options
options and
and considers
considers
method,
difference
difference among
among stakeholders.
stakeholders. Each
Each stakeholder
stakeholder gets
gets a
a certain
certain number
number of
of
votes as
as in
in multivoting,
multivoting, e.g.
e.g. 100
100 points
points which
which he/she
he/she may
may distribute
distribute either
either to
to
votes
items or
or to
to a
a fellow
fellow stakeholder.
stakeholder. In
In the
the second
second round
round this
this step
step is
is repeated
repeated until
until
items
all
all points
points are
are distributed
distributed over
over the
the items
items and
and no
no stakeholder
stakeholder has
has any
any votes
votes left.
left.
The
The stakeholder
stakeholder themselves
themselves decide
decide how
how much
much they
they perceive
perceive the
the other
other
stakeholder
stakeholder to
to be
be special
special capable
capable of
of voting
voting and
and might
might pass
pass own
own votes
votes to
to them.
them.
Every stakeholder
stakeholder does
does that
that in
in the
the amount
amount he/she
he/she is
is willing
willing to
to rely
rely on
on the
the others
others
Every
judgment. In
judgment.
In this
this way
way an
an individual
individual not
not necessarily
necessarily dominates
dominates the
thevote,
vote,but
butthe
the
stakeholders might
might assign
assign higher
higher voting
voting power
power to
to individuals
individuals they
they perceive
perceive to
to be
be
stakeholders
more capable
capable of
of voting.
voting. SPAN
SPAN already
already includes
includes the
the basic
basic group
group dynamic
dynamic
more
elements;
elements; we
we are
are looking
looking for
for in
in the
the investigated
investigated methods.
methods. Unfortunately
Unfortunately the
the
method
method does
does not
not provide
provide a
a controlled
controlled way
way for
for differentiating
differentiating voting
voting influence
influence of
of
stakeholders,
stakeholders, that
that makes
makes the
the method
method prone
prone to
to manipulation
manipulation and
and jeopardizes
jeopardizes the
the
validity of
validity
of the
the found
found result
result [Gundy
[Gundy 1988].
1988]. Personal
Personal factors,
factors, e.g.
e.g. charisma,
charisma,
decisiveness, confidence,
confidence, liking
liking might
might be
be mistaken
mistaken as
as special
special expertise
expertise by
by
decisiveness,
stakeholders and
and the
the voting
voting power
power might
might be
be assigned
assigned arbitrarily.
arbitrarily. In
In an
an extreme
extreme
stakeholders
23
23
way a
way
a "dictatorship"
"dictatorship" of
of an
an individual
individual might
might be
be the
the result
result and
and therefore
therefore the
the
group advantage
advantage would
would be
be eliminated.
eliminated. The
The danger
danger of
of uncontrolled
uncontrolled bias
bias and
and the
the
group
integration of
of not
not specifically
specifically measured
measured interpersonal
interpersonal effects
effects could
could negatively
negatively
integration
influence the
the quality
quality of
of the
the voting
voting outcome,
outcome, i.e.
i.e. the
the prioritization.
prioritization.
influence
This limitation
limitation showed
showed the
the necessity
necessity to
to measure
measure this
this interdependency
interdependency in
in order
order
This
to
to
prevent
prevent
arbitrarily
arbitrarily
allocated
allocated
voting
voting
power.
power.
Therefore
Therefore
factors
factors
of
of
interdependency in
in teams
teams and
and organizations
organizations had
had to
to be
be studied
studied and
and that's
that's why
why
interdependency
social
social network
network literature
literature has
has been
been reviewed.
reviewed. The
The findings
findings revealed
revealed that
that social
social
networks
networks really
really are
are able
able to
to describe
describe interdependencies
interdependencies among
among stakeholders
stakeholders and
and
consequently might
might provide
provide a
a way
way how
how to
to measure
measure these
these interdependencies.
interdependencies.
consequently
The following
following sections
sections review
review the
the findings
findings in
in detail.
detail. Hereby
Hereby important
important elements
elements
The
within studies
studies of
of social
social network
network have
have been
been used
used to
to shape
shape own
own ideas
ideas and
and the
the
within
own approach.
approach.
own
2.3 Human
Human Social
Social Dynamics
Dynamics (HSD)
(HSD)
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.1
SOCIAL
SOCIAL NETWORK
NETWORK AND
AND TRUST
TRUST NETWORK
NETWORK
A
A key
key to
to understand
understand interpersonal
interpersonal relations
relations among
among stakeholder
stakeholder or
or even
even across
across
an organization
organization is
is to
to analyze
analyze the
the underlying
underlying social
social networks.
networks. Trust
Trust and
and power
power
an
[Cross 2002],
2002], Affect
Affect production,
production, politics
politics and
and culture
culture [Wald.
[Wald. 2001],
2001], Trust,
Trust, open
open
[Cross
communication and
and joint
joint problem
problem solving
solving arrangements
arrangements [Noor.
[Noor. 2002]
2002] are
are only
only a
a
communication
few
few networks
networks to
to mention
mention reflecting
reflecting relationships
In the
the
relationships between
between actors.
actors. In
literature the
literature
the terminology
terminology of
of social
social network
network is
is used
used to
to describe
describe a
a set
set of
of actors
actors
connected over
over a
a set
set of
of ties
ties to
to each
each other
other [Borg.
[Borg. 2003].
2003]. The
The actors,
actors, i.e.
i.e. "nodes"
"nodes"
connected
might be
be persons,
persons, teams,
teams, organizations,
organizations, concepts
concepts etc.
etc. "Ties"
"Ties" are
are the
the type
type of
of
might
connections between
between the
the nodes
nodes or
or pair
pair of
of nodes.
nodes. There
There might
might directed
directed (e.g.
(e.g.
connections
advice),
(e.g. physically
advice), undirected
undirected (e.g.
physically proximate)
proximate) ties
ties or
or the
the ties
ties might
might be
be
dichotomous
dichotomous (e.g.
(e.g. presence
presence of
of friendship)
friendship) or
or valued
valued (e.g.
(e.g. scale
scale of
of strength
strength of
of
tie). For
tie).
For each
each set
set of
of ties
ties (e.g.
(e.g. friendship
friendship ties)
ties) aa binary
binary social
social relation
relation is
is
constituted and
constituted
and for
for every
every relation
relation a
a different
different network
network defined
defined (e.g.
(e.g. friendship
friendship
24
24
network,
network, advice
advice network,
network, communication
communication network).
network). The
The functionalities
functionalities are
are
different in
different
in each
each network,
network, i.e.
i.e. centrality
centrality in
in a
a conflict
conflict network
network doesn't
doesn't imply
imply the
the
same as
same
as centrality
centrality in
in the
the trust
trust network.
network. Borgatti
Borgatti et
et al.
al. identified
identified different
different areas
areas
where network
network research
research is
is recently
recently enhanced.
enhanced. A
A large
large body
body of
of work
work is
is founded
founded
where
in social
in
social capital,
capital, which
which is
is the
the organizational
organizational network
network research
research where
where forms
forms and
and
implications
implications of
of networks
networks on
on different
different issues
issues as
as for
for example
example team
team performance;
performance;
power, leadership
power,
leadership etc
etc are
are investigated.
investigated.
Found
Found literature
literature points
points out
out the
the significance
significance of
of such
such ties
ties and
and the
the impact
impact of
of
changes
changes to
to those
those networks
networks [Katz
[Katz 2003].
2003]. Krackhardt
Krackhardt et
et al.
al. [Krac.
[Krac. 1993]
1993] identified
identified
communication,
communication,
advice
advice
and
and
trust
as the
trust as
the
most
most common
common
networks
networks in
in
organizations.
organizations. They
They showed
showed in
in an
an example
example how
how controlled
controlled changes
changes to
to these
these
networks have
have changed
changed the
the performance
performance of
of the
the exemplary
exemplary organization
organization
networks
significantly. In
significantly.
In strategic
strategic decision
decision making
making trust
trust in
in the
the final
final decider
decider is
is critical
critical for
for
the
the outcome
outcome and
and acceptance
acceptance of
of the
the decision
decision [Kors.
[Kors. 1995
1995 and
and Eise.
Eise. 1989].
1989].
McAllister
McAllister
[McAI.
[McAI.
1995]
1995]
documented
documented
trust
trust
as
as
determinant
determinant
for
for
that
that
interdependent
interdependent actors
actors work
work effectively
effectively together.
together. Trust
Trust is
is therefore
therefore a
a key
key value
value
for team
team work.
work. The
The role
role of
of trust
trust stands
stands out,
out, because
because itit affects
affects many
many other
other
for
interpersonal issues,
interpersonal
issues, i.e.
i.e. communication,
communication, sharing
sharing of
of information,
information, sharing
sharing of
of
knowledge,
knowledge, sharing
sharing of
of responsibilities
responsibilities and
and tasks.
tasks. Trust
Trust directly
directly influences
influences the
the
quality of
quality
of team
team work
work and
and its
its performance.
performance. It
It influences
influences the
the way
way we
we listen
listen to,
to,
share information
share
information with,
with, respect
respect and
and rely
rely on
on each
each other.
other. A
A lack
lack of
of trust
trust affects
affects
communication, cooperation
communication,
cooperation and
and decision
decision making
making [Meier
{Meier 2004]
2004] of
of the
the team.
team. In
In
the
the following
following sections
sections trust
trust is
is further
further examined.
examined.
2.3.2
2.3.2 TRUST
TRUSTAS
ASKEY
KEYFACTOR
FACTORIN
INHSD
HSDENVIRONMENTS
ENVIRONMENTS
2.3.2.1
2.3.2.1
Definition of
Definition
of Trust
Trust
Encyclopedia Britannica:
Encyclopedia
Britannica: In
In law,
law, aa re/atfonsh,
reIationshi between
between part/es
parties in
in which
which one,
one,
the trustee
the
trustee or
or fiduc/aty,
fiduciaty, has
has the
the power
power to
to manage
manage property,
property, and
and the
the other,
other, the
the
beneficiaiy,
the prIvilege
privilege of
of receiving
receiving the
the benefits
benefits from
from that
that property.
property.
beneficiaty, has
has the
25
25
Merriam Webster
Webster Online
Online Dictionary,
Dictionary, 1
1a
a ;: assured
assured reliance
reliance on
on the
the character,
character,
Merriam
ability,
ability, strength,
strength, or
or truth
truth of
of someone
someone or
or something
something b
b :: one
one in
in which
which confidence
confidence
is p/aced
p/aced
is
2a
2
a ;: dependence
dependence on
on something
something future
future or
or contingent;
contingent: HOPE
HOPE b
b ;: reliance
re/iance on
on
future payment
delivered: CREDIT
CREDIT
future
payment for
for property
property (as
(asmerchandise)
merchandie) delivered;
3
3a
a : aaproperty
propertyinterest
interestheld
held by
by one
one person
person for
for the
the benefit
benefit of
of another
another bb :; aa
combination
combination of
of firms
firms or
or corporations
corporations formed
formed by
by a
a legal
/ega/ agreement;
agreement; especially;
especially:
one
one that
that reduces
reduces or
or threatens
threatens to
to reduce
reduce competition
competition
The
The literature
literature review
review revealed
revealed the
the existing
existing discordance
discordance about
about the
the exact
exact
definition of
of trust,
trust, its
its antecedents
antecedents and
and outcomes.
outcomes. A
A clear
clear and
and accepted
accepted model
model
definition
was
was presented
presented by
by Mayer,
Mayer, Davis
Davis &
& Schoorman
Schoorman '95
'95 [Mayer
[Mayer 1995],
1995], who
who define
define
trust as
as willingness
willingness to
to be
be vulnerable
vulnerable to
to the
the actions
actions of
of another
another party.
party. These
These
trust
actions might
might be
be cooperation,
cooperation, sharing
sharing sensitive
sensitive information,
information, letting
letting the
the other
other
actions
party taking
taking control
control over
over issues
issues which
which are
are important
important to
to the
the trustor2. The
party
The
trustor2.
development of
development
of trust
trust and
and mistrust
mistrust is
is related
related to
to previous
previous outcomes
outcomes of
of this
this
vulnerability. If
If previous
previous trust
trust has
has been
been confirmed
confirmed by
by a
a successful
successful outcome
outcome the
the
vulnerability.
willingness to
to be
be vulnerable
vulnerable will
will be
be higher
higher the
the next
next time.
time. The
The opposite
opposite effect
effect will
will
willingness
occur if
if the
the outcome
outcome has
has been
been disappointing
disappointing [Mayer
[Mayer 1995].
1995].
occur
Rousseau et
et al.
al. [Rous.
[Rous. 1998]
1998] performed
performed an
an extensive
extensive literature
literature review
review and
and
Rousseau
found
found that
that most
most definitions
definitions of
of trust
trust are
are centered
centered on
on "willingness
"willingness to
to be
be
vulnerable" and
and "confident
"confident expectations",
expectations", whereas
whereas confident
confident expectations
expectations are
are
vulnerable"
similar to
to positive
positive expectations.
expectations. Therefore
Therefore Rousseau
Rousseau et
et al.
al. concluded
concluded trust
trust as:
as:
similar
"Trust
is aa psycho/ogica/
psychological state
state comprLsing
comprising the
accept vulnerability
vulnerability
"Trust is
the intention
intention to
to accept
based
upon positive
positive expectations
expectations of
of the
the intentions
intentions or
or behavior
behavior of
ofanothe,".
anothet'. In
In
based upon
the statement
statement of
of Rousseau
Rousseau et
et al.
al. the
the requisites
requisites for
for trust
trust are
are already
already named,
named, i.e.
i.e.
the
risk and
risk
and interdependence.
interdependence. The
The next
next section
section is
is focused
focused on
on what
whatare
arerequisites
requisitesso
so
that trust
trust is
is able
able to
to be
be developed.
developed.
that
2
2
Trustor (who
(who trusts
trusts the
the trustee)
trustee)
Trustor
26
2.3.2.2
2.3.2.2
Reaulsites for
Reciulsites
for Trust
Trust
Initiated
Initiated by
by Deutsch
Deutsch [Deut.
[Deut. 1958]
1958] is
is the
the comprehension
comprehension that
that risk
risk or
or having
having
something invested,
invested, is
is a
a requisite
requisite for
for trust.
trust. Rousseau
Rousseau et
et al.
al. [Rous.
[Rous. 1998]
1998] define
define
something
two
two fundamental
fundamental conditions
conditions based
based on
on their
their extensive
extensive literature
literature review.
review. Risk
Risk and
and
interdependence are
interdependence
are both
both needed
needed to
to foster
foster trust
trust (i.e.
(i.e. risk
risk stemming
stemmingfrom
fromthe
the
uncertainty
uncertainty of
of the
the outcome
outcome and
and interdependence
interdependence as
as necessary
necessary reliance
reliance between
between
parties
parties to
to reach
reach positive
positive outcome).
outcome). Variations
Variations in
in both
both risk
risk and
and interdependency
interdependency
along the
along
the interactions
interactions will
will alter
alter the
the level
level of
of trust.
trust. In
In the
the second
second part
part of
of their
their
paper, Rousseau
paper,
Rousseau et
et al.
al. manifest
manifest trust
trust not
not as
as control,
control, but
but as
as substitute
substitute for
for
control.
control. In
In other
other words
words ifif control
control of
of the
the outcome
outcome is
is not
not possible,
possible, a
a way
way still
still to
to
make
make a
a decision
decision is
is to
to trust.
trust. Gillespie
Gillespie (2003)
(2003) [Gill.
[Gill. 2003]
2003] summarizes
summarizes it
it more
more to
to
the
the point:
point: "trust
"trust begins
begins where
where rational
rational prediction
prediction ends".
ends".
Determining the
the priorities
priorities of
of CR's
CR's by
by aa cross-functional
cross-functional stakeholder
stakeholder group
group
Determining
involve both
both requisites.
requisites. Interdependency
Interdependency because
because without
without participation
participation of
of all
all
involve
stakeholders, important
important concerns
concerns might
might be
be missed
missed and
and the
the risk,
risk, because
because errors
errors
stakeholders,
in
in
prioritization
prioritization of
of CR's
CR's might
might indirectly
indirectly lead
lead to
to product
product rejection.
rejection. Trust
Trust is
is
therefore
therefore well
well suited
suited to
to express
express the
the tie
tie between
between stakeholder,
stakeholder, while
while they
they
perceive the
the view
view of
of the
the customers
customers in
in order
order to
to prioritize
prioritize CR's.
CR's.
perceive
In
In order
order to
to use
use the
the trust
trust network
network among
among stakeholders
stakeholders in
in a
a mathematical
mathematical
framework,
framework, trust
trust has
has to
to be
be measurable.
measurable. Therefore
Therefore the
the literature
literature review
review also
also
includes
includes
studies
studies concerning
concerning the
the
trustworthiness.
trustworthiness.
perceptive
perceptive
measurement of
measurement
of trust
trust and
and
27
2.4 Trust measurement
2.4.1
A MODEL OF TRUST MEASUREMENT
Factors of
perceived
Trusohiness
I
Trustor's
Propensity
Ability
Trust
I
HH
Risk Taking in
Relationship
Outcome
Integrity
Perceived
Risk
Figure 2.2 Model of Trust [Mayer 1995]
In the presented model of Mayer et al. 95 [Mayer 1995], i.e. figure 2.2, trust
might be composed by the own general willingness to trust (i.e. own
propensity) and how trustworthy the trustee is perceived by the trustor. The
proposed model of trust by Mayer et al. is a causal loop (Fig. 2.2) with
trustworthiness and propensity fostering trust. The loop points out that before
the trustor usually takes the risk of being vulnerable, he checks if the trustee is
trustworthy enough in his eyes.
This leads to the definition of perceived trustworthiness. Mayer et al. 95 [Mayer
1995]
propose
that perceived trustworthiness
is
comprised
of ability,
benevolence and integrity. Ability is that group of skills, competencies, expertise
and characteristics that allow a party to have influence within some domain.
Benevolence is the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to
the trustor, aside from the own egocentric profit motive. Integrity is defined as
the trustor's perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the
trustor finds acceptable. All three factors are combined in an idiosyncratic way
between individuals and situations.
More
More empirical
empirical work
work e.g.
e.g. [Mayer
[Mayer 1999
1999 and
and Gill.
Gill. 2003]
2003] showed
showed that
that although
although
trustworthiness is
is aa significant
significant determinate
determinate for
for trust,
trust, itit is
is not
not equally
equally to
to trust.
trust.
trustworthiness
Gillespie offered
Gillespie
offered several
several reasons
reasons for
for why
why itit is
is conceptually
conceptually wrong
wrong to
to assume
assume
measuring
measuring trustworthiness
trustworthiness is
is measuring
measuring trust.
trust. The
The most
most obvious
obvious reason
reason is
is that
that
judging
judging somebody's
somebody's trustworthiness
trustworthiness does
does not
not require
require risk,
risk, vulnerability
vulnerability or
or
interdependency, but
interdependency,
but trust
trust does.
does. There
There was
was also
also only
only light
light empirical
empirical evidence
evidence
for correlation
correlation between
between trust
trust and
and trustworthiness
trustworthiness as
as factors.
factors. It
It seems
seems that
that both
both
for
are depending
depending on
on distinct
distinct other
other important
important constructs.
constructs. According
According her
her findings
findings a
a
are
valid
valid instrument
instrument for
for trust
trust has
has to
to measure
measure trust
trust as
as willingness
willingness to
to be
be vulnerable
vulnerable or
or
trusting behavior
behavior (e.g.
(e.g. sharing
sharing sensitive
sensitive information,
information, delegate
delegate responsibilities,
responsibilities,
trusting
share
share own
own ideas,
ideas, express
express critics)
critics) in
in order
order to
to measure
measure trust.
trust. She
She noted
noted a
a general
general
lack of
of reliable
reliable measures
measures for
for organizational
organizational trust
trust and
and a
a gap
gap between
between definitions
definitions
lack
and
and instruments.
instruments.
2.4.2
2.4.2
INSTRUMENT
INSTRUMENT
OF
OF
TRUSTWORTHINESS
TRUSTWORTHINESS
MEASURING
MEASURING
TRUST
TRUST
AND
AND
In order
order to
tobe
beable
abletotocorrelate
In
correlatetrust
trustand
andtrustworthiness,
trustworthiness, or
or to
to team
team
performance
performance or
or a
a positive
positive outcome,
outcome, trust
trust and
and trustworthiness
trustworthiness have
have to
to be
be
measured. In
In a
a quasi
quasi field
field experiment
experiment Mayer
Mayer et
et al.
al. [Mayer
[Mayer 1999]
1999] measured
measured
measured.
trust
trust and
and trustworthiness
trustworthiness related
related to
to a
a managerial
managerial issue
issue (i.e.
(i.e. Performance
Performance
Appraisal
Appraisal System).
System). Zolin
Zolin et
et al.
al. [Zolin
[Zolin 2003]
2003] used
used a
a similar
similar tool
tool to
to measure
measure trust
trust
in
in a
a distributed,
distributed, cross-functional
cross-functional Architecture,
Architecture, Engineering
Engineering and
and Construction
Construction
project to
project
to relate
relate trust
trust in
in A/E/C-teams
A/E/C-teams to
to their
their performance.
performance. In
In both
both cases
cases a
a
specifically
specifically
designed
designed
and
and
adjusted
adjusted
questionnaire
questionnaire
were
were
used
used
for
for
the
the
measurement.
measurement.
[Gill. 2003]
[Gill.
2003] introduced
introduced the
the "Behavioral
"Behavioral Trust
Trust Inventory"
Inventory" (BTI)
(BTI) which
which measures
measures
the willingness
the
willingness of
of being
being vulnerable.
vulnerable. She
She successfully
successfully demonstrates
demonstrates that
that in
in order
order
to
to be
be measurable,
measurable, the
the items
items in
in the
the questionnaires
questionnaires have
have to
to be
be bound
bound to
to
interactions
interactions between
between trustor
trustor and
and trustee.
trustee. This
This reasoning
reasoning explains
explains her
her strong
strong
concentration on
concentration
on trust
trust behavior,
behavior, rather
on aa concentration
rather on
concentration on
on trustor's
trustor's
29
29
judgment of
judgment
of the
the trustee
trustee as
as found
found in
in e.g.
e.g. Mayer
Mayer et
et al.
al. (1999).
(1999). In
In preliminary
preliminary
interviews
interviews of
of triads
triads (Project
(Project manager
manager and
and two
two subordinates)
subordinates) she
she extracted
extracted two
two
main domains
domains of
of trust
trust behavior.
behavior. These
These were
were Reliance
Reliance ("relying
("relying on
on another's
another's
main
skills, know/edge,
skills,
know/edge, judgments
judgments or
or actions,
actions,
including delegating
induding
delegating and
and gIving
giving
autonomy')
autonomy') and
and Disclosure
Disclosure ("sharing
("sharing work/related
work/related or
or personal
personal information
information of
of a
a
sensitive
[Gill. 2003].
2003]. Based
Based on
on those
those findings
sensitive nature")
naturd') [Gill.
findings and
and further
further interviews
interviews
she
she extracted
extracted a
a general
general trust
trust measurement
measurement from
from initially
initially 50
50 items
items down
down to
to 15
15
questions.
questions.
The
The
literature
literature
review
review
of
of
preferential
preferential
voting,
voting,
HSD-factors
HSD-factors
and
and
trust/trustworthiness
trust/trustworthiness indicated
indicated a
a doable
doable way
way of
of how
how a
a social
social effect
effect might
might be
be
measured
measured and
and on
on this
this way
way might
might add
add value
value in
in an
an effective
effective group
group prioritization
prioritization
process.
process. The
The following
following chapter
chapter will
will further
further explain
explain how
how the
the reviewed
reviewed studies
studies and
and
own
own ideas
ideas might
might be
be translated
translated into
into a
a consistent
consistent and
and rigorous
rigorous methodology.
methodology.
30
30
3 METHODOLOGY
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
OVERVIEW
3
3.1
3.1 Objective
Objective and
and Requirements
Requirements for
for the
the Method
Method
The
The objective
objective of
of the
the developed
developed method
method is
is to
to improve
improve the
the relative
relative prioritization
prioritization
of
of Customer
Customer Requirements
Requirements by
by aa group
group of
of stakeholders
stakeholders in
in cases
cases where
where extensive
extensive
customer inquiries
customer
inquiries are
are not
not performed
performed or
or the
the final
final decision
decision is
is made
made by
by the
the
stakeholders.
stakeholders.
The literature
The
literature review
review revealed
revealed following
following description
description of
of requirements
requirementsfor
forsuch
suchaa
method. The
The method
method has
has to
to provide
provide a
a way
way to
to record
record relative
relative priorities
priorities rather
rather
method.
than rankings.
than
rankings. The
The method
method should
should support
support the
the stakeholders
stakeholders to
to consider
consider
consumer, stakeholders'
consumer,
stakeholders' organizational
organizational and
and societal
societal concerns.
concerns.ItItalso
alsohas
hasto
totake
take
into account
into
account the
the way
way the
the individual
individual and
and group
group of
of stakeholders
stakeholders interpret
interpret the
the
customer data.
customer
data. The
The method
method has
has also
also to
to provide
provide a
a way
way to
to combine
combine individual
individual
interpretation of
of what
what is
is important
important in
in order
order to
to find
find final
final priorities,
priorities, which
which all
all
interpretation
stakeholders
stakeholders accept
accept as
as group
group decision.
decision. ItIt would
would need
need to
to distinguish
distinguish the
the voting
voting
power
power of
of stakeholders,
stakeholders, because
because there
there exist
exist differences
differences in
in experience,
experience, expertise,
expertise,
commitment, purity
purity of
of motives
motives among
among the
the stakeholders.
stakeholders. An
An offered
offered way
way to
to
commitment,
measure and
measure
and quantify
quantify these
these differences
differences is
is measuring
measuring the
the tie
tie strength
strength in
in social
social
networks
networks and
and
in
in
specific by
specific
by measuring
measuring trust
trust in
in understanding
understanding customers'
customers'
perceived
perceived desired
desired product
product qualities.
qualities. Moreover
Moreover the
the developed
developed method
method should
should be
be
more effective,
more
effective, i.e.
i.e. more
more accurate
accurate and
and less
less time
time consuming,
consuming, more
more transparent
transparent
than existing
existing methods
methods and
and should
should provide
provide tools
tools to
to interpret
interpret the
the results.
results.
than
3.2 Technical
Technical and
3.2
and
Development
Development
The
The
basic
basic
idea
idea
Social
Social
Connectedness
Connectedness
of the
of
the presented
presented study
study stems
stems from
from
in
in
Product
Product
the concept
the
concept of
of
connectedness, where
where everything
everything relates
relates to
to others
others and
and everyone
everyone ties
ties to
to others.
others.
connectedness,
Although these
Although
these connections
connections are
are more
more obvious
obvious on
on the
the technical-physical
technical-physical side
side of
of
the product
the
product development,
development, they
they also
also exist
exist on
on the
the human-social
human-social side
side of
of the
the
development process.
development
process. Connections
Connections make
make possible
possible that
that tasks,
tasks, goals
goals and
and
31
performances are achieved, which for an individual part (artificial or human)
would not be achieved to this level. The interdependence discussed in section
2.2.5 is one part of this being connected. Through the connectedness individual
parts are becoming a system. Figure 3.1 shows two intertwined systems, i.e.
technical and social system, while a product is developed. Where as both
systems are individually already well studied, the connection and influence from
one system on the other and on the product development has yet only attracted
little attention.
/
Phyiscs, Function
Design Concept
+ Product Procurement
+ Product Quality
L__r_
1Connectednessl
aIpersonal
//
/
Product
/
\
+ Trust in Capability of
/
making Design Decision
to maximize Product
Quality
J
'S..--S....
/
Figure 3.1 Technical and Social Connectedness in Concurrent Product Development
In this study the connectedness is presented by integrating information from
the social network in a technical decision making process. It is attempted
hereby to start filling the gap in understanding the cohesion of two main
systems facilitating the design process.
33 Approach: Prioritizing Customer Requirements (CR)
with Consideration of Stakeholder Trustworthiness
The proposed methodology (as shown in Fig. 3.2) helps to derive the relative
importance of CR's as an embodiment of concerns from consumers, the
developer's organization and societal concerns (see Fig. 1.2). Figure 3.2 shows
32
32
three major
major phases,
phases, i.e.
i.e. three
three columns
columns at
at the
the early
early design
design stage,
stage, including
including
three
defining CR's,
CR's, finding
finding relative
relative importance,
importance, and
and relating
relating CR's
CR's to
to engineering
engineering
defining
Requirements (ER's).
(ER's). The
The focus
focus of
of our
our study
study is
is the
the middle
middle column.
column. The
The method
method
Requirements
starts
with a
a pool
pool of
of CR's
CR's resulted
resulted through
through stakeholders'
stakeholders' brainstorming
brainstormingor
orother
other
starts with
techniques,
techniques, and
and expects
expects to
to deliver
deliver a
a set
set of
of relative
relative priorities
priorities of
of CR's
CR's determined
determined
by
by the
the group,
group, from
from which
which the
the ER's
ER's are
are to
to be
be derived.
derived. Within
Within the
the middle
middle column,
column,
following the
following
the horizontal
horizontal direction
direction rightward,
rightward, the
the proposed
proposed approach
approach has
has two
two
stages, an
an individual
individual prioritization
prioritization of
of CR's
CR's (Step
(Step 1
1 and
and 2)
2) and
and the
the group
group task
task of
of
stages,
combining all
all individual
individual priorities
priorities (Step
(Step 3).
3). In
In a
a collaborative
collaborative environment
environment not
not
combining
only a
a single
single developer,
developer, but
but multiple
multiple stakeholders
stakeholders are
are involved.
involved. Each
Each of
of them
them
only
might
might bring
bring a
a different
different set
set of
of expertise,
expertise, experiences,
experiences, preferences
preferences and
and concerns
concerns
with
with him/her.
him/her. Because
Because of
of their
their different
different backgrounds
backgrounds and
and interests
interests they
they might
might
all perceive
perceive the
the relative
relative importance
importance of
of CR's
CR's differently.
differently. If
If we
we assume
assume that
that each
each
all
stakeholder might
might have
have different
different perspectives,
perspectives, the
the result
result would
would be
be N-different
N-different
stakeholder
priorities for
for every
every CR,
CR, where
where N
N the
the total
total number
number of
of stakeholders
stakeholders is.
is. At
At that
that
priorities
instant two
two questions
questions rise:
rise:
instant
(1)
(1)
How are
are the
the stakeholders
stakeholders individually
individually developing
developing their
their priorities?
priorities?
How
(2)
(2)
How
How are
are these
these individual
individual priorities
priorities unified
unified into
into one
one final
final group
group
decision?
decision?
Our
Our proposed
proposed work
work translates
translates these
these two
two questions
questions in
in aa three-step
three-step approach:
approach: (1)
(1)
generation
generation of
of individual
individual priorities,
priorities, (2)
(2) updating
updating individual
individual priorities
priorities and
and (3)
(3)
unifying the
the individual
individual priorities.
priorities. The
The following
following three
three sections
sections explain
explain further
further
unifying
details and
and how
how the
the proposed
proposed work
work plans
plans to
to achieve
achieve a
a group
group prioritization
prioritization of
of
details
customer requirements.
customer
requirements.
In step
In
step one
one the
the stakeholders
stakeholders are
are treated
treated as
as independent
independent decision
decision makers.
makers. The
The
independent generation
generation of
of the
the individual
individual priorities
priorities might
might guarantee
guarantee that
that the
the full
full
independent
amount of
of expertise,
expertise, knowledge,
knowledge, intuition
intuition etc.
etc. inherent
inherent in
in the
the stakeholders
stakeholders is
is
amount
used to
to integrate
integrate concerns
concerns in
in the
the CR's
CR's prioritization
prioritization process.
process. In
In that
that way
way the
the
used
participation of
of the
the stakeholder
stakeholder is
is ensured
ensured and
and the
the broad
broad base
base of
of concerns
concerns of
of
participation
the
the stakeholders
stakeholders is
is represented
represented in
in the
the priorities
priorities (please
(please refer
refer to
to section
section 4.1.1
4.1.1 for
for
33
33
technical
technical details
details of
of this
this step).
step). As
As we
we have
have seen
seen in
in the
the literature
literature review,
review, the
the
prioritization of
prioritization
of CR's
CR's might
might not
not be
be based
based solely
solely on
on costumer
costumer data,
data, because
because
usually not
not all
all concerns
concerns (see
(see Fig.
Fig. 1.1)
1.1) are
are adequately
adequately represented
represented or
or easily
easily
usually
recognized in
recognized
in these
these data,
data, therefore
therefore the
the prioritization
prioritization process
process may
may not
not rely
rely on
on
raw
raw customer
customer data
data or
or its
its direct
direct translation
translation exclusively.
exclusively.
The
is a
The prioritization
prioritization is
a careful
careful tradeoff
tradeoff among
among different
different customer
customer concerns,
concerns,
stakeholders' organization
stakeholders'
organization and
and societal
societal concerns.
concerns. The
The individual
individual stakeholder
stakeholder
might
might therefore
therefore try
try to
to perceive
perceive what
what requirements
requirements especially
especially lead
lead to
to high
high
product
product quality
quality based
based on
on his/her
his/her knowledge
knowledge and
and experience
experience with
with all
all customers.
customers.
He/she might
might consider
consider gathered
gathered customer
customer data
data in
in his/her
his/her judgment.
judgment. He/she
He/she
He/she
might study
study unique
unique product
product qualities
qualities compared
compared to
to competitors.
competitors. He/she
He/she might
might
might
try to
try
to match
match corporate
corporate strategy
strategy and
and image
image with
with his/her
his/her perception
perception of
of product
product
priorities. Finally
priorities.
Finally the
the developer
developer would
would carefully
carefully examine
examine ifif his/her
his/her product
product
priorities
priorities might
might not
not harm
harm any
any societal
societal concerns
concerns (please
(please refer
refer to
to fig.3.2).
fig.3.2). In
In our
our
proposed work,
work, we
we intend
intend to
to summarize
summarize the
the individual's
individual's process
process to
to incorporate
incorporate
proposed
the voice
voice of
of customer,
customer, developer's
developer's organization,
organization, and
and society
society into
into his/her
the
his/her
prioritization of
of CR's
CR's through
through following
following process:
process: (1):
(1): Customer
Customer and
and market
market
prioritization
driven prioritization;
driven
prioritization;
(2):
(2):
individual
individual preference
preference based
based adjustment
adjustment of
of the
the
priorities;
(3): the
the knowledge
knowledge based
based adjustment
adjustment of
of the
the priorities
priorities to
torepresent
represent
priorities; (3):
the
the organizational
organizational and
and societal
societal concerns,
concerns, as
as shown
shown in
in
Fig.
Fig.
3.2. With
With this
this
3.2.
described first
described
first step,
step, the
the stakeholders
stakeholders individually
individually generate
generate their
their own
own priorities,
priorities,
in the
the following
following two
two steps
steps these
these individual
individual priorities
in
priorities are
are led
led to
to collective
collective
priorities.
priorities.
Defining
CR's>I[
Determination of relative Importance of CR's
/
Stakeho
Interdependency hidden
in social network
Individual task: p rioritize the CR's to maximize
Product Quality
'Understand
I
CRs lthrough
group
I'
j,,customer
I
I
(through
survey,
tetemarketing,
etc)
Finalize CRs
with group
consensus
I
I
1
i
I
j
Priorijj
g
Wngnesstobe vulnerable
j
I
what
is important to
Lssions)
Gather CR1s
Group of interdisciplinary
Stakeholders
Group task: combine all individual
I
tdividual
______
>
Relating CR's toER
I
L,,,,
-'
sider
corporate
m
5
___
2
Conder
c
0)
Benevolence:
Departure
from decision obiective
_______________________
I
I
________________
_____________
CR priorities
L
I
I
CD
nfegrity:
6
Reliability of Trustee's decisions
priorities
I
Relate CR to
ER's
I
Consider
Engineering
and Cost
I
I
Constt_,,1
j
,
Complete CR
Pool
1
RequiremenJ
CD
concerns
preference
Generate
Engineering
O,CD
Imag:
See unique
product
qualities
among
CD
Iuserelatwel
I]
Ability
Validity of Trustee's knowledgebase
J
er
Market
Driven
prioritization
of CR's
adjustment
based
I
I adjustment
of the CR I I
Priorities
of the CR
Priority
Collaborative evolution
Step one
Unify updated
I
I Knowledge
Preference
based
I
II
Engineering1
I
priorities by
considering
trusted
opinions
trustworthiness of
individual
stakeholders
individualIndividual
of
CR Priorities
Step
o
Strategy:
Prioritized
ER list
ER target
ranges
Priorities
with high
group
acceptance
I
____________
Step three
Figure 3.2 Determination of Relative Importance of CR's After Defining a CR's Pool and Before Relating CR's to an
Engineering Strategy.
(JJ
-
35
In Step
Step 2,
2, the
the stakeholder
stakeholder considers
considers the
the opinion
opinion of
of the
the other
other stakeholders
stakeholders to
to
In
the
the extent
extent he/she
he/she trusts
trusts their
their capability
capability to
to understand
understand the
the customers'
customers' perceived
perceived
desired
desired
product quality.
quality.
product
With
With
that step
that
step the
the stakeholders
stakeholders
employ
employ the
the
interdependencies among
interdependencies
among the
the stakeholders
stakeholders hidden
hidden in
in the
the social
social network.
network. The
The
individual stakeholder
individual
stakeholder uses
uses social
social dynamics
dynamics to
to determine
determine the
the extent
extent he/she
he/she is
is
willing to
to rely
rely on
on a
a specific
specific stakeholders'
stakeholders' and
and his/her
his/her own
own opinion.
opinion. Hereby
Hereby the
the
willing
individual priorities
individual
priorities are
are updated
updated by
by a
a weighted
weighted sum
sum consisting
consisting of
of all
all other
other
stakeholders'
stakeholders' and
and own
own individual
individual priorities.
priorities. The
The applied
applied trustworthiness
trustworthiness (TW-)
(TW-)
measurement
measurement quantifies
quantifies the
the willingness
willingness of
of the
the trustor
trustor to
to be
be vulnerable
vulnerable to
to the
the
capability to
capability
to prioritize
prioritize CR's
CR's of
of all
all stakeholders
stakeholders including
including the
the trustor
trustor him/herself.
him/herself.
The developed
developed TW-measurement
TW-measurement is
is a
a comprehensive
comprehensive multi
multi item
item survey
survey with
with
The
items concerning
items
concerning expertise,
expertise, experience,
experience, commitment,
commitment, motivation,
motivation, consistency
consistency
and rationality
rationality of
of the
the trustee
trustee (Meier
(Meier et
et al.
al. [Meier
[Meier 2004]).
2004]). In
In the
the literature
literature review
review
and
of
of social
social dynamics
dynamics trust
trust has
has been
been found
found to
to be
be comprehensively
comprehensively constituted
constituted of
of
ability,
ability, benevolence
benevolence and
and integrity
integrity somebody
somebody has
has towards
towards somebody
somebody else's
else's
actions.
actions. Hereby
Hereby trust
trust might
might be
be very
very objective
objective and
and possibly
possibly concentrated
concentrated on
on a
a
specific issue.
issue. In
In the
the case
case of
of prioritizing
prioritizing CR's
CR's the
the specific
specific objective
objective is
is trust
trust in
in the
the
specific
trustee's
trustee's capability
capability to
to understand
understand customers'
customers' perceived
perceived desired
desired product
product quality.
quality.
Trust and
Trust
and trustworthiness
trustworthiness seems
seems to
to serve
serve well
well for
for the
the purpose
purpose of
ofquantifying
quantifying
opinions
opinions and
and judgment
judgment of
of fellow
fellow stakeholders.
stakeholders. Despite
Despite the
the first
first independent
independent
step
step in
in the
the decision
decision making
making process,
process, the
the second
second step
step uses
uses the
the interdependency
interdependency
of the
of
the decision
decision maker
maker based
based on
on his/her
his/her own
own social
social network
network towards
towards all
all other
other
stakeholders.
stakeholders. That
That explains
explains parts
parts of
of the
the second
second stage
stage in
in Figure
Figure 3.2
3.2 towards
towards
finding
finding relative
relative importance
importance of
of CR's
CR's and
and why
why trust
trust has
has to
to be
be measured
measured in
in order
order
to
to represent
represent the
the interdependencies
interdependencies of
of the
the stakeholders.
stakeholders. If
If this
this step
step would
would fail,
fail,
the
the level
level of
of aa single
single independent
independent developer
developer could
could not
not be
be passed
passed and
and the
the
qualities and
qualities
and advantages
advantages of
of an
an interdisciplinary
interdisciplinary stakeholder
stakeholder group
group would
would be
be
neglected
neglected (technical
(technical details
details for
for the
the second
second step
step are
are shown
shown in
in section
section 4.1.2).
4.1.2).
Once the
Once
the individual
individual priorities
priorities are
are updated
updated with
with weighted
weighted priorities
priorities of
of all
all
36
36
stakeholders, these
stakeholders,
these new
new i.e.
i.e. updated
updated priorities
priorities will
will be
be combined
combined and
and unified
unified in
in a
a
third and
third
and last
last step.
step.
In
In Step
Step 3,
3, the
the interdependency
interdependency among
among the
the group
group members
members is
is also
also used
used to
to unify
unify
the
the updated
updated priority
priority lists.
lists. Where
Where in
in the
the second
second step
step the
the TW-measurement
TW-measurement is
is
used to
used
to quantify
quantify the
the willingness
willingness of
of each
each stakeholder
stakeholder to
to rely
rely on
on the
the opinion
opinion of
of all
all
other
other stakeholders
stakeholders and
and him/herself,
him/herself, the
the same
same measurement
measurement is
is used
used in
in the
the third
third
step to
step
to quantify
quantify how
how much
much the
the group
group is
is willing
willing to
to rely
rely on
on the
the judgment
judgment of
of every
every
individual
individual in
in that
that group.
group. This
This bidirectional
bidirectional effect
effect of
of the
the interdependency
interdependency is
is
shown in
shown
in Figure
Figure 3.2
3.2 with
with a
a two-way
two-way arrow
arrow between
between the
the individual
individual and
and the
the
group.
group. Based
Based on
on the
the proposed
proposed measurement
measurement of
of the
the interdependency
interdependency among
among
stakeholders,
stakeholders, weights
weights are
are calculated
calculated for
for summing
summing up
up the
the individual,
individual, updated
updated
priorities in
priorities
in order
order to
to arrive
arrive at
at unified
unified priorities
priorities (please
(please refer
refer to
to section
section 4.1.3
4.1.3 for
for
more technical
more
technical details).
details). The
The updated
updated priorities
priorities are,
are, as
as explained
explained in
in the
the previous
previous
paragraph, a
a weighted
weighted sum
sum of
of individual
individual priorities.
priorities. The
The specific
specific focus
focus of
of the
the
paragraph,
proposed
proposed TW-measurement
TW-measurement does
does not
not include
include measures
measures of
of how
how well
well the
the trustee
trustee
is
is
perceived toto trust
perceived
trust other
other stakeholders
stakeholders and
and yet
yet
in
in
the
the third
third step
step the
the
measurement is
is indirectly
indirectly used
used to
to do
do this
this by
by applying
applying the
the TW-measurement
TW-measurement
measurement
results on
results
on the
the updated
updated priorities.
priorities. Although
Although this
this seems
seems contradictory
contradictory a
a close
close
analysis
analysis of
of the
the measurement
measurement instrument
instrument makes
makes clear,
clear, that
that this
this is
is legitimate.
legitimate. The
The
stakeholder measures
measures trust
trust in
in the
the capability
capability to
to understand
understand the
the customers'
customers'
stakeholder
perceived desired
perceived
desired product
product quality
quality concerning
concerning all
all others
others and
and him/herself.
him/herself. Hereby
Hereby
the
the built
built trust
trust of
of the
the stakeholder
stakeholder towards
towards others
others will
will be
be related
related to
to his/her
his/her own
own
capability understanding
capability
understanding the
the customers'
customers' perceived
perceived desired
desired product
product quality.
quality.
Therefore the
the authors
authors make
make the
the assumption
assumption that
that trust
trust in
in his/her
his/her capability
capability
Therefore
correlates to
correlates
to the
the trust
trust in
in him/her
him/her to
to evaluate
evaluate others
others doing
doing the
the prioritizing.
prioritizing.In
In
other words
words the
the more
more trusted
trusted aa stakeholder
stakeholder is
is prioritizing
prioritizing CR's
CR's according
according the
the
other
measurement,
measurement, the
the more
more he/she
he/she is
is trustworthy
trustworthy to
to tell
tell ifif other
other stakeholders
stakeholders are
are
trustworthy
trustworthy for
for the
the prioritizing
prioritizing of
of CR's
CR's or
or not.
not. Therefore
Therefore the
the use
use of
of the
the same
same
measurement
measurement seems
seems not
not only
only legitimate
legitimate but
but also
also to
to be
be an
an improvement
improvement of
of the
the
method
method efficiency.
efficiency.
37
37
At the
At
the end
end of
of these
these three
three steps
steps not
not only
only the
the transition
transition from
from individual
individual opinions
opinions
to a
to
a collective
collective opinion
opinion is
is performed
performed based
based on
on the
the hidden
hidden interdependencies,
interdependencies, but
but
also the
also
the opinions
opinions are
are combined
combined based
based on
on how
how much
much the
the stakeholders
stakeholders are
are willing
willing
to take
to
take the
the judgment
judgment of
of the
the individual
individual group
group members
members into
into account.
account. In
In this
this way
way
the method
the
method provides
provides a
a structured,
structured, transparent
transparent way
way to
to derive
derive the
the relative
relative
importance
importance of
of CR's
CR's departing
departing from
from a
a complete
complete CR
CR pool
pool in
in a
a multi-stakeholder
multi-stakeholder
collaboration
collaboration design
design environment.
environment. The
The results
results of
of the
the method
method might
might then
then be
be
used to
used
to develop
develop an
an engineering
engineering strategy
strategy and
and to
to allocate
allocate resources
resources to
to achieve
achieve
the design
the
design objectives.
objectives.
3.4 Updating
3.4
Updating Urn
Urn scheme
scheme as
as Carrier
Carrier of
of the
the Process
Process
Borrowing
Borrowing a
a theme
theme from
from classical
classical probabilistic
probabilistic and
and statistics3,
statistics3, we
we propose
propose an
an
Urn-Scheme to
Urn-Scheme
to carry
carry the
the three
three steps,
steps, i.e.
i.e. individual
individual prioritization,
prioritization, updating
updating of
of
individual priorities
individual
priorities and
and unifying
unifying the
the updated
updated individual
individual priorities
priorities to
to find
find the
the
relative importance
relative
importance of
of CR's.
CR's.
Every
Every CR
CR gets
gets an
an urn
urn assigned,
assigned, which
which might
might be
be visible
visible to
to or
or hidden
hidden from
from the
the
stakeholders. Each
Each stakeholder
stakeholdergets
getsalso
alsoaaspecific
specificnumber
numberofofballs
balls
(ii), e.g.
e.g.
stakeholders.
(n1),
five times
five
times the
the number
number of
of CR's,
CR's, and
and according
according individual
individual liking
liking he/she
he/she might
might put
put
more
more or
or less
less balls
balls
(Xik )
(Xik
)
in
in the
the k-th
k-th urns
urns corresponding
corresponding to
to the
the k-th
k-th CR
CR he/she
he/she
considers
considers to
to be
be more
more or
or less
less important
important (fig.
(fig. 3.3).
3.3).
3
3 Urn
Urn schemes
schemes are
are a
a simple
simple way
way to
to facilitate
facilitate results
results from
from probability
probability theory
theory [John.
[John. 1977].
1977].
Usually an
Usually
an urn
urn model
model is
is constituted
constituted by
by a
a number
number of
of urns
urns containing
containing different
different color
color of
of balls
balls in
in it.
it.
For experiments
For
experiments (Trials)
(Trials) balls
balls are
are picked
picked out
out of
of the
the urns
urns and
and possibly
possibly returned
returned according
according certain
certain
rules.
rules. By
By using
using the
the observed
observed probability
probability of
of any
any specified
specified outcome
outcome of
of experiments
experiments simulation
simulation
might be
might
be performed.
performed. Usually
Usually the
the interest
interest is
is aimed
aimed at
at Distribution
Distribution of
of balls
balls of
of various
various kinds
kinds in
in the
the
urns
and the
the waiting
waiting time
time distributions
distributions until
until aa spec/fled
spec/fled condition
conditionisissatisfied
satisfied[John.
[John. 1977].
urns and
1977]. Urn
Urn
schemes might
schemes
might be
be applied
applied for
for Occupancy
Occupancy Problems,
Problems, Stochastic
Stochastic Replacements,
Replacements, Genetics,
Genetics,
Capture-Recapture
Sampling systems,
Capture-Recapture Models,
Models, Sampling
systems, trial-and-error
trial-and-error learning,
learning, simulation
simulation of
of
technological dynamics
technological
dynamics in
in homogenous
homogenous and
and inhomogeneous
inhomogeneous Economic
Economic environments,
environments, dynamics
dynamics
of competing
of
competing "populations"
"populations" {Silv.
{Silv. 1994].
1994].
CR1
CR1
PIU1NP!
CR2
CR2
CR3
CR3
CR4
CR4
CR5
CR5
Figure 3.3
3.3 Urns
Urns are
are Used
Used to
to Register
Register the
the Stakeholder's
Stakeholder's Voting
Voting
Figure
Once all
Once
all balls
balls are
are distributed
distributed by
by each
each stakeholder,
stakeholder, each
each stakeholder's
stakeholder'surns
urnsare
are
being updated
updated by
by prioritizations
prioritizations of
of fellow
fellow stakeholders
stakeholders through
through a
a weighted
weighted sum
being
sum
of
of all
all other
other stakholders'
stakholders' individual
individual priorities
priorities including
including his/her
his/her own.
own. The
The weights
weights
for building
for
building the
the sum
sum are
are based
based on
on trust
trust towards
towards all
all other
other stakeholder
stakeholder and
and
him/herself
him/herself in
in the
the capability
capability to
to understand
understand costumers'
costumers' perceived
perceived product
product
qualities.
qualities.
Finally
Finally when
when all
all urns
urns have
have been
been updated
updated in
in this
this way,
way, each
each one's
one's urns
urns of
of every
every
CR are
CR
are combined
combined by
by another
another weighted
weighted sum,
sum, whereas
whereas the
the trustworthiness
trustworthiness of
of
each
each stakeholder
stakeholder is
is used
used as
as weight
weight in
in this
this study.
study. The
The following
following section
section will
will
discuss technical
discuss
technical details
details behind
behind the
the whole
whole method
method and
and how
how the
the weights
weights are
are
integrated.
integrated.
4 METHOD
4.1 Numerical Framework of Updating Urn-Scheme
Figure 4.1 shows the sequence of steps to be undertaken in order to find the
relative importance of CR's as proposed by the method. The overhead in Figure
4.1 symbolizes the individual prioritization and the stakeholders' interaction
before they fill out the comprehensive survey about trust in prioritization, i.e.
trustworthiness (TW-) measurement. As already specified in section 3 the
overhead is followed by individual prioritization (4.1.1), updating of individual
priorities (4.1.2) and unifying individual priorities (4.1.3). Where as the weights
for the two later steps are coming directly from the TW-measurement. Once the
final relative priorities are calculated, the group might discuss the result and see
whether a decision based on the voting is already possible.
Determine
individual
Priorities
L
Initial Start Sequence
Fill out TWMeasurement
Distribute Balls
H 4.1.1
Register
individual
Priorities
j
j
Put Balls in
CR-Urns
Analysis and
Discuss
conflicting
Issues
No
4.1
I
Update
individual
Priorities
4.3.1
J
'fl
4
Explain used
Criteria
I
4.1.4
J
\_H
<'Satisfled">l
7
Calculate
Relative
Importance
I
Outcome
Yes
Accept Relative
Importance of
CR
Figure 4.1 Prioritization Using an Updating Urn-Scheme
40
If
If no
no group
group satisfaction
satisfaction is
is achieved
achieved after
afterthe
theinitial
initial run
run or
or ifif the
the relative
relative
importance calculated
calculated are
are rejected
rejected by
by common
common sense,
sense, new
new amount
amount of
of balls
balls
importance
might be
might
be distributed
distributed and
and since
since the
the stakeholders
stakeholders have
have talked
talked previously
previously about
about
why they
why
they have
have chosen
chosen their
their priorities
priorities in
in their
their way,
way, some
some of
of the
the stakeholders
stakeholders
might
might change
change their
their priority
priority distribution.
distribution. This
This might
might be
be repeated
repeated until
until either
either more
more
satisfaction is
satisfaction
is given
given or
or the
the group
group of
of stakeholder
stakeholder agrees
agrees to
to adjourn
adjourn the
the final
final
decision to
decision
to gather
gather new
new data
data on
on conflicting
conflicting issues.
issues. Interpretation
Interpretation and
and displaying
displaying
tools
tools for
for the
the calculation
calculation results
results are
are presented
presented in
in section
section 5.
5.
4.1.1
4.1.1
REGISTRATION OF
REGISTRATION
OFINDIVIDUAL
INDIVIDUAL PRIORITIES
PRIORITIES
After
After every
every stakeholder
stakeholderhas
hasput
puthis/her
his/herassigned
assignedballs
balls(ii1)
(ii) in
in his/her
his/her urns,
urns, the
the
amount
amount of
of balls
balls in
in each
each urn
urn are
are counted
counted
(Xfk).
(X,k).
ne=xk,i=1...N
ne=xek,i-1...N
The
The index
index ii is
is used
used for
for the
the /-th
I-th stakeholder
stakeholder and
and N
N the
the total
total number
number of
of
stakeholders and
and the
the index
index krepresents
krepresents the
the k-th
k-th CR
CR and
and Mthe
Mthe total
total number
number of
of
stakeholders
CR's.
CR's.
4.1.2
4.1.2
UPDATING
UPDATING INDIVIDUAL
INDIVIDUALPRIORITIES
PRIORITIES
So
So far
far only
only individual
individual priorities
priorities have
have been
been considered,
considered, but
but often
often in
in case
case of
of
important
decisions we
we tend
tend to
to discuss
discuss the
the problem
problem with
with other
other people.
people.rn
In case
case
important decisions
of prioritizing
of
prioritizing CR's,
CR's, other
other stakeholders'
stakeholders' opinions
opinions might
might be
be taken
takeninto
intoaccount
accountto
to
the
the extent
extent of
of how
how much
much stakeholders
stakeholders trust
trust each
each other
other to
to be
be capable
capable in
in
understanding customers'
understanding
customers' perceived
perceived product
product quality.
quakty. The
The priority
priority function
function (Eqn.
(Eqn.
2)
2) takes
takes priorities
priorities from
from all
all stakeholders
stakeholders into
into account
account by
by updating
updating the
the individual
individual
priorities by
priorities
by a
a weighted
weighted priority
priority sum
sum of
of all
all stakeholders'
stakeholders' priorities
priorities including
including the
the
own individual
own
individual priorities.
priorities.
=
Xm
(2)
(2)
41
41
== 1,
1, i
where
where
=1.
1. ..N,
N, and
and
kk ==1..
1... M
M
is. The
The function
function displays
displays the
the
is.
updated
stakeholder of
of k-th
k-th CR,
CR, i.e.
i.e. the
the updated
updated amount
amount of
of
updated priority
priority from
from /-th
/th stakeholder
balls. The
The function
function is
is build
build by
by summing
summing up
up the
the individual
individual weighted
weighted amount
amount of
of
balls.
balls
balls
(Xik
(X,k
for the
the k-th
k-th CR
CR and
and the
the weighted
weighted amount
amount of
of balls
balls of
of the
the trusted
trusted
)) for
fellow
fellow stakeholders
stakeholders (xJk),
(xJk),whereas
whereas 6 are
weights (Eqn.
(Eqn. 6)
6) used
used for
for building
building the
the
are weights
sum
sum (please
(please refer
refer to
to section
section 4.3
4.3 for
for more
more details
details about
about the
the weights).
weights).
4.1.3
4.1.3
UNIFYING INDIVIDUAL
UNIFYING
INDIVIDUAL PRIORITIES
PRIORITIES OF
OF CR'S
CR'S
The combination
combination of
of the
the updated
updated individual
individual priorities
priorities of
of every
every CR
CR is
is again
again a
a
The
weighted
weighted sum,
sum, whereas
whereas the
the weights
weights are
are based
based on
on the
the trustworthiness
trustworthiness each
each
stakeholder has
has received
received from
from the
the whole
whole group
group (Eqn.
(Eqn. 3).
3).
stakeholder
-
N
where
where
Wi
updated
(3)
w =1
w
=1 and
and
=1.. M.
k =1...
M. Hereby
Hereby
0mb
0mb
is
is the
the number
number of
of balls
balls which
which
finally are
finally
are allocated
allocated to
to the
the k-th
k-th CR
CR combined
combined over
over all
all stakeholders
stakeholders and
and the
the Eqn.
Eqn.
7 shows
7
shows the
the calculation
calculation of
of the
the normalized
normalized weights
weights (please
(please refer
refer to
to section
section 4.3
4.3
for
more details
details about
about the
the weights).
weights).
for more
4.1.4 RELATIVE
4.1.4
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE
IMPORTANCE OF
OF K-THCR
K-THCR
The relative
The
relative importance
importance of
of each
each CR
CR is
is found
found by
by a
a normalization
normalization of
of
0mh,
displayed
displayed in
in Eqn.
Eqn. 4.
4.
comb
comb
RIk=M
RIk=M
,k=1...M
,k=1...M
(4)
(4)
The
The relative
relative importance
importance gives
gives aa measure
measure for
for how
how the
the k-th
k-th CR
CR is
is perceived
perceived by
by
the stakeholders
the
stakeholders to
to contribute
contribute to
to the
the overall
overall product
product quality.
quality. In
In the
the following
following
42
42
section
section the
the determination
determination and
and use
use of
of the
the weights,
weights, i.e.
i.e.
and w,
and
w, is
is presented
presented in
in
detail.
detail.
4.2
4.2 Trust
Trust Measurement
Measurement
Making an
Making
an agreement
agreement or
or resolving
resolving aa conflict
a
conflict aa group
group usually
usually applies
applies a
democratic voting
voting process,
process, i.e.
i.e. spreading
spreading the
the voting
voting power
power equally
equally among
among the
the
democratic
stakeholders.
stakeholders. Considering
Considering real
real world
world experience,
experience, we
we know
know that
that the
the real
real voting
voting
power
power is
is usually
usually not
not equally
equally spread.
spread. The
The difference
difference among
among stakeholders
stakeholders might
might
be
be that
that there
there exists
exists aa difference
difference in
in financial
financial risk,
risk, an
an experience
experience and
and expertise
expertise
difference or
or a
a distribution
distribution in
in interest
interest and
and commitment.
commitment. Such
Such factors
factors should
should be
be
difference
considered for
considered
for making
making an
an effective
effective group
group decision,
decision, i.e.
i.e. finding
finding the
the priorities
priorities of
of
CR's. The
CR's.
The difference
difference relevant
relevant in
in finding
finding priorities
priorities of
of CR's,
CR's, is
is the
the stakeholders'
stakeholders'
capability to
to understand
understand the
the customers'
customers' perceived
perceived desired
desired product
product quality
quality based
based
capability
on his/her
his/her own
own perception
perception and
and judgment.
judgment.
on
4.2.1
4.2.1
TRUST
TRUST USED
USED TO
TO PRIORITIZE
PRIORITIZE CR'S
CR'S
In order
order to
to be
be able
able to
to quantify
quantify this
this difference,
difference, a
a measurement
measurement instrument
instrument had
had
In
to
to be
be developed.
developed. The
The significant
significant stakeholder
stakeholder difference
difference will
will be
be concerning
concerning
expertise, experience,
experience, commitment,
commitment, motivation,
motivation, consistency
consistency and
and rationality,
rationality,
expertise,
whereas
whereas the
the concerns
concerns mentioned
mentioned in
in Fig.
Fig. 1.1
1.1 have
have to
to be
be included
included as
as well.
well. The
The
revision
revision of
of social
social dynamics
dynamics literature
literature has
has shown
shown that
that trust/trustworthiness
trust/trustworthiness
measurement
measurement might
might consist
consist of
of the
the overall
overall assessments
assessments of
of somebody's
somebody's ability,
ability,
benevolence
benevolence and
and integrity
integrity towards
towards aa specific
specific issue.
issue. In
In the
the case
case of
of prioritizing
prioritizing
CR's
CR's this
this special
special issue
issue might
might be
be the
the customers'
customers' perceived
perceived desired
desired product
product
quality.
quality. Trust
Trust might
might hence
hence be
be well
well suited
suited to
to measure
measure a
a stakeholders'
stakeholders' capability
capability
to
to prioritize
prioritize CR's
CR's with
with the
the notion
notion of
of understanding
understanding customers'
customers' perceived
perceived desired
desired
product quality
quality in
in mind.
mind. Therefore
Therefore trust
trust is
is applied
applied as
as the
the underlying
underlying social
social factor
factor
product
to carry
to
carry the
the comprehensive
comprehensive measurement.
measurement.
The literature
literature review
review revealed
revealed also
also two
two necessary
necessary requisites
requisites which
which make
make trust
trust
The
come into
into play
play that
that is
is risk
risk and
and interdependency.
interdependency. Both
Both requisites
requisites are
are found
found in
in
come
43
43
prioritizing CR's.
CR's. The
The risk
risk is
is represented
represented by
by the
the uncertainty,
uncertainty, what
what customer
customer
prioritizing
really value
value as
as product
product quality
quality and
and interdependency
interdependency is
is given
given by
by the
the collaborative
collaborative
really
setting
setting of
of the
the stakeholders.
stakeholders.
Risk
Risk
Uncertainty what
Uncertainty
what
Customer values
values
Customer
most in
in Product
Product
most
Task
Task
Prioritize CR's
CR's
Prioritize
collaboratively
collaboratively
Disagreement
Disagreement
Multitude of
Multitude
of
Opinions and
and
Opinions
Perceptions exist
exist
Perceptions
in Group
Group
in
H
-
Interdependency
Interdependency
All
All Stakeholder
Stakeholder in
in
the group
group are
are
the
needed
needed
Interdependency
Interdependency
Social Factor
Social
Factor
Social
Social network
network
Trust in
Trust
in Capability
Capability
between
between
prioritizingCR's
CR's
-* prioritizing
F-.
Stakeholciers
Stakeholders
I
Step II
Step
Individual CR
CR
Individual
Prioritization
Prioritization
Step
Step 2&3
2&3
Modification and
Modification
and
Combination of
of
Combination
individual CR
individual
CR
Priorities
Priorities
Group Decision
Decision
Group
Relative
Relative
Importance of
of
Importance
CR's
CR's
Figure
Figure 4.2
4.2 Effect-Chain
Effect-Chain connecting
connecting Trust
Trust with
with finding
finding relative
relative Importance
Importance of
of CR's
CR's
Figure 4.2
4.2 shows
shows the
the connection
connection between
between prioritization
prioritization and
and trust
trust in
in an
an effecteffectFigure
chain
chain finding
finding relative
relative importance
importance of
of CR's.
CR's. Because
Because stakeholders
stakeholders interpret
interpret and
and
perceive the
the importance
importance of
of CR's
CR's differently,
differently, uncertainty
uncertainty will
will come
come with
with the
the
perceive
determination of
determination
of CR
CR priorities.
priorities. According
According the
the literature
literature review,
review, trust
trust begins
begins
where certainty
where
certainty ends.
ends. Trust
Trust is
is applied
applied to
to justify
justify the
the risk
risk someone
someone is
is taking.
taking. In
In
the
the case
case of
of finding
finding CR
CR priorities
priorities the
the risk
risk is
is to
to emphasize
emphasize the
the wrong
wrong CR's,
CR's, i.e.
i.e.
relying not
not on
on the
the most
most capable
capable stakeholder,
stakeholder, which
which might
might lead
lead to
to a
a product
product
relying
rejection with
with the
the targeted
targeted customers,
customers, i.e.
i.e. risk
risk in
in Fig.
Fig. 4.2.
4.2. So
So the
the comprehensive
comprehensive
rejection
trustworthiness
trustworthiness (TW-)
(TW-) measurement
measurement will
will focus
focus on
on the
the trust
trust stakeholders
stakeholders have
have
44
44
into the
into
the expertise,
expertise, experience,
experience, benevolence
benevolence and
and integrity
integrity of
of a
a fellow
fellow stakeholder
stakeholder
that with
that
with his/her
his/her priorities
priorities the
the feared
feared rejection
rejection will
will not
not happen.
happen. In
In other
other words
words
TW-measurement evaluates
evaluates the
the trust
trust a
a stakeholder
stakeholder has
has into
into the
the capability
capability of
of
TW-measurement
another stakeholder
another
stakeholder understanding
understanding the
the customers'
customers' perceived
perceived desired
desired product
product
quality. Borrowing
quality.
Borrowing trust
trust for
for the
the purpose
purpose of
of weighting
weighting stakeholder's
stakeholder's priorities
priorities will
will
help
help to
to emphasize
emphasize the
the voting
voting influence
influence of
of the
the more
more capable
capable stakeholders
stakeholders on
on the
the
prioritization
of product
product attributes,
attributes, i.e.
prioritization of
i.e. modification
modification and
and combination
combination of
of CR
CR
priorities in
in Fig.
Fig. 4.2.
4.2.
priorities
In
In concurrent
concurrent product
product development,
development, a
a cross-functional
cross-functional team
team works
works together
together to
to
design the
design
the product.
product. The
The complexity
complexity and
and nature
nature of
of today's
today's products
products force
force the
the
product developers
product
developers to
to work
work interdependently
interdependently together.
together. It
It is
is assumed
assumed that
that the
the
same
same interdependency
interdependency exists
exists in
in the
the product
product stakeholder
stakeholder group,
group, where
where every
every
stakeholder's
stakeholder's expertise
expertise
is
is
needed to
to find
find the
the right
right set
set of
of priorities,
priorities,
needed
i.e.
i.e.
interdependency
interdependency in
in Fig.
Fig. 4.2.
4.2. Therefore
Therefore itit is
is important
important that
that the
the first
first step
step of
of the
the
method,
method, i.e.
i.e. individual
individual prioritization
prioritization is
is carried
carried out
out carefully.
carefully. By
By using
using information
information
from
from the
the social
social network
network to
to combine
combine the
the individual
individual priorities,
priorities, itit is
is assumed
assumed that
that
the acceptance
the
acceptance of
of the
the final
final result
result will
will be
be higher,
higher, than
than using
using another
another voting
voting
process.
process.
A
A further
further argument
argument of
of using
using trust
trust to
to evaluate
evaluate a
a peer's
peer's capability
capability in
in prioritizing
prioritizing is
is
that trust
that
trust is
is less
less sensible
sensible to
to manipulation.
manipulation. Trust
Trust is
is build
build over
over several
several interactions
interactions
and is
and
is always
always related
related to
to previous
previous outcomes.
outcomes. Therefore
Therefore beautiful
beautiful led
led arguments
arguments
at
at a
a meeting
meeting are
are getting
getting less
less important
important than
than the
the connection
connection on
on interpersonal
interpersonal
basis,
basis, which
which is
is build
build through
through several
several different
different channels
channels and
and over
over time.
time.
4.2.2
4.2.2
ADJUSTED TRUST
ADJUSTED
TRUST MODEL
MODEL
The
The broad
broad acceptance
acceptance of
of the
the trust
trust model
model of
of Mayer
Mayer et
et al.
al. (1995)
(1995) convinced
convinced the
the
author
author to
to use
use this
this trust
trust model,
model, where
where trustworthiness
trustworthiness and
and propensity
propensity to
to trust
trust
cause
cause trust.
trust. Although
Although the
the model
model seems
seems adequate
adequate to
to serve
serve as
as framework,
framework, the
the
definition
definition of
of trust
trust and
and trustworthiness
trustworthiness might
might be
be adjusted
adjusted considering
considering the
the
findings of
findings
of most
most recent
recent empirical
empirical work
work ([Gill.
([Gill. 2003]
2003] and
and [Mayer
[Mayer 1999]).
1999]). Figure
Figure
45
4.3 shows the adjusted model. It considers the required measurement of
willingness to be vulnerable and that acUon instead of judgment has to be
focused.
Decision
vulnerability
Decision
trustworthiness
Trustor's
Propensity
Validity of
Knowledgebase
urefrom
enevoIence
Decision Objective
anceon
Decision
Decision Trust
Risk Taking in
Relationship
I
-J--...j
Integrity
Perceived
Risk
Outcome
Figure 4.3 Adjusted Trust Model
Like the perceived trustworthiness the decision trustworthiness is constituted by
ability, integrity and benevolence of the trustee. The main difference is that the
items are derived from a specific term of decision vulnerability. The vulnerability
of the decision "prioritizing CR" is identified as threefold, i.e. invalidity of
knowledgebase, departure from decision objective and reliability in trustee's
decision.
The first category of vulnerability of the decision may stem from an invalid or
incomplete knowledgebase, which serves the trustee as background for his
decision and development of his/her set of criteria. The proper knowledgebase
enables the trustee to make meaningful decisions. Using inadequate information
the ability of the decision maker would be compromised. Two knowledgebase
have been identified to be involved in the prioritization process. Knowledge
about the customer and knowledge about the product environment, e.g.
46
application, use,
use, environmental
environmental concerns,
concerns, competitors,
competitors, market
market situation
situation and
and
application,
organizational strategy
strategy have
have been
been identified.
identified. Both
Both knowledgebase
knowledgebase are
are related
related to
to
organizational
the
the expertise
expertise and
and experience
experience of
of the
the trustee
trustee with
with the
the product
product and
and its
its
environment.
environment. Invalidity
Invalidity of
of either
either knowledgebase
knowledgebase would
would set
set off
off trustee's
trustee's decision
decision
criteria. The
The knowledgebase
knowledgebase has
has been
been rated
rated very
very important
important in
in order
order to
to make
make a
a
criteria.
meaningful
of the
the survey
survey questions
questions focusing
meaningful decision,
decision, therefore
therefore 5O%
50% of
focusing this
this first
first
vulnerability.
vulnerability.
The outcome
The
outcome of
of the
the decision
decision might
might be
be also
also harmed
harmed by
by trustee's
trustee'sdeparture
departurefrom
from
the decision
decision objective,
objective, which
which in
in this
this case
case
the
is
is
to
to maximize
maximize the
the customers'
customers'
perceived
perceived desired
desired product
product quality.
quality. The
The relative
relative importance
importance of
of the
the CR
CR will
will be
be
used to
to allocate
allocate resources.
resources. The
The stakeholder
stakeholder might
might be
be tempted
tempted to
to manipulate
manipulate the
the
used
CR ranking
ranking and
and pursue
pursue egoistic
egoistic motives,
motives, in
in order
order to
to profit
profit from
from the
the outcome.
outcome.
CR
Egoistic motives
motives might
might not
not be
be the
the only
only reason
reason for
for a
a trustee's
trustee's departure
departure from
from the
the
Egoistic
decision
decision objective.
objective. The
The trustee
trustee might
might be
be distracted
distracted by
by other
other responsibilities
responsibilities and
and
might therefore
therefore only
only be
be able
able to
to commit
commit little
little resources
resources to
to the
the project.
project. If
If the
the
might
stakeholder does
does not
not have
have time
time and
and interest
interest to
to use
use his
his best
best judgment
judgment and
and all
all
stakeholder
efforts to
to develop
develop a
a valid
valid set
set of
of decision
decision criteria,
criteria, her/his
her/his contribution
contribution will
will be
be of
of
efforts
inferior
inferior quality.
quality. The
The same
same statement
statement is
is valid
valid for
for how
how much
much the
the stakeholder
stakeholder
cares to
to develop
develop a
a high
high quality
quality product.
product. Therefore
Therefore the
the authors
authors propose
propose three
three
cares
fields of
of vulnerability
vulnerability related
related to
to the
the decision
decision objective.
objective. There
There are
are trustee's
trustee's
fields
selfish motives,
motives, his/her
his/her commitment
commitment to
to the
the project
project and
and his/her
his/her care
care for
for the
the
selfish
product
product quality.
quality. Overall
Overall the
the vulnerability
vulnerability to
to the
the trustee's
trustee's departure
departure from
from the
the
decision objective
objective is
is weighted
weighted with
with 3Q%
30% of
the survey.
survey. This
This
decision
of all
all questions
questions of
of the
vulnerability reflects
reflects the
the benevolence
benevolence of
of the
the trustee
trustee towards
towards the
the project
project and
and the
the
vulnerability
product
quality.
product quality.
The
The last
last identified
identified field
field of
of vulnerability
vulnerability of
of the
the decision
decision process
process concerns
concerns the
the
reliability
reliability of
of trustee's
trustee's decision.
decision. With
With 20%
20% of
of the
the overall
overall survey
survey questions
questions the
the
reliability of
reliability
of the
the decision
decision
is
is
rated as
as least
least risky.
rated
risky. It
It is
is assumed
assumed that
that all
all
stakeholder use
use a
a valid
valid set
set of
of criteria
criteria to
to decide
decide upon
upon the
the importance
importance of
of each
each CR.
CR.
stakeholder
Where the
Where
the quality
quality of
of the
the set
set of
of criteria
criteria was
was in
in question
question in
in the
the two
two previous
previous
47
47
categories,
categories, trustee's
trustee's integrity
integrity towards
towards his/her
his/her set
set of
of criteria
criteria is
is focused
focused here.
here.
Two major
Two
major areas
areas of
of questions
questions have
have been
been formulated,
formulated, i.e.
i.e. trustee's
trustee's rationality
rationality
and consistency.
consistency. The
The focus
focus of
of these
these questions
questions is,
is, whether
whether the
the trustee
trustee would
would
and
reach
reach the
the same
same priorities
priorities over
over and
and over.
over. It
It is
is important
important to
to integrate
integrate this
this
vulnerability,
vulnerability, because
because trust
trust integrates
integrates experience
experience from
from previous
previous interactions
interactions
between
between trustor
trustor and
and trustee.
trustee. If
If the
the trustee
trustee is
is not
not consistent
consistent or
or does
does not
not use
use
rational arguments,
rational
arguments, the
the decision
decision might
might always
always have
have a
a different
different outcome
outcome and
and
thus the
the experience
experience with
with the
the trustee
trustee might
might once
once be
be positive,
positive, the
the other
other time
time
thus
negative. The
negative.
The assessment
assessment of
of rationality
rationality and
and consistency
consistency does
does not
not contradict
contradict
subjective
subjective or
or intuition
intuition based
based decisions.
decisions. The
The way
way of
of how
how the
the trustee
trustee has
has
developed his
developed
his rational
rational is
is not
not in
in question,
question, but
but ifif he/she
he/she has
has a
a set
set of
of criteria
criteria and
and ifif
he/she sticks
he/she
sticks to
to this
this set.
set. Subjectivity
Subjectivity and
and intuition
intuition might
might support
support the
the trustee
trustee by
by
reducing
reducing the
the uncertainty
uncertainty involved
involved in
in prioritizing
prioritizing the
the CR.
CR. In
In fact
fact subjectivity
subjectivity and
and
intuition might
intuition
might be
be the
the only
only way
way to
to bridge
bridge the
the uncertainty
uncertainty in
in finding
finding CR
CR
properties
properties and
and might
might distinguish
distinguish the
the real
real expert
expert from
from the
the novice.
novice. The
The
vulnerability
vulnerability of
of the
the reliability
reliability regarding
regarding the
the trustee's
trustee's decision
decision connects
connects to
to
Integrity/Rationality of
of the
the trustee
trustee (please
(please refer
refer to
to Fig.
Fig. 4.3).
4.3).
Integrity/Rationality
There will
will be
be no
no survey
survey items
items related
related to
to the
the trustor's
trustor's own
own propensity
propensity to
to trust.
trust.
There
The propensity
The
propensity describes
describes the
the general
general willingness
willingness of
of a
a trustee
trustee to
to trust
trust somebody
somebody
else. As
As you
you will
will see
see in
in section
section 4.3.1,
4.3.1, the
the propensity
propensity will
will be
be taken
taken care
care of
of by
by the
the
else.
way how
way
how the
the stakeholder's
stakeholder's trust
trust towards
towards the
the other
other stakeholders
stakeholders is
is aggregated.
aggregated.
4.2.3
4.2.3
MEASUREMENT
MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT
INSTRUMENT FOR
FOR TRUST
TRUST
The proposed
The
proposed composition
composition of
of the
the comprehensive
comprehensive measurement
measurement is
is based
based on
on the
the
adjusted
adjusted model
model of
of trust.
trust. The
The actual
actual number
number of
of questions
questions is
is split
split in
in half
half between
between
the trust
the
trust in
in expertise
expertise (i.e.
(i.e. Knowledgebase)
Knowledgebase) related
related to
to customer
customer and
and product
product
environment
environment and
and the
the trust
trust into
into the
the personal
personal character
character and
and the
the trustee's
trustee's
behavior
behavior towards
towards the
the product.
product. With
With this
this double
double focus
focus not
not only
only the
the vulnerability
vulnerability
of
of trustee's
trustee's ability
ability to
to understand
understand the
the perceived
perceived product
product quality
quality but
but also
also the
the
vulnerability related
vulnerability
related to
to trustee's
trustee's benevolence
benevolence and
and integrity
integrity are
are included.
included. In
In other
other
words,
words, the
the instrument
instrument measures
measures ifif the
the trustee
trustee has
has the
the possibility
possibility to
to develop
develop a
a
proper
proper set
set of
of criteria
criteria and
and ifif he/she
he/she sticks
sticks to
to it.
it. The
The way
way the
the trustee
trustee develops
develops the
the
set
set of
of criteria
criteria is
is purposely
purposely excluded,
excluded, because
because the
the method
method shall
shall not
not hinder
hinder the
the
stakeholder
stakeholder in
in developing
developing his/her
his/her individual
individual priorities.
priorfties. Otherwise
Otherwise there
there might
might be
be
losses
losses of
of concerns
concerns and
and criteria
criteria prioritizing
prioritizing CR's,
CR's, what
what might
might reduce
reduce the
the quality
quality of
of
the
the prioritization
prioritization method.
method.
4.2.3.1
4.2.3.1
Taxonomy
Taxonomy of
of Survey
Survey Ouestions
Questions
In
In contrast
contrast to
to Mayer
Mayer et
et
trustworthiness
trustworthiness
of
of
al.
al.
the
proposed survey
survey
the proposed
somebody
somebody
doing
doing
something
something
is
is
strongly
focused on
on
strongly focused
and
and
not
not
mainly
mainly
the
the
trustworthiness
trustworthiness of
of this
this somebody.
somebody. In
In our
our case
case the
the doing
doing is
is prioritizing
prioritizing CR's
CR's in
in
order
order to
to enhance
enhance the
the product
product quality.
quality. The
The delicate
delicate difference
difference to
to the
the original
original
survey
survey lies
lies in
in the
the fine
fine pointing
pointing of
of the
the questions
questions of
of the
the survey
survey towards
towards the
the
objective.
objective. It
It is
is to
to understand
understand that
that hereby
hereby not
not only
only the
the ability
ability is
is affected,
affected, but
but the
the
benevolence
benevolence and
and integrity
integrity as
as well
well (Fig.
(Fig. 4.4).
4.4).
Figure
Figure 4.4
4.4 shows
shows the
the taxonomy
taxonomy of
of the
the survey
survey and
and how
how the
the vulnerability
vulnerability topics
topics
finally
finally are
are represented
represented for
for the
the aggregation
aggregation of
of the
the trust
trust score
score from
from the
the trustor
trustor to
to
trustee.
trustee. Because
Because the
the voice
voice of
of customer
customer has
has to
to be
be investigated
investigated and
and incorporated
incorporated
in
in the
the assessment
assessment of
of trustee's
trustee's prioritization,
prioritization, the
the vulnerability
vulnerability stemming
stemming to
to the
the
customer
customer knowledgebase
knowledgebase has
has gotten
gotten most
most weight
weight with
with 30%.
30%. With
With this
this amount
amount
of
of weight
weight itit is
is almost
almost assured
assured that
that stakeholders
stakeholders with
with a
a close
close relationship
relationship to
to the
the
targeted
customer have
have strong
strong influence
influence in
in the
the priority
priority assessment.
assessment.Within
Withinthe
the
targeted customer
vulnerability
vulnerability related
related to
to trustee's
trustee's understanding
understanding of
of the
the environment
environment of
of the
the
product,
product, the
the weights
weights are
are spread
spread between
between stakeholder's
stakeholder's own
own familiarity
familiarity with
with the
the
product
product (7.5%),
(7.5%), stakeholder's
stakeholder's understanding
understanding of
of the
the corporate
corporate strategy
strategy (7.5%)
(7.5%)
and
and stakholder's
stakholder's concerning
concerning of
of societal
societal impacts
impacts of
of the
the product
product (5%).
(5%).
49
Measure of
Decision Trust
Decision
Vulnerability
Knowledge and
Experience of
Trustee (50%)
Personal
Character of
Trustee (50%l
Validity of
Knowledgebase
KB Customer
(60%)
KB (Big Picture)
of Product
(40%)
Reliability on
Decision (40%)
Departure from
Decision
Objective (60%)
Integrity of
Trustee
Benevolence
towards
Product
Trustee's
Rationality
(50%)
Trustee's
Consistency
(50%)
J
Care for
Trustee's
Unselfish
Commitment
Motives
Product
(33%)
(33%)
(33%)
___________________________________
30%
Familarity
with Product
(15%)
Corporate
Strategy
(15%)
Societal
Concerns
(10%)
Figure 4.4 Taxonomy of Survey Questions
The survey items relating to the personal character of the trustee is not evenly
split, because the vulnerability relating to the benevolence of the trustee
towards the product and its quality might be bigger, than the one stemming
from the integrity of the trustee. Hereby it is assumed that the membership of
the stakeholder group already implies a certain degree of professionalism and
integer behavior. The risk of inconsistency or irrationality of the trustee is
therefore much smaller than the risk stemming from trustee's departure from
the decision objective caused by either selfish motives, decision distractions or
the carelessness of the trustee towards the product quality.
50
50
4.2.3.2
4.2.3.2
Final
Final Composition
Composition of
of Survey
Survey
The survey
The
survey is
is using
using a
a7
7 point
point Likert
Likert [Like.
[Like. 1932]
1932] scale
scale ranging
ranging from
from 1
1 "Disagree
"Disagree
strongly"
strongly" and
and to
to 77 "Agree
"Agree strongly".
strongly". The
The draft
draft proposes
proposes 30
30 items,
items, with
with 30
30 as
as low
low
and 210
210 as
as high
high score
score of
of the
the survey.
survey. The
The final
final score
score is
is then
then reported
reported either
either by
by
and
mean or
or median
median and
and transferred
transferred into
into a
a percentage
percentage score
score (please
(please refer
refer to
to next
next
mean
section).
section).
All
All foci
foci of
of the
the questions
questions are
are related
related to
to product
product quality.
quality. The
The higher
higher a
a trustee's
trustee's
scores the
the more
more is
is he/she
he/she trusted
trusted to
to be
be capable
capable of
of prioritizing
prioritizing the
the right
right CR's.
CR's.
scores
Table 4.1
4.1 describes
describes how
how the
the survey
survey is
is finally
finally composed
composed and
and a
a set
set of
of questions
questions is
is
Table
suggested
suggested for
for each
each question
question group.
group.
Table
Questions for
for Trust
Trust Measurement
Measurement in
in prioritizing
prioritizing
Table 4.1.
4.1. Composition
Composition of
of the
the Survey
survey Questions
Customer Requirements
Requirements
Customer
o
o
Question
Question
groups (I)
(I)
groups
CL)
o
o
o
o
Il
o
o
o
o
a,
a,
o.
.
J=
LU.-
.D
.D
.
.
<
a,
C')
.
-we
0
Ch
C')
C)
C'
I-In
>.
0
0
C
C
C.
C.
I-
u
o
C',
C)
U,
9..
9..
0'
0'
C
Stakeholder's
Stakeholder's
familiarity
familiarity with
with
targeted
targeted
customers
customers
'-C
'-C
U>.
>.
zc o
zc
o -:
:
9
9
30
30
%
%
[Stakeholder
[Stakeholder X]
X] has
has several
several opportunities
opportunities
to gather
gather information
information and
and experience
experience how
how
to
the product
product quality
quality is
is perceived
perceived from
from our
our
the
targeted
targeted customers.
customers.
[Stakeholder X]
X] is
is subjected
subjected to
to main
main
[Stakeholder
customer
customer complaints
complaints and
and improvement
improvement
suggestions.
suggestions.
-
U
U
Suggested Questions:
Questions:
Suggested
C')
C
C',
C)
W
In my
my point
point of
of view
view [Stakeholder
[Stakeholder Xl
Xl
In
understands and
and incorporates
incorporates the
the voice
voice of
of
understands
the
the customer
customer in
in his
his priority
priority assessment.
assessment.
II fully
fully accept
accept how
how [Stakeholder
[Stakeholder X]
Xl
represented
represented the
the interests
interests of
of our
our target
target
__________________
__________________
customer.
customer.
In
In my
my point
point of
of view
view [Stakeholder
[Stakeholder X]
X] tried
tried
hard
hard to
to be
be fair
fair in
in considering
considering all
all desires
desires of
of
our targeted
our
targeted customer.
customer.
I'm very
very convinced
convinced about
about the
the quality
quality of
of
I'm
[Stakeholder X]'s
X]'s consideration
consideration of
of main
main
[Stakeholder
customer's
customer's need.
need.
[Stakeholder X]
X] has
has worked
worked a
a lot
lot with
with our
our
[Stakeholder
main
main customer
customer and
and knows
knows the
the main
main
customer well.
well.
customer
_______________
_______________
51
Table
(Continued)
Table 4.1
4i. (Continued)
0
-
-0)0
o
o
0
0)
In
I-
0
(.
0)
________ _______________
Stakeholder's
Stakeholder's
2
familiarity with
with
familiarity
product and
product
and its
its
unique qualities
qualities
unique
8
I-
.
0
o
u
.2
U
0)
7.5
7.5
%
15%0
________
Stakeholder's
Stakeholder's
understanding
understanding
of corporate
corporate
of
0/
strategy 15
strategy
15%
-22
7.5
7.5
%
%
0)
> o
=
0'
I-
0
Stakeholder's
Stakeholder's
societal
societal
concerns 10%
10%
concerns
22
-
5%
5%
I'm
I'm totally
totally willing
willing to
to rely
rely on
on [Stakeholder
[Stakeholder
Xl's
Xl's judgment
judgment of
of CR
CR priorities
priorities based
based on
on his
his
expertise stemming
stemming from
from his/her
his/her work
work with
with
expertise
targeted
targeted customers.
customers.
am not
not afraid
afraid to
to be
be vulnerable
vulnerable relying
relying on
on
II am
the prioritization
the
prioritization of
of [Stakeholder
[Stakeholder Xl
Xl because
because
he interacted
he
interacted a
a lot
lot with
with our
our targeted
targeted
customer
customer on
on issues
issues related
related to
to the
the product
product
quality.
quality.
In my
In
my point
point of
of view
view [Stakeholder
[Stakeholder XJ
X] has
has
sufficient
sufficient knowledge
knowledge about
about the
the main
main
customer,
able to main
represent main
customer, thatthat
he is he
ableis
to represent
customers interests
interests well.
well.
customers
[Stakeholder X]
[Stakeholder
X] made
made a
a big
big effort
effort to
to gather
gather
data
data of
of our
our main
main customer
customer relating
relating to
to this
this
product and
and its
its quality.
quality.
product
[Stakeholder X]
[Stakeholder
X] understand
understand well
well the
the
purpose
purpose of
of our
our product
product through
through the
the eye
eye of
of
our
our customer.
customer. He
He knows
knows their
their "wants"
"wants" well.
well.
[Stakeholder Xl
[Stakeholder
X] has
has aa lot
lot of
of experience
experience with
with
our product
product (experience,
(experience, experiments,
experiments, own
own
our
use etc.).
etc.).
use
[Stakeholder XJ
X] understands
[Stakeholder
understands to
to see
see our
our
product
product and
and its
its application
application in
in a
a clear
clear picture
picture
and
and sees
sees how
how the
the unique
unique product
product quality
quality is
is
carried
carried through
through the
the whole
whole product.
product.
The
The position
position of
of our
our brand
brand in
in the
the competing
competing
market is
is well
well studied
studied by
by [Stakeholder
[Stakeholder X].
X].
market
[Stakeholder
Xj understands
understands wefl
well on
on what
what
[Stakeholder X]
image and
and strategy
strategy our
our products
products are
are based
based
image
and
and considered
considered this
this while
while decided
decided the
the
importance
importance of
of each
each CR.
CR.
[Stakeholder X]
X] has
has much
much knowledge
knowledge about
about
[Stakeholder
the
the latest
latest level
level of
of technology
technology used
used in
in our
our
kinds
kinds of
of product
product and
and has
has a
a good
good feeling
feeling for
for
trends.
trends.
[Stakeholder
[Stakeholder X]
X] has
has a
a good
good knowledge
knowledge
about future
future legal
legal or
or environmental
environmental
about
restrictions, which
restrictions,
which might
might diminish
diminish the
the
customer perception
customer
perception of
of the
the product
product quality
quality
and
and chose
chose his/her
his/her priorities
priorities of
of CR
CR
accordingly.
accordingly.
[Stakeholder
X] considered
considered the
the possible
possible
[Stakeholder X]
societal
societal implications
implications while
while choosing
choosing the
the
priorities
priorities of
of CR.
CR.
_______________________
52
52
-
Table 4.1
4.1 (Continued)
(Continued)
Table
Stakeholder's
Stakeholder's
commitment
commitment
and loyalty
loyalty
and
33%
33%
:
3
Stakeholder's
Stakeholder's
selfish
selfish motives
motives
33%
33%
3
3
3
3
10
10
%
%
10
10
%
%
C.,
o
o
f
o
o
Stakeholder's
Stakeholder's
care
care for
for
product
product quality
quality
33%
33%
'
u
u
.
-o
o
0)
Stakeholder's
Stakeholder's
rationality 50%
rationality
50%
00
Trustee's
Trustee's
consistency
consistency
g 50%
50%
- --
3
3
3
3
3
3
--
10
10
%
%
10
10
%
%
[Stakeholder X]
X] is
is very
very committed
committed to
to this
this
[Stakeholder
project
project and
and want
want to
to develop
develop aa high
high quality
quality
product
product
There is
There
is no
no doubt
doubt about
about [Stakeholder
[Stakeholder X]'s
X]'s
loyalty
loyalty to
to the
the project
project and
and product
product quality.
quality.
[Stakeholder
[Stakeholder X]
X] can
can commit
commit his
his entire
entire
efforts to
efforts
to this
this project
project and
and is
is not
not distracted
distracted
by
by many
many other
other activities.
activities.
There is
is no
no gain
gain for
for [Stakeholder
[Stakeholder X]
X]
There
involved
involved by
by manipulating
manipulating the
the priority
priority list.
list.
Pure
Pure quality
quality motives
motives guided
guided [Stakeholder
[Stakeholder X]
X]
through the
the prioritization
prioritization process.
process.
through
[Stakeholder X]
X] would
would never
never jeopardize
jeopardize
[Stakeholder
high
high product
product quality
quality by
by pursuing
pursuing selfish
selfish
motives.
motives.
[Stakeholder X]
X] is
is very
very concerned
concerned about
about the
the
[Stakeholder
welfare of
of the
the product
product quality.
quality.
welfare
[Stakeholder X]'s
X]'s highest
highest priority
priority is
is to
to
[Stakeholder
create
create a
a high
high quality
quality product.
product.
[Stakeholder
[Stakeholder X]
X] would
would not
not knowingly
knowingly do
do
anything
anything to
to harm
harm the
the product
product quality.
quality.
Sound product
product quality
quality principles
principles seem
seem to
to
Sound
guide [Stakeholder
[Stakeholder X]'s
X]'s choice
choice of
of priorities
priorities
guide
for the
the customer
customer requirements.
requirements.
for
[Stakeholder
[Stakeholder X]
X] uses
uses his/her
his/her rational
rational well
well to
to
map
map product
product quality
quality criteria
criteria to
to CR's.
CR's.
The high
high clarity
clarity of
of [Stakeholder
[StakeholderXJ's
X]'s set
set of
of
The
critena
criteria of
s stands
stands out.
ofCR
CRs
out.
There is
is no
no doubt,
doubt, that
that [Stakeholder
[Stakeholder X]
X]
There
sticks
sticks to
to his/her
his/her set
set of
of criteria
criteria
[Stakeholder X]'s
[Stakeholder
X]'s actions
actions and
and behaviors
behaviors are
are
very
very consistent
consistent with
with his/her
his/her developed
developed set
set
of criteria.
criteria.
[Stakeholder
X]'s choice
choice of
of priorities
priorities for
for CR
[Stakeholder X]'s
CR
does not
does
not depend
depend on
on his/her
his/her mood,
mood, the
the
weather
weather or
or other
other arbitrary
arbitrary influences
influences
because
because he/she
he/she uses
uses his/her
his/her carefully
carefully
developed
developed decision
decision rational.
rational.
S
10
10
%
%
I
I
53
53
4.2.4 TRUST
4.2.4
TRUST VALUE
VALUE BASED
BASED ON
ON LIKERT
LIKERT SCORE
SCORE
The author
author suggests
suggests that
that all
all questions
questions are
are mixed
mixed up
up and
and the
the trustor
trustor fills
fills out
out the
the
The
survey
survey for
for each
each other
other stakeholder,
stakeholder, i.e.
i.e. trustee
trustee and
and the
the score
score of
of the
the Likert
Likert scale
scale
[Like.
[Like. 1932
1932 and
and Gliem
Gliem 2003]
2003] of
of each
each survey
survey item
item is
is added
added up.
up. We
We define
define the
the
trustworthiness score
trustworthiness
score in
in Eqn.
Eqn. 5,
5, the
the trust
trust score
score in
in Eqn.
Eqn. 6.
6.
,=SQk,i,j=1...N
,=SQk,i,j=1...N
(5)
(5)
where the
jthe trustee,
trustee, SQ
SQ the
the Likert
Likert scale
scale score
where
the index
index /represents
/represents the
the trustor,
trustor,jthe
score
of the
of
the
k-th
k-th
survey
trustoron
onthe
thef-th
fth trustee.
trustee. M
N
survey question
question answered
answered by
by the
the /-th
ith trustor
represents the
the total
total number
number of
of survey
surveyquestions
questionsand
and1V
N is
number of
of
represents
is the
the total
total number
stakeholders. The
The mean
mean trust
trust value,
value, Tr
Tr of
of the
the
stakeholders.
I-th
I-th
trustor on
on
trustor
j-th
j-th
trustee is
trustee
is
calculated
calculated by
by Eqn.
Eqn. 6.
6.
(6)
Another way
Another
way of
of performing
performing the
the survey
survey would
would be
be to
to actually
actually only
only take
take a
a selection
selection
of each
each question
question group,
group, but
but at
at least
least two
two of
of each4,
each4, take
take the
the mean
mean of
of this
this group
of
group
and multiply
multiply itit by
by the
the question
question group
group weight.
weight. The
The Ti
Tr values
values will
will then
then be
be the
the
and
sum of
of all
all this
this weighted
weighted means
means of
of each
each question
question group,
group, illustrated
illustrated by
by Eqn.
Eqn. 7
7
sum
and
Eqn. 8.
8.
and Eqn.
M,
twY/=SQk,i,j=1...N,l=1...9
tw/=>SQk,i,j=1...N,l=1...9
9
(7)
(7)
tw
tw.1
Tr=w1."--,i,j=1...N
(8)
(8)
The index
The
index /I is
is used
used to
to indicate
indicate the
the survey
survey question
question group
group (shown
(shown in
in the
the 4th
4th
column
column of
of Table
Table 4.1);
4.1); M,
of questions
questions answered
answered from
from
H1 is
is therefore
therefore the
the number
number of
The more
more items
items used
used for
for each
each group,
group, the
the less
less measurement
measurementuncertainty
uncertaintyisisinvolved
involvedininthe
the
The
group [Like.
[Like. 1932]
1932]
group
54
54
this
this question
question group.
group. The
The overall
overall weight
weight of
of the
the question
question group
group is
is represented
represented by
by
w, (shown
(shown in
in the
the
w,
6th
6th
column
column of
of Table
Table 4.1).
4.1). The
The use
use of
of Eqn.
Eqn. 77 and
and Eqn.
Eqn. 88
enhances the
enhances
the analysis
analysis capability
capability of
of the
the gathered
gathered data,
data, because
because results
results of
of each
each
group might
group
might be
be ascertained
ascertained individually
individually and
and examined.
examined. The
The difference
difference in
in using
using
either way
way is
is not
not statistically
statistically significant
significant (two
(two sided
sided t-test
t-test on
on 80
80 random
random samples,
samples,
either
resulted in
resulted
in a
a t-statistics
t-statistics of
of -1.396
-1.396 and
and a
a p-value
p-value of
of 0.166).
0.166).
A linear
A
linear transformation
transformation is
is then
then applied
applied to
to transform
transform Tr,from
Ti,from either
either Eq.
Eq. 66 or
or 8,
8,
into a
a value
value between
between 0
0 and
and 100
100 using
using Eqn.
Eqn. 9.
9.
into
7
=J--.Tr1-16.667,i,j=1..N
71_9J_.Tr_16.667,i,j=1...N
(9)
(9)
where 7
where
7 is
is the
the high
high score
score of
of the
the used
used Likert
Likert scale
scale and
and 1
1 the
the low
low score.
score.
4.3
4.3 Weights
Weights for
for the
the updating
updating Urn-Scheme
Urn-Scheme
As specified
specified in
As
in the
the previous
previous section
section the
the proposed
proposed comprehensive
comprehensive TW1W-
measurement is
measurement
is based
based on
on the
the trust
trust of
of a
a stakeholder
stakeholder into
into the
the capability
capability of
of
another stakeholder
stakeholder and
and him/herself
him/herself to
to understand
understand the
the customers'
customers' perceived
perceived
another
desired
desired
product quality.
quality.
product
The
The TW-measurement
1W-measurement considers
considers differences
differences in
in
expertise, experience,
expertise,
experience, commitment,
commitment, motivation,
motivation, consistency
consistency and
and rationality
rationality
among stakeholders.
stakeholders. Each
Each stakeholder
stakeholder uses
uses the
the TW-measurement
1W-measurement to
among
to evaluate
evaluate
each fellow
fellow stakeholder
stakeholder and
and him/herself,
him/herself, how
how he/she
he/she is
is willing
willing to
to be
be vulnerable
vulnerable
each
relying on
relying
on the
the prioritizing
prioritizing of
of every
every other
other stakeholders'
stakeholders' and
and his/her
his/her own
own
judgment.
judgment. As
As result
result of
of this
this assessment
assessment a
a trust-network
trust-network might
might be
be drawn
drawn (Fig.
(Fig.
4.5).
4.5). The
The trustworthy
trustworthy relation
relation between
between two
two stakeholders
stakeholders is
is represented
represented as
as an
an
arrow,
arrow, i.e.
i.e. tie.
tie. The
The trustworthy
trustworthy value
value from
from the
the survey
survey is
is attached
attached to
to the
the trustee,
trustee,
i.e. strength
i.e.
strength of
of tie,
tie, so
so that
that looking
looking at
at a
a person
person (P,)
(P,) instantly
instantly reveals
reveals how
how
trustworthy
trustworthy the
the person
person is
is perceived
perceived by
by the
the group
group to
to prioritize
prioritize the
the CR's
CR's
Although the
Although
the measurement
measurement instrument
instrument is
is strongly
strongly focused
focused it
it might
might partly
partly be
be
analyzed
analyzed towards
towards inconsistencies
inconsistencies of
of group
group coherence.
coherence. Hereby
Hereby in
in specific
specific the
the
55
trust stemming from the personal character might interest and if coalitions have
been built in order to manipulated the voting result.
The use of the trust measurement is delicate in the sense of group cohesion.
The information of the trust-network might indicate group deficiencies and
might give help to improve the group performance. Nevertheless the obtained
information should not be used against individual stakeholders nor should be
used to evaluate group members. Therefore the results of the measurement
method should either be kept confidential or made anonymous.
Figure 4.5 Trust-Network Among Stakeholders
The results of the TW-measurement are bidirectional and therefore an NxNMatrix might be recorded, where A/stands for the total Number of stakeholders.
The results from the Eqn. 9 are used as values for the tie strengths.
l
2
T.
T2
T
(10)
[T] =
T,1
TNI
TN2
T1,
The trustworthy NxN -matrix (Eqn. 10) aggregates the results of the survey in
the form that each trustor gets a row with the index / and each trustee a
column with jas index, whereas the diagonal elements are stemming from the
measurement the stakeholders are filling out for themselves. The elements in
56
56
each row
trustor trusts
trusts the
the other
other stakeholders
stakeholders
each
row represent
represent the
the magnitude
magnitude the
the I-th
ith trustor
and
and him/herself
him/herself to
to prioritize,
prioritize, the
the elements
elements in
in the
the f-th
f-th column
column represents
represents the
the
amount the
the f-th
f-th trustee
trustee is
is considered
amount
considered to
to be
be trustworthy
trustworthy to
to prioritize.
prioritize.
All
All
elements
elements in
in Eqn.
Eqn. 10
10 are
are between
between 0
0 and
and 100.
100.
4.3.1
4.3.1
WEIGHTS
WEIGHTS FOR
FOR UPDATING
UPDATING THE
THE INDIVIDUAL
INDIVIDUAL PRIORITIES
PRIORITIES (Os)
(Os)
The
The trustor's
trustor's own
own propensity
propensity to
to trust
trust has
has the
the effect
effect that
that the
the trust
trust scores
scores of
of one
one
stakeholder about
stakeholder
about his/her
his/hertrustees
trustees isis not
not directly
directly comparable
comparable to
to another's
another's
stakeholder
stakeholder trust
trust scores.
scores. Therefore
Therefore the
the measurement
measurement value
value coming
coming from
from the
the
survey (Eqn.
(Eqn. 10),
10), are
are normalized
normalized using
using the
the overall
overall sum
sum of
of a
a row
row as
as denominator
denominator
survey
for each
each element
element in
in the
the row
row (Eqn.
(Eqn. 11).
11). This
This normalized
normalized value
value will
will then
then flow
flow into
into
for
the priority
priority function
function (Eqn.
(Eqn. 2)
2) of
of the
the according
according trustor.
trustor. We
We define
define the
the normalized
normalized
the
trust
value for
for the
the I-th
i-th trustor
trustor towards
towards the
the f-th
f-th trustee:
trustee:
trust value
iN '
(11)
N
where
where i,
i, jj
= 1.
1.
=
N. Using
N.
Using the
the normalization
normalization procedure
procedure for
for every
every trustor
trustor the
the
trust
trust matrix
matrix is
is eventually
eventually normalized
normalized as
as well.
well. Hereby
Hereby itit is
is to
to underline
underline that
that every
every
trustor has
its own
own normalization
normalization denominator,
denominator, which
trustor
has its
which relates
relates to
to his
hisown
own
propensity to
to trust.
trust.
propensity
4.3.2
4.3.2 WEIGHTS
WEIGHTS FOR
FOR UNIFYING
UNIFYING THE
THE UPDATED
UPDATED INDIVIDUAL
INDIVIDUAL
PRIORITIES (W1)
PRIORITIES
(W1)
In
In the
the normalized
normalized trust-matrix
trust-matrix (Eqn.
(Eqn. 11)
11) the
the elements
elements in
in each
each column
column represent
represent
the
the magnitude
magnitude of
of how
how much
much the
the other
other stakeholders
stakeholders perceive
perceive the
the f-th
f-th trustee
trustee as
as
trustworthy.
trustworthy. The
The vertical
vertical sum
sum of
of the
the normalized
normalized elements
elements of
of the
the trust-matrix
trust-matrix will
will
give
the magnitude
magnitude of
of how
how much
much the
the whole
whole group
group trust
trust the
the capability
capabilityof
ofthe
thef-th
fth
give the
trustee to
trustee
to prioritize.
prioritize. The
The normalized
normalized trustworthiness
trustworthiness values,
values, i.e.
i.e.the
thevertical
verticalsum
sum
of each
each column
column of
of the
the normalized
normalized trust-matrix
trust-matrix is
is defined
defined in
in Eqn.
Eqn. 12,
12, which
which are
are
of
then used
used as
as weights
weights in
in Eqn.
Eqn. 3:
3:
then
57
57
1
1
N
N
N
N
N
(12)
(12)
The
The normalization
normalization is
is based
based on
on the
the division
division by
by IV,
N, because
row in
in the
the
because each
each row
normalized trust-matrix
normalized
trust-matrix equals
equals to
to one
one (Eqn.
(Eqn. 11),
11), i.e.
i.e.
1
1
and the
and
the total
total
number
number of
of rows
rows is
is equal
equal to
to the
the total
total numbers
numbers of
of stakeholders,
stakeholders, i.e.
i.e. N.
N. Applying
Applying
Eqn.
Eqn. 12
12 on
on all
all columns,
columns, we
we finally
finally will
will get
get the
the trustworthiness
trustworthiness value
value of
of all
all
stakeholders.
stakeholders.
5 POSSIBLE
5
POSSIBLE SCENARIOS
SCENARIOS AND
AND DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
5.1
5.1 Results
Results Interpretation
Interpretation
relative importance
importance RI
The
The normalized
normalized relative
RI calculated
calculated for
for each
each CR
CR (Eqn.
(Eqn. 4)
4)
corresponds to
corresponds
to the
the collectively
collectively found
found CR
CR priorities.
priorities. Define
Define
Di
Di
Equi
Equi
(13)
M
M
as equal
as
equal importance
importance index
index representing
representing the
the expected
expected importance
importancewhen
whenall
all M
M
CR's are
are equally
equally important.
important. A
A Pareto
Pareto chart
chart showing
showing both
both
CR's
RIk
RIk
and
and
RIEqUI
RIEqUI
is helpful
is
helpful
for visualizing
for
visualizing the
the difference
difference in
in importance
importance of
of CR.
CR. Seeing
Seeing the
the relative
relative
importance being
importance
being displayed
displayed raises
raises the
the question,
question, on
on how
how much
much of
of difference
difference in
in
relative importance
importance is
is significant
significant in
in reaching
reaching aa final
final CR
CR priority
priority list?
list? Examining
Examining
relative
theoretically possible
possible outcomes
outcomes we
we distinguish
distinguish two
two cases,
cases, i.e.
i.e. clear
clear and
and clustery
clustery
theoretically
distinction
of CR
CR priorities.
priorities. There
additional analysis
distinction of
There are
are also
also two
two additional
analysis tools
tools
introduced, a
introduced,
a significance
significance check
check and
and the
the relative
relative importance
importance scale,
scale, which
which in
in
addition
addition to
to the
the relative
relative importance
importance value
value complete
complete the
the assessment
assessment provided
provided by
by
the proposed
proposed method.
method.
the
5.1.1
5.1.1
CASE 1:
1: CLEAR
CLEAR DISTINCTION
DISTINCTION
CASE
The
The relative
relative importance
importance of
of the
the CR's
CR's are
are clearly
clearly distinguishable
distinguishable for
for any
any pair
pair of
of
CR's (Fig.
CR's
(Fig. 5.1),
5.1), i.e.
i.e. there
there is
is no
no problem
problem establishing
establishing a
a clear
clear CR
CR hierarchy.
hierarchy.
Relative
Relative importance
importance
RIEqi
RIEqi
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
Customer
Customer
Requirement
Requirement
Figure 5.1
5.1 The
The Run
Run of
of the
the Prioritization
Prioritization Method
Method Shows
Shows a
a Clear
Clear Distinction
Distinction Between
Between
Figure
CR's
CR's
59
59
A decision
decision based
based on
on this
this result
result is
is possible
possible and
and might
might result
result in
in a
a clear
clear allocation
allocation
A
of
of resources.
resources. This
This case
case would
would be
be a
a desirable
desirable outcome
outcome of
of the
the decision
decision procedure
procedure
and would
and
would lead
lead to
to high
high stakeholder
stakeholder decision
decision satisfaction.
satisfaction.
5.1.2
5.1.2
CASE 2:
CASE
2: CLUSTERY
CLUSTERY DISTINCTION
DISTINCTION
In this
In
this case
case the
the found
found relative
relative importance
importance for
for some
some or
or all
all CR's
CR's are
are almost
almost nonnon-
existent (Fig.
(Fig. 5.2).
existent
5.2). This
This case
case might
might reveal
reveal a
a power
power struggle
struggle between
between the
the
majority of
majority
of stakeholders
stakeholders and
and the
the holder
holder of
of the
the largest
largest trustworthiness
trustworthiness or
or a
a
combination of
combination
of these
these two
two scenarios.
scenarios. It
It might
might also
also show
show indecision
indecision or
or be
be the
the
effect of
of gamesmanship.
gamesmanship. The
The result
result in
in this
this case
case will
will be
be that
that even
even though
though the
the
effect
process has
process
has been
been run,
run, only
only clustery
clustery distinction
distinction of
of relative
relative
prioritization
prioritization
importance of
of CR's
CR's is
is possible.
possible. Note
Note that
that in
in an
an extreme
extreme situation,
situation, there
there will
will be
be
importance
no distinguishable
distinguishable CR's
CR's priorities
priorities as
as shown
shown in
in Fig
Fig 5.2-(b).
5.2-(b).
no
(a) Clustery
(a)
Clustery distinction
distinction
Relative importance
Relative
importance
RIEqU
RIEqU
1
1
2
2
33
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
Customer
Customer
Requirement
Requirement
(b) No
(b)
No distinction
distinction
Relative importance
importance
Relative
RIEqui
RlEqui
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
Customer
Customer
Requirement
Requirement
Figure 5.2
Figure
5.2 The
The Pareto
Pareto Chart
Chart Reveals
Reveals a
a Clustery
Clustery Importance
Importance Hierarchy
Hierarchy
In such situations an analysis of where the votes came from, e.g. using
different colors of balls might give insight which stakeholders have chosen so
much of priority for a certain CR and might be invited to explain their
prioritization. Using different colors of balls would also reveal gamesmanship.
The further explanation of the stakeholder in question might help to reevaluate
the whole situation. After such an analysis every stakeholder might get
additional balls to update his/her votes. This process should be repeated until a
distinguishable list of priorities is obtained or until no additional information is
valuable enough to sway any stakeholder's opinion. Only then, the resources
should be allocated according to this final priority list.
5.2 Relative Importance Scale
In order to get a qualitative representation of the results, we introduce a
relative importance scale. Define a relative importance index (RInk) for the k-th
CR as
RInk=
RI k
(14)
RI Equi
which indicates the relative importance of the k-th CR over the average
importance of all M CR's (in percentage). In other words, putting
RInk
of the k-
th-CR into the relative importance scale (Fig. 5.3) shows its importance
compared to other CR's and also compared to the average of relative
importance.
Relatively
important
Relatively
unimportant
S
RInk<<l
RInk<l
R!nk=l
'"k>1
Figure 5.3 The Relative Importance Scale
Rink>>1
61
Differences in individual priorities, but also clusters and formations of equally
important CR's are made clearly visible in this scale. The simple visualization
helps
to
communicate
the
importance of
the
customer
requirements
downwards. The decision autonomy of designers is greatly enhanced, because
they are able to base their decision on a clear visible priority order.
5.2.1
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE
To determine whether the resulting priority list can be considered as final, we
need to examine if the list is distinguishable as discussed in 5.1. If the priorities
in the list are clearly distinguishable (Case 1), then stakeholders can allocate
resources accordingly. On the other hand, if the list results in Case 2, then
additional discussion should be initiated. Table 5.1 provides a simple way to
determine the result and its corresponding action. It is clear that when the
minimum discrepancy of any two CR's exceeds a hurdle rate 5, predetermined
by a decision maker, the resulting priority list should be clearly distinguishable
and resources can be allocated accordingly. If some or all discrepancies fall
below
5, then
additional conversations among stakeholders should
be
conducted. Another round of voting using the proposed Urn-Scheme
expected. Note that
is
R11(R11)can be used in place of RIn,(RJn1) in Table 5.1
with a rescaled S to achieve the same action.
Table 5.1 Significance Check of Discrepancies Among any two Relative Importance
Indexes of CR's
Case
Decision Rule
Description
1
minRJn.
All discrepancies
between any two CR's
relative importance
are significant.
clear
distinction
RJn >
I
Action
A final priority list is
obtained and
resources can be
allocated
accordingly.
62
62
Table 5.1
Table
5.1 (Continued)
(Continued)
2-a
2-a
clustery
clustery
distinction
distinction
Some discrepancies
discrepancies
are significant
significant and
and
are
some are
are
some
indistinguishable,
indistinguishable,
Communication
Communication
among stakeholders
stakeholders
among
and
and
should continue
continue and
and
should
maxRIn,
88
maxRIn, RIn
R1n1
additional
additional
______________ ______________________ _____________________ information
information should
should
be collected
collected for
for
be
2b
2-b
None of
of the
the
None
maxRIn1
maxR
In1 i.in <8
<6
subsequent
voting.
subsequent
voting.
no
no
discrepancies is
is
discrepancies
distinction
distinction
significant.
significant.
minRIn1
minRIn1
-
Note: 1I
Note:
i,
i,
jj
M,
M, ii
and 8
8 is
is a
a hurdle
hurdle rate
rate to
to determine
determine the
the significance
significance of
of
jj and
the discrepancy
discrepancy between
between two
two CR's
CR's relative
relative importance.
importance.
the
5.3 Hypothetical
Hypothetical Case
Case Study
Study
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.1
SETTING
SETTING
In this
this case
case study
study an
an office
office chair
chair is
is developed.
developed. The
The stakeholders
stakeholders identified
identified eight
eight
In
customer requirements,
requirements, they
they have
have to
to prioritize.
prioritize. The
The budget
budget for
for the
the development
development
customer
of the
the chair
chair is
is set
set at
at 50,000
50,000 $
$ in
in man
man hours.
hours. The
The group
group decided
decided to
to make
make the
the
of
hurdle rate
rate for
for the
the significance
significance of
of difference
difference among
among the
the relative
relative importance
importance
hurdle
depending on
on this
this budget.
budget. They
They decided
decided to
to set
set the
the hurdle
hurdle rate
rate to
to 50$
50$ which
which is
is
depending
the internal
internal value
value for
for one
one hour
hour of
of development
development work
work for
for a
a standard
standard product,
product, so
so
the
Sis equal
equal to
to 50/50000=0.001.
50/50000=0.001.
Sis
5.12 POOL
OF CR'S
5.3.2
POOLOFCR'S
Before the
the proposed
proposed method
method
Before
is
is
used, the
the group
group of
of stakeholders
stakeholders collects
used,
collects
customer requirements.
requirements. They
They might
might use
use an
an NGT
NGT to
to narrow
narrow down
down the
the list,
list, before
before
customer
they apply
apply the
the Urn-Scheme.
Urn-Scheme.
they
After some
After
some discussion
discussion the
the group
group of
of stakeholders
stakeholders had
had 8
8 CR,
CR, which
which are
are reflecting
reflecting
the
the wished
wished for
for CR's
CR's of
of all
all customers.
customers.
63
Table 5.2 Pool of CR's
CR
Description
Nr.
CR
Description
Nr.
1
Chair has Soft cushioning
5
The chair is adjustable in height
and sitting angle
2
Chair is modular upgradeable
(arm wrest, head wrest, food
wrest etc.)
6
It has a cooling/heating unit
All materials of the chair are
7
The workmanship of the chair
has high quality
8
All welds have to be welded by
the new welding robots of the
new manufacturing line
3
attached
recyclable
4
The design of the chair supports
different sitting positions.
5.3.3 INITIAL PRIORITIZATION
After the stakeholder agreed upon the customer requirements they individually
generated priorities. All stakeholder received hundred balls to distribute in the
urns which have been made ready for this purpose. Although there exists an
official power hierarchy, they decided against using different amount of balls.
r.]
The Pareto
The
Pareto Chart
Chart in
in Figure
Figure 5.9
5.9 shows
shows all
all three
three steps
steps of
of relative
relative priorities
priorities
together, i.e.
together,
i.e. unified
unified mdiv.
mdiv. Priorities
Priorities of
of the
the third
third step,
step, the
the updated
updated mdiv.
mdiv.
Priorities of
of the
the second
second step
step and
and the
the relative
relative mdiv.
mdiv. Priorities
Priorities right
right after
after putting
putting
Priorities
balls
balls in
in the
the urns.
urns. In
In the
the hypothetical
hypothetical case
case study
study all
all relative
relative priorities
priorities are
are close
close to
to
each other.
each
other. In
In some
some cases
cases there
there might
might be
be large
large gaps.
gaps. Close
Close relative
relative priorities
priorities of
of
all three
all
three steps
steps might
might only
only be
be the
the case
case ifif the
the more
more and
and less
less trusted
trusted stakeholders
stakeholders
agree in
agree
in the
the individual
individual priorities.
priorities. Looking
Looking at
at the
the Pareto
Pareto Chart
Chart reveals
reveals that
that the
the
individual prioritization
individual
prioritization corresponds
corresponds more
more or
or less
less group
group prioritization.
prioritization. Although
Although
there
there were
were slight
slight changes
changes in
in the
the relative
relative values
values the
the absolute
absolute ranks
ranks of
of the
the CR's
CR's
didn't
didn't change.
change.
5.3.6.3
5.3.6.3
Relative
Relative importance
importance Scale
Scale
Relative
Relative importance
importance Scale
Scale
160
160
150
150
CR4
CR4
140
140
CR3
CR3
130
130
120
1
20
110
110
CR1
CR1
CR5
CR5
1.00
1.00
CR2
CR2
0.90
0.90
0_SO
050
CR6
CR6
070
070
CR?
CR7
o 60
60
0
CR9
CR8
0_SO
0_SO
Customer
Customer Requirement
Requirement
Figure 5.10
5.10 Relative
Relative Importance
Importance Scale
Scale
Figure
The prioritization
The
prioritization in
in this
this case
case study
study shows
shows that
that initially
initially existing
existing sound
sound
distribution of
of individual
individual priorities
priorities are
are carried
carried over
over to
to the
the group
group prioritization.
prioritization.
distribution
Using the
Using
the relative
relative importance
importance scale,
scale, CR
CR 4
4 and
and 3
3 might
might be
be concluded
concluded as
as highly
highly
important,
important, whereas
whereas CR
CR 7
7 and
and 8
8 are
are least
least important.
important. Such
Such a
a case
case would
would make
make an
an
instant prioritization possible, without having to perform another round of
voting.
5.3.6.4
Significance Check
A check of the differences in the relative importance (Table 5.3) reveals that all
differences among the
RIk
are above the hurdle rate 8, which indicates that all
differences in priorities are rated significant (see Table 5.1).
Table 5.3 Significance of Difference in Prioritization
CR1
CR2
CR3
CR4
0.020
CR2
CR3
CR4
CR5
CR6
0.026
0.046
0.046
0.066
0.020
CRR5
0.009
0.011
0.035
0.055
CR6
0.048
0.028
0.074
0.095
0.039
CRR7
0.054
0.034
0.079
0.100
0.044
0.005
CR8
0.065
0.045
0.091
0.111
0.056
0.017
MaxDif
MinDif
0.020
0.020
0.046
0.026
0.066
0.020
0.055
0.009
0.095
0.028
0.100
0.005
0.012
0.111
0.012
Max
0.111
0.028
Mm
0.020
0.005
CR7
Such a clear distinction make a group prioritization possible and the
RIk
in this
case might instantly be used to plan and develop the Engineering strategy and
to allocate the man-hours accordingly.
5.3.7
DANGER OF SELECTIVE TRUST
The stakeholders might have decided to limit the influence of the other
stakeholders opinions on those which are trusted more than the average by the
individual and group. Such a limitation of influence might be called selective
trust. In some cases, where an accepted expert group might exist among all
stakeholders this might be useful. Using the data of the case study the results
in the relative importance displayed in a Pareto chart would look differently
now.
The difference between the relative importance using all opinions or only the
ones with more than average trustworthiness has the effect that bias coming
72
72
The
balance of
of colors
colors throughout
throughout the
theurns
urnswill
will also
also reveal
reveal the
the extent
extent of
of
The balance
consensus among
consensus
among the
the stakeholder,
stakeholder, ifif itit is
is rather
rather split
split among
among different
different CR
CR or
or ifif
there seems
there
seems to
to be
be a
a sound
sound distribution
distribution of
of agreement.
agreement.
The same
same effect
effect might
might be
be achieved
achieved on
on a
a numerical/graphical
numerical/graphical way.
way. Hereby
Hereby the
the
The
balls
balls each
each CR's
CR's has
has gotten
gotten from
from every
every stakeholder
stakeholder shall
shall be
be examined.
examined. The
The
fastest way
fastest
way to
to see
see the
the extent
extent of
of consensus,
consensus, is
is to
to look
look with
with what
what variance
variance the
the
stakeholders have
have put
put balls
balls into
into the
the CR's
CR's urns.
urns. But
But the
the variance
variance might
might not
not
stakeholders
detect gamesmanship.
extent of
of consensus
consensus and
detect
gamesmanship. So
So for
for examining
examiningboth,
both, extent
and
it might
might be
be necessary
necessary to
to use
use following
following instruments.
instruments.
individual prioritization
individual
prioritization it
Denote
Denote
=
=
(15)
(15)
ni
ni
as individual
individual priority
priority ratio,
ratio,where
where i
as
1
balls
balls
1 ...N,
1
...N, kk == 1
M, n1
n1 the
total number
number of
of
the total
M,
is, which
is,
which the
the i-th
i-th stakeholder
stakeholder has
has gotten.
gotten. N
N is
is the
the total
total number
number of
of
stakeholders and
and Mthe
Mthe total
total number
number of
of CR's.
CR's.
stakeholders
IP,k
IP,k
indicates
indicates the
the individual
individual priority
priority
in percentages.
in
percentages. Define
Define
RCk =
RCk
=
where
where
(16)
(16)
N
N
k == 11...
k
RCk
M.M.RCk
displays the
displays
the average
average amount
amount of
of individual
individual priority
priority the
the
th
th CR
CR received
received from
from all
all stakeholders
stakeholders in
in percentages.
percentages. Displaying
Displaying
IP,k
IP,k
kk-
and RCk
and
RCk
next
next to
to each
each other
other in
in a
a Pareto
Pareto Chart
Chart reveals
reveals two
two things,
things, i.e.
i.e. extent
extent of
of consensus
consensus
and stakeholder
and
stakeholder which
which voted
voted as
as outlier.
outlier. Repeating
Repeating these
these calculations
calculations for
for all
all CR's
CR's
the method
method will
will fast
fast give
give an
an impression
impression about
about the
the consensus
consensus achieved
achieved in
in the
the
the
group
group decision
decision making.
making.
Using the
the setting
setting and
and data
data of
of the
the case
case study
study in
in section
section 5.3,
5.3, Fig.
Fig. 5.13
5.13 shows
shows two
two
Using
sets
sets of
of
IP,k
IP,k
for CR
CR 3
3 with
with a
a variance
variance of
of 51
51 and
and CR
CR 7
7 with
with a
a variance
variance of
of
and RCk
and
RCk for
12. The
12.
The Pareto
Pareto Chart
Chart of
of CR
CR 3
3 shows
shows a
a wide
wide distribution
distribution of
of votes
votes around
around the
the
RC3.
RC3.
it
it reflects
reflects the
the worst
worst consensus
consensus in
in this
this case
case study.
study. There
There are
are three
three stakeholders
stakeholders
73
which might be interviewed about their reason for the strong positive or
negative prioritization of CR3, i.e. Hans, Joe and Wil. Hans and Wil are among
the more trusted stakeholders, it might be therefore interesting to compare and
discuss their arguments for the opposite prioritization.
The individual priorities of CR 7 are closer together as indicated by the low
variance of the CR votes. There are no significant voting outliers and there
seems to be an agreement about the priority of this CR.
Best and worst Consensus
* CR3IP
A CR3RC
CR7IP
CR7RC
0.3
Ret. mdiv. Prioritiec
0 25
02
-A--- ----- A
0 15
0.1
0 05
0
Will
Merely
Peter
Sue
Joe
Revs
Figure 5.13 Analysis of Individual Prioritization of CR 3 and CR 7
BIASES
5.4.2
5.4.2.1
Power
As specified previously voting power differences coming from e.g. power
hierarchy might be considered directly by giving more votes, i.e. balls to the
specific stakeholder. Once the relative priorities of each CR has been calculated,
it might be interesting to know what influence the difference in power has
effected. In a few steps this power biases might be calculated with the gathered
information using the proposed method.
74
74
First Eqn.
Eqn. 16
16 has
has to
to be
be calculated,
calculated, which
which will
will give
give the
the un-weighted
un-weighted average
average
First
individual importance
importance for
for all
all CR's
individual
as if
CR's as
if all
all stakeholders
stakeholders would
would be
be equally
equally
important.
important. Denote
Denote
RC0w
Rc0w- _________
- _________
(17)
(17)
k
k
where
where
k
.M, N
k =
= 1..
1 ...M,
N
the total
total number
number of
of stakeholders,
stakeholders, M
M the
the total
total number
number of
of
the
CR's
and n
n the
the number
number of
of balls
balls the
the f-th
fth stakeholder
CR's and
stakeholder has
has gotten
gotten initally.
initally. Eqn.
Eqn. 17
17
describes the
the relative
relative importance
importance of
of the
the k-th
k-th CR
CR using
using a
a power
power distinction
distinction
describes
among
among the
the stakeholders.
stakeholders. The
The difference
difference between
between the
the results
results of
of Eqn.
Eqn. 16
16 and
and
Eqn. 17
Eqn.
17 is
is the
the difference
difference in
in relative
relative priorities
priorities coming
coming from
from power.
power. Because
Because Eqn.
Eqn.
17 uses
17
in the
the denominator,
denominator, the
the influence
influence of
of the
the
uses the
the total
total number
number of
of balls
balls in
stakeholders
with more
more balls
balls take
take effect.
effect. Their
Their distribution
distribution will
will have
havemore
more
stakeholders with
influence on
on the
the overall
overall prioritization,
prioritization, than
than before
before with
with individual
individual priority
priority ratios.
ratios.
influence
The difference
difference in
in relative
relative importance
importance will
will only
only come
come from
from the
the difference
difference in
in
The
power.
power.
5.4.2.2
5.4.2.2
Bias
Bias from
from the
the Inteciration
Inteciration of
of the
the Trust
Trust in
in Prioritizing
Prioritizing
Similar
Similar to
to the
the power
power bias,
bias, the
the isolated
isolated influence
influence of
of the
the trust
trust integration
integration in
in the
the
method might
method
might also
also be
be calculated.
calculated.
Eqn. 16
16 will
will again
again be
be used
used as
as unbiased
unbiased individual
individual relative
relative importance
importance of
of the
the k-th
k-th
Eqn.
CR. For
CR.
For the
the isolation
isolation from
from the
the power
power influence
influence coming
coming from
from different
different amount
amount of
of
balls
balls the
the whole
whole method
method is
is run
run through,
through, but
but instead
instead of
of using
using X,k
x as
asinput
input in
in Eqn.
Eqn.
2, Eqn.
Eqn. 15
15 is
is put
put there.
there. The
The end
end result
result will
will be
be the
the relative
relative importance
importance of
of every
every
2,
CR,
CR, but
but without
without interference
interference from
from the
the predetermined
predetermined power
power hierarchy.
hierarchy. The
The
difference between
difference
between Eqn.
Eqn. 16
16 and
and the
the newly
newly calculated
calculated relative
relative Importance
Importance
RIk is
is
RIk
the difference
difference in
in relative
relative importance
importance coming
coming from
from the
the integration
integration of
of trust
trust in
in the
the
the
prioritization.
prioritization.
75
75
5.4.2.3
5.4.2.3
Combined
Combined Bias
Bias
To make
To
make the
the picture
picture complete
complete itit might
might be
be interesting
interesting to
to specify
specify the
the departure
departure
caused
caused by
by both
both integrated
integrated elements,
elements, i.e.
i.e. trust
trust and
and power.
power.
In the
In
the first
first step
step the
the relative
relative importance
importance would
would again
again be
be calculated
calculated with
with the
the
average
average of
of individual
individual assigned
assigned priority
priority ratios
ratios (Eqn.
(Eqn. 16).
16).
In the
the second
second step
step the
the relative
relative importance
importance using
using the
the full
full method
method described
described in
in
In
section 4
section
4 might
might be
be calculated.
calculated. The
The difference
difference in
in the
the resulting
resulting values
values would
would stem
stem
from the
from
the combined
combined influence
influence of
of integrating
integrating difference
difference among
among stakeholders
stakeholders in
in
power and
power
and trust
trust in
in prioritizing.
prioritizing.
Concluding this
Concluding
this section,
section, itit might
might be
be noted,
noted, that
that the
the relative
relative importance
importance results
results
of
of the
the method,
method, might
might always
always be
be accompanied
accompanied by
by a
a tolerance
tolerance value
value based
based on
on
power-bias,
power-bias, trust
trust in
in prioritizing-bias
prioritizing-bias and
and combined
combined bias.
bias. So
So that
that the
the existence
existence of
of
the difference
the
difference in
in priorities
priorities are
are addressed.
addressed. If
If there
there is
is an
an enormous
enormous amount
amount of
of
biases
biases around
around a
a relative
relative importance
importance value,
value, there
there might
might exist
exist inconsistencies.
inconsistencies.
Therefore using
using such
such a
a tolerances
tolerances might
might reduce
reduce the
the risk
risk that
that inconsistencies
inconsistencies
Therefore
remain
remain undetected.
undetected. The
The numerical
numerical results
results of
of the
the bias
bias tolerance
tolerance might
might also
also be
be
displayed
displayed in
in a
a Pareto
Pareto Chart
Chart together
together with
with the
the initially
initially received
received
RIk
RIk
(refer to
(refer
to Fig.
Fig.
5.9
5.9 and
and 5.11
5.11 where
where the
the trust
trust bias
bias is
is displayed
displayed by
by the
the distance
distance between
between relative
relative
priorities
priorities of
of the
the first
first and
and third
third step).
step).
5.5
5.5 Verification
Verification and
and Validation
Validation
The theoretically
The
theoretically presented
presented method
method has
has yet
yet to
to prove
prove its
its value
value in
in the
the real
real design
design
practice. The
practice.
The validation
validation and
and optimization
optimization will
will be
be based
based on
on pilot
pilot tests
tests and
and field
field
tests, before
tests,
before the
the method
method might
might be
be applied
applied in
in real
real design
design practice.
practice. The
The
verification
verification and
and validation
validation of
of the
the proposed
proposed method
method will
will be
be split
split in
in two
two main
main
parts, i.e.
parts,
i.e. validation
validation of
of the
the prioritization
prioritization method
method and
and validation
validation of
of the
the TWTW-
measurement.
measurement.
76
76
Table
Table 5.4
5.4 Validation
Validation Process
Process
Validation
Process
Validation Process
Pilot tests
Pilot
tests
Laboratory environment
environment
Laboratory
Subjects selected
selected randomly
randomly from
from Student
Student body
body or
or existing
existing project
project
Subjects
groups
groups
Dummy
Dummy Prioritization
Prioritization
Prioritization
Prioritization
Method
Method
TWTWMeasurement
Measurement
Individual and
Individual
and Group
Group
Prioritization
of
Prioritization of
Dummy Items,
Items,
Dummy
Comparison to
Comparison
to
Expert prioritization
prioritization
Expert
Validate
Validate Core
Core
Assumptions
Assumptions by
by
Hypotheses tests
tests
Hypotheses
Evaluation of
of Items
Items
Evaluation
by qualitative
by
qualitative
Inquiries
Inquiries about
about
Items
Items in
in either
either web
web
based or
or printed
printed
based
form of
of survey
survey
form
Item
refinement
Item refinement
(Wording &
(Wording
&
Terminology)
Terminology)
Accuracy
Accuracy
(Difference to
to
(Difference
Expert
Expert
prioritization),
priorftiation),
Time
Time
consumption,
consumption,
Time
Time of
of
Negotiation
Negotiation
Item clean
clean up
up (Check
(Check
Item
for redundancy,
redundancy, Clarity
Clarity
for
of Items,
Items, Integrity
Integrity of
of
of
Items)
Items)
Eliminate or
or reword
reword
Eliminate
problematic
problematic items
items
Constructive
Constructive
Critics,
Critics, Fulfillment
Fulfillment
of
of Question
Question
Purposes,
Purposes,
Calculation of
of
Calculation
Cronbach 'sAlpha
Alpha
Cronbach
for each
for
each Question
Question
Group
Group
Reliability
Reliability of
of survey
survey
items
items
Confirmatory Factor
Confirmatory
Factor
Analysis (CFA)
(CFA) on
on
Analysis
Covariance
Covariance Data
Data
Model
Validation ((and
Model Validation
and
ifif necessary
necessary Elimination
Elimination
or Integration
Integration of
of new
new
or
Variables)
Variables)
Reliability
Reliability of
of Items
Items
Mu Itivariate
Multivariate
Regression Analysis
Regression
Analysis
on
on empirical
empirical Data
Data
(Fit among
(Fit
among
estimations and
estimations
and
calculated
calculated values)
values)
Consistency
Consistency of
of
adjusted
adjusted Trust-Model
Trust-Model
Calibration of
of Question
Question
Calibration
Group
Group Weights
Weights
Goodness of
of fit
fit of
of
Goodness
theoretical
Model
theoretical Model
mapped on
on
mapped
empirical Data,
Data,
empirical
Factor
Factor Loading
Loading
R-mean squared,
squared,
R-mean
p-Value
pValue
77
Table 5.4 (Continued)
Interpretation of results from Pilot tests in order to prepare the Field test and to
improve the TW-measurement. Findings shall already be integrated in the TWmeasurement so that the Field-tests already are performed with the revised TWmeasurement.
Field Tests
. Real Design Environment with industrial Partners
Group-members have Work History together
CR Priorities are planned to be measured by extensive Customer
Inquiries
Prioritization
Method
TW-
Measurement
Application of
Method, Comparison
to investigated
Customer Priorities
Measure Efficiency of
Method
Compare with
AHP/Borda Count
Use of Survey for all
stakeholders,
additionally for most
and least trusted
stakeholders an
evaluation survey for
the TW-measurement
shall be filled out.
Refinement of Survey
Terminology (Clarity,
Wording etc.)
Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) on
Covariance Data
Model Validation by
empirical data in a
professional
Environment (if
necessary adjustment
of Model to empirical
data)
Qualitative Evaluation
of TW-measurement
by Professionals
Accuracy, Time
consumption,
Time of
Negotiation,
overall
Satisfaction of
Stakeholders
Critics of
Professionals,
Fulfillment of
Question
Purposes,
Calculation of
Cronbach 's Alpha
for each Question
Group
Goodness of fit of
theoretical Model
mapped on
empirical Data,
Factor Loading
Table
Table 5.4
5.4 (Continued)
(Continued)
Multivariate
Multivariate
Regression Analysis
Analysis
Regression
on empirical
empirical Data
Data (Fit
(Fit
on
among estimations
among
estimations
and
and calculated
calculated
values)
values)
Consistency
Consistency of
of
adjusted Trust
Trust Model
Model
adjusted
R-mean
R-mean squared,
squared,
p-Value
p-Value
Calibration
Calibration of
of Question
Question
Group Weights
Group
Weights
Interpretation
ofresults
results from
from the
Interpretation of
the field
field tests.
The proposed
proposed validation
validation process
process will
will have
have two
two main
main stages
stages (please
(please refer
refer to
to
The
Table 5.3),
5.3), i.e.
i.e. pilot
pilot tests
tests and
and field
field tests.
tests. The
The series
series of
of pilot
pilot experiments
experiments and
and
Table
pretests will
will help
help to
to find
find possible
possible errors
errors in
in the
the method,
method, help
help to
to prove
prove major
major
pretests
assumptions
statistically and
and to
to improve
improve the
the multiple
multiple item
item TW-measurement.
1W-measurement.
assumptions statistically
The
The findings
findings and
and experience
experience from
from the
the pilot
pilot tests
tests shall
shall be
be used
used to
to prepare
prepare the
the
second stage.
stage. The
The second
second stage
stage will
will consist
consist of
of field
field tests,
tests, where
where the
the method
method is
is
second
applied in
in real
applied
real stakeholder
stakeholder negotiations
negotiations and
and with
with real
prioritize.
real CR's
CR's to
to prioritize.
Industrial partners
partners will
will have
have the
the advantage
advantage to
to test
test the
the method
method and
and contribute
contribute to
to
Industrial
a research
research project.
project. With
With the
the two
two stage
stage approach
approach it
it is
is attempted
attempted to
to first
first improve
improve
a
the method
method in
in a
a controlled
controlled laboratory
laboratory environment,
environment, before
before further
further resources
resources
the
and
and industrial
industrial partners
partners are
are consumed.
consumed.
5.5.1
5.5.1
VALIDATION
VALIDATION PROCESS
PROCESS OF
OF THE
THE PROPOSED
PROPOSED PRIORITIZATION
PRIORITIZATION
METHOD
METHOD
The validation
validation of
of the
the proposed
proposed prioritization
prioritization method
method shall
shall answer
answer two
two questions,
questions,
The
(a) are
are the
the basic
basic assumptions
assumptions considered
considered for
for the
the concept
concept right
right and
and (b)
(b) is
is the
the
(a)
aimed at
aimed
at improvement
improvement of
of the
the prioritization
prioritization efficiency
efficiency achieved?
achieved?
As the
the proposed
proposed prioritization
prioritization method
applies a
As
method applies
a new
newconcept
concept for
for the
the
prioritization
prioritization of
of CR's,
CR's, the
the method's
method's basic
basic assumptions
assumptions have
have to
to be
be validated
validated first.
first.
The
The pilot
pilot tests
tests of
of the
the prioritization
prioritization method
method are
are intended
intended to
to find
find answers
answers to
to this
this
issue. The
The construct
construct of
of assumption
assumption on
on which
which the
the prioritization
prioritization method
method is
is built,
built,
issue.
shall be
be confirmed
confirmed by
by empirical
empirical data
data one
one by
by one.
one.
shall
79
79
In
In contrast
contrast to
to the
the concept
concept validation
validation in
in the
the pilot
pilot tests,
tests, the
the field
field test
test will
will focus
focus on
on
the evaluation
evaluation of
of the
the gain
gain in
in efficiency,
efficiency, satisfaction
satisfaction and
and confidence
confidence of
of the
the
the
prioritization process
process by
by using
using the
the proposed
proposed method,
method, hereby
hereby a
a comparison
comparison
prioritization
between
between the
the proposed
proposed method
method to
to already
already accepted
accepted prioritization
prioritization methods
methods will
will
be carried
carried out
out in
in aa professional
professional environment.
environment.
be
5.5.1.1
5.5.1.1
Settina of
of the
the Pilot
Pilot Tests
Tests
Settina
As specified
specified in
in Table
Table 5.3,
5.3, the
the pilot
pilot tests
tests will
will be
be performed
performed in
in an
an artificial
artificial setting
setting
As
prioritize items
items
to prioritize
of a
a group
group prioritizing
prioritizing exercise.
exercise. The
The group
group will
will have
have to
of
concerning
concerning a
a topic
topic which
which some
some of
of them
them will
will have
have more
more or
or less
less expertise
expertise about,
about,
but none
none of
of them
them will
will have
have full
full expertise.
expertise. The
The prioritization
prioritization topic
topic will
will ask
ask the
the
but
individual group
group member
member to
to apply
apply personal
personal opinion,
opinion, judgment
judgment and
and trade
trade off
off
individual
among the
the items.
items. The
The experiment
experiment set-ups
set-ups should
should be
be as
as close
close as
as itit is
is possible
possible to
to
among
simulate
simulate the
the situation
situation at
at an
an early
early stage
stage before
before prioritizing
prioritizing CR's.
CR's. The
The individual
individual
and
and the
the group
group prioritization
prioritization will
will then
then be
be compared
compared to
to the
the prioritization
prioritization from
from real
real
experts. Each
Each experiment
experiment will
will have
have strict
strict specifications
specifications and
and methods
methods the
the group
group
experts.
will have
have to
to apply
apply will
will be
be provided.
provided.
will
Examples of
of prioritization
prioritization experiments
experiments are
are found
found in
in {Bell.
[Bell. 1994]
1994] and
and described
described
Examples
as desert
desert or
or space
space survival
survival experiment.
experiment. Because
Because the
the prioritization
prioritization results
results are
are
as
known, the
the accuracy
accuracy of
of a
a voting
voting process
process i.e.
i.e. performance
performance might
might be
be measured.
measured.
known,
Specifications and
and instructions
instructions for
for each
each hypothesis
hypothesis will
will follow
follow in
in 5.5.1.2.
55.1.2. Every
Specifications
Every
group will
group
will only
only use
use the
the same
same prioritization
prioritization method
method once
once and
and will
will not
not have
have to
to
prioritize
prioritize more
more than
than twice.
twice.
The
The test
test of
of the
the hypothesis
hypothesis 1-7
1-7 will
will follow
follow a
a similar
similar method
method from
from hypothesis
hypothesis to
to
hypothesis. The
The accuracy
accuracy of
of prioritizing
prioritizing might
might be
be measured
measured by
by calculating
calculating the
the
hypothesis.
difference from
difference
from the
the individual
individual prioritization
prioritization and
and group
group prioritization
prioritizationto
tothe
theexpert
expert
prioritization.
prioritization.
The
The purpose
purpose of
of the
the pilot
pilot tests
tests is
is to
to validate
validate fast
fast and
and with
with a
a low
low consumption
consumption of
of
resources major
major assumptions
assumptions of
of the
the prioritization
prioritization method.
method. Experience
Experience and
and
resources
results will
will support
support the
the preparation
preparation of
of the
the field
field tests.
tests. In
In the
the following
following section
section
results
the assumptions,
assumptions, which
which will
will be
be validated
validated by
by the
the pilot
pilot tests
tests are
are listed.
listed.
the
5.5.1.2
5.5.1.2
Assumptions
Assumptions of
of the
the Prioritization
Prioritization Method
Method and
and Experiment
Experiment
Specifications
Specifications
The core
The
core assumptions
assumptions of
of the
the method
method designate
designate the
the method
method as
as a
a new
new approach
approach
to prioritize
to
prioritize CR's.
CR's. In
In the
the following
following the
the assumptions
assumptions are
are presented
presented in
in Hypotheses
Hypotheses
which have
which
have to
to be
be confirmed.
confirmed.
Hi: In
In matter
matter of
of perceptions
perceptions group
group prioritization
prIoritizatIon is
is more
more accurate
accurate
Hi:
than
than the
the individual's
individual's prioritizations.
prioritizations.
Hypothesis one
one has
has to
to prove
prove that
that the
the group
group interdependency
interdependency is
is needed
needed in
in order
order
Hypothesis
to improve
improve the
the prioritization
prioritization of
of perceived
perceived and
and interpreted
interpreted priorities.
priorities.
to
The
The accuracy
accuracy of
of the
the individual
individual prioritization
prioritization of
of the
the dummy
dummy list
list will
will be
be compared
compared
to
to the
the accuracy
accuracy the
the group
group has
has achieved.
achieved. Three
Three negotiation
negotiation levels
levels will
will be
be
compared,
compared, no
no group
group discussion
discussion beforehand,
beforehand, little
little discussion
discussion before
before the
the
individual
individual
prioritization and
prioritization
and
a
a
lot
lot
of discussion
discussion time
time
of
beforehand.
beforehand. The
The
prioritization will
will be
be based
based on
on multivoting
multivoting method
method (Beans)
(Beans) with
with votes
votes five
five time
time
prioritization
the number
number of
of items
items to
to prioritize.
prioritize. The
The total
total number
number of
of beans
beans an
an item
item has
has gotten
gotten
the
will
will give
give its
its rank
rank in
in the
the group
group prioritization.
prioritization. Accuracy
Accuracy of
of individual
individual (mean),
(mean), group
group
voting
voting and
and time
time of
of negotiation
negotiation will
will be
be recorded.
recorded.
H2:
H2: The
The consideration
consideration of
of any
any difference
difference controlled
controlled by
by the
the voter
voter in
in
voting power
power of
of stakeholders
stakeholders improves
improves the
the voting
voting result
result in
in case
case of
of
voting
perceptions.
perceptions.
Instead of
of using
using equal
equal voting
voting power
power the
the stakeholders
stakeholders should
should individual
individual pass
pass
Instead
voting
power, to
to the
the ones
ones they
they perceive
perceive are
are able
able to
to improve
improve the
the voting
votingresult
result
voting power,
best.
best.
Before the
Before
the prioritization
prioritization will
will take
take place,
place, itit is
is made
made sure,
sure, that
that the
thegroup
groupmembers
members
get acquainted
acquainted with
with each
each other.
other. The
The method
method the
the groups
groups for
for this
this experiment
experiment will
will
get
have
have to
to use
use is
is based
based on
on SPAN.
SPAN. They
They will
will also
also get
get votes
votes fife
fife times
times the
the number
number of
of
E:J!
[31
items to
items
to prioritize.
prioritize. Then
Then they
they will
will have
have also
also three
three different
different levels
levels of
of time
time to
to talk
talk
with
with each
each other
other about
about the
the prioritization.
prioritization. After
After that
that time
time they
they will
will have
have to
to give
give
anonymously so
so many
many votes
votes they
they want
want to
to other
other group
group members
members they
they think
think they
they
anonymously
will do
will
do a
a good
good job
job prioritizing
prioritizing the
the items.
items. After
After that
that they
they will
will individually
individually prioritize
prioritize
the
the items
items with
with the
the remaining
remaining beans
beans they
they have.
have. The
The total
total number
number of
of beans
beans an
an
item has
item
has gotten
gotten will
will give
give its
its rank.
rank. Accuracy
Accuracy of
of group
group voting
voting and
and time
time of
of
negotiation will
will be
be recorded.
recorded.
negotiation
H3:
The prIorItIzatIon
prioritization of
H3: The
of items
Items is
is improved
Improved by
by considering
considering quantified
quantified
trust
dynamic factor
factor and
and is
is even
even improved
improved to
to the
the difference
difference
trust as
as a
a social
soda! dynamic
the voters
own (H2).
(H2).
the
voters contro!
control on
on thefr
their own
Letting
Letting the
the stakeholders
stakeholders control
control the
the voting
voting power
power by
by themselves
themselves inheres
inheres the
the
danger,
danger, that
that personal
personal sympathy,
sympathy, individual
individual confidence
confidence and
and personal
personal power
power are
are
misinterpreted
misinterpreted as
as expertise,
expertise, therefore
therefore using
using uncontrolled
uncontrolled allocation
allocation of
of power
power as
as
in H2
H2 might
might lead
lead to
to distorted
distorted prioritization
prioritization (please
(please refer
refer to
to section
section 2.2.5).
2.2.5). In
In
in
contrast to
to H2,
H2, H3
H3 will
will use
use controlled
controlled difference
difference in
in voting
voting power.
power. Hereby
Hereby the
the
contrast
control is
control
is designed
designed to
to give
give voting
voting power
power to
to those
those stakeholders
stakeholders which
which are
are
perceived to
to be
be more
more able,
able, more
more committed
committed and
and more
more integer
integer and
and hence
hence more
more
perceived
trusted to
to improve
improve the
the voting
voting result.
result.
trusted
H3 shall
shall use
use the
the same
same procedure
procedure as
as for
for H2
H2 with
with the
the difference
difference that
that the
the groups
groups
H3
will
will use
use the
the proposed
proposed Urn-Scheme
Urn-Scheme method
method with
with TW-measurement
TW-measurement to
to prioritize
prioritize
the items.
items. Accuracy
Accuracy of
of group
group voting
voting and
and time
time of
of negotiation
negotiation will
will be
be recorded
recorded
the
and compared
compared to
to Hi
Hi and
and H2.
H2.
and
H4: The
H4:
The proposed
proposed method
method is
is more
more efficient
efficient (i.e.
(i.e. more
more accurate
accurate and
and
!ess time
time consuming)
consuming) than
than e.g.
e.g. AHP
AHP or
or Borda
Borda Count
Count using
using aa
less
prioritization
matrix
prioritization matrix
Hypothesis 4
4 tries
tries to
to show
show the
the advantage
advantage of
of the
the newly
newly developed
developed method
method
Hypothesis
compared to
to already
already accepted
accepted prioritization
prioritization methods.
methods.
compared
The
The setting
setting of
of Hi
Hi is
is used
used with
with the
the difference
difference that
that randomly
randomly allocated
allocated part
part of
of the
the
groups
groups are
are either
either using
using AHP,
AHP, Borda
Borda Count
Count and
and the
the Urn-Scheme
Urn-Scheme with
with TWTWmeasurement
measurement method.
method.
The
experiment has
has to
to be
be handled
handled carefully.
carefully. Two
Two issues
issues
The interpretation
interpretation of
of this
this experiment
will have
will
have to
to addressed,
addressed, time
time consumption
consumption of
of all
all three
three methods
methods will
will not
not directly
directly
be comparable
be
comparable and
and the
the dummy
dummy items
items are
are ranked
ranked and
and not
not relatively
relatively prioritized,
prioritized,
therefore
therefore the
the calculation
calculation of
of the
the accuracy
accuracy might
might get
get distorted.
distorted. Because
Because this
this
experiment
experiment will
will be
be repeated
repeated in
in the
the field
field test
test with
with real
real CR's,
CR's, this
this experiment
experiment
might give
might
give first
first impressions
impressions and
and might
might help
help to
to prepare
prepare the
the field
field tests.
tests.
H5:
H5: The
The proposed
proposed method
method reduces
reduces the
the time
time for
for negotiation
negotiation without
without
reducing
reducing the
the accuracy.
accuracy.
Hypothesis
5 will
will have
have to
to show
show that
that using
using the
the proposed
proposed method
method reduces
reducesthe
the
Hypothesis 5
necessary
necessary time
time to
to achieve
achieve a
a satisfying
satisfying result.
result. Hereby
Hereby the
the efficiency
efficiency of
of real
real
negotiations
negotiations without
without any
any voting
voting rules
rules are
are compared
compared to
to the
the proposed
proposed method.
method.
In this
this experiment
experiment the
the results
results from
from H3
H3 will
will be
be compared
compared to
to results
results where
where the
the
In
groups will
will have
have as
as much
much time
time as
as they
they need
need to
to prioritize
prioritize the
the items.
items. Every
Every group
group
groups
member will
will have
have the
the veto
veto power
power and
and therefore
therefore all
all group
group members
members will
will have
have to
to
member
agree to
to the
the prioritization
prioritization of
agree
of the
the group.
group. The
The instructions
instructions should
should point
point out
out that
that
negotiations shall
negotiations
shall be
be carried
carried out
out until
until consensus
consensus is
is achieved.
achieved. Time
Time of
of
negotiation
negotiation and
and accuracy
accuracy will
will be
be recorded
recorded and
and compared.
compared.
H6:
H6: Finding
Finding relative
relative priorities
priorities based
based on
on Ranking
Ranking methods
methods are
are less
less
accurate
voting approach,
approach, i.e.
i.e. the
the Urn-Scheme
accurate than
than based
based on
on aa multi
multivoting
Urn-Scheme
The
The advantage
advantage of
of using
using relative
relative differences
differences among
among individual
individual priorities
priorities rather
rather
than
than a
a rigid
rigid ranking
ranking systems
systems shall
shall be
be validated
validated by
by comparing
comparing Borda
Borda Count
Count and
and a
a
multivoting
multivoting approach.
approach.
For
For H6
H6 the
the setting
setting and
and the
the results
results of
of H4
H4 (Borda
(Borda Count)
Count) and
and Hi
Hi (multivoting)
(multivoting)
shall
shall be
be used
used and
and analyzed
analyzed for
for the
the difference
difference in
in accuracy
accuracy of
of the
the voting
voting using
using
either
either ranking
ranking or
or relative
relative importance
importance distinction.
distinction. As
As already
already specified
specified in
in H6
H6 the
the
interpretation will
will have
have to
to be
be made
made carefully.
carefully. H6
H6 might
might be
be repeated
repeated with
with a
a
interpretation
dummy prioritization
dummy
prioritization where
where relative
relative priorities
priorities are
are known
known rather
rather than
than fixed
fixed ranks.
ranks.
5.5.1.3
5.5.1.3
Measures in
in the
the Pilot
Pilot Tests
Tests
Measures
The analysis
analysis of
of the
the experiments
experiments will
will be
be focused
focused on
on the
the efficiency
efficiency of
of the
the
The
i.e. the
the accuracy
accuracy and
and time
time consumption
consumption of
of the
the
performed prioritization,
prioritization, i.e.
performed
examined methods.
methods. The
The accuracy
accuracy will
will be
be measured
measured by
by calculating
calculating the
the root
root sum
sum
examined
square
square of
of the
the difference
difference between
between the
the voted
voted result
result and
and the
the already
already known
known
solution of
of the
the prioritization.
prioritization. The
solution
The overall
overall time
time consumption
consumption will
will be
be less
less important
important
because itit might
might not
not be
be possible
possible to
to guarantee
guarantee the
the prerequisite
prerequisite that
that the
the different
different
because
methods would
methods
would use
use the
the same
same amount
amount of
of time
time under
under any
any circumstances.
circumstances. This
This
makes
makes the
the overall
overall time
time consumption
consumption not
not directly
directly comparable,
comparable, but
but trends
trends in
in
efficiency might
might still
still be
be recognizable.
recognizable.
efficiency
Another analysis
analysis will
will focus
focus on
on the
the achieved
achieved amount
amount of
of consensus,
consensus, i.e.
i.e. variances
variances
Another
of votes
votes for
for a
a certain
certain item
item compared
compared to
to the
the amount
amount of
of negotiation
negotiation time
time needed
needed
of
to achieve
achieve the
the result.
result. A
A regression
regression analysis
analysis might
might prove
prove any
any relation
relation among
among
to
extent of
of consensus
consensus and
and negotiation
negotiation time
time needed.
needed. The
The accuracy
accuracy of
of the
the voting
voting
extent
will also
also be
be registered
registered to
to test
test the
the specific
specific hypothesis.
hypothesis.
will
5.5.1.4
5.5.1.4
Choice
Choice of
of Subiects
Subjects for
for the
the Pilot
Pilot Tests
Tests
The choice
The
choice of
of subjects
subjects for
for the
the laboratory
laboratory test
test should
should be
be accidentally
accidentally either
either by
by
random selection
random
selection of
of students
students or
or voluntary
voluntary groups
groups from
from the
the student
student body.
body. The
The
allocation to
allocation
to experiments
experiments have
have to
to happen
happen randomly
randomly so
so that
that the
the conclusions
conclusions
drawn from
from the
the experiments
experiments will
will be
be possible
possible to
to be
be generalized.
generalized.
drawn
5.5.1.5
5.5.1.5
Settina of
Settina
of the
the Field
Field Tests
Tests
The professional
The
professional setting
sethng of
of the
the field
field tests
tests will
will be
be used
used to
to validate
validate the
the efficiency
efficiency
of
of the
the prioritization
prioritization of
of the
the method
method in
in two
two ways,
ways, i.e.
i.e. comparison
comparison to
to investigated
investigated
prioritization of
of CR's
CR's and
and comparison
comparison to
to already
already accepted
accepted methods
methods (Borda
(Borda
prioritization
Count, AHP,
Count,
AHP, NGT).
NGT).
The proposed
proposed method
method determines
determines the
the relative
relative priorities,
priorities, which
which are
are perceived
perceived to
to
The
match best
best the
the customers'
customers' perceived
perceived desired
desired product
product qualities.
qualities. If
If the
the industrial
industrial
match
partner has
has the
the possibility
possibility to
to measure
measure the
the customers'
customers' desired
desired product
product qualities
qualities
partner
through a
a market
market research
research investigation,
investigation, the
the output
output of
of the
the prioritization
prioritization might
might
through
be compared
compared to
to them.
them. ItIt is
be
is important
important that
that the
the result
result of
of the
the investigated
investigated
customer priorities
priorities are
are not
not known
known to
to the
the experiment
experiment subjects,
subjects, otherwise
otherwise the
the
customer
experiment will
will be
be invalid.
invalid. Another
Another danger
danger in
in such
such a
a comparison
comparison might
might stem
stem
experiment
from the
the problems
problems described
described in
in the
the introduction,
introduction, i.e.
i.e. the
the customer
customer might
might be
be
from
unknown,
unknown, the
the customer
customer might
might not
not distinct
distinct the
the CR's
CR's importance
importance and
and not
not all
all
customers are
are adequately
adequately represented
represented in
in these
these investigated
investigated data.
data. Nevertheless
Nevertheless
customers
by
by being
being aware
aware of
of this
this limitation,
limitation, the
the comparison
comparison might
might still
still reveal
reveal valuable
valuable
insights.
insights.
The
The second
second comparison
comparison will
will also
also use
use the
the investigated
investigated data
data as
as standard
standard for
for
accurate prioritization.
prioritization. The
The group
group of
of stakeholders
stakeholders will
will prioritize
prioritize the
the CR's
CR's with
with the
the
accurate
proposed
proposed Method
Method and
and with
with either
either AHP,
AHP, NGT
NGT or
or Borda
Borda Count.
Count. Hereby
Hereby the
the
accuracy, the
the time
time needed
needed and
and time
time for
for negotiations
negotiations needed
needed will
will be
be recorded.
recorded.
accuracy,
The
The sequence
sequence and
and kind
kind of
of applied
applied method
method has
has to
to be
be allocated
allocated randomly
randomly over
over all
all
field
field test
test groups.
groups. The
The comparison
comparison will
will not
not be
be limited
limited on
on efficiency
efficiency but
but also
also by
by
qualitative
qualitative feed-back
feed-back from
from the
the stakeholders
stakeholders by
by an
an comparison
comparison survey.
survey. The
The
question will
will be
be about
about the
the subjective
subjective perceptions
perceptions of
of the
the stakeholder
stakeholder towards
towards the
the
question
compared
compared methods.
methods. Following
Following issues
issues should
should be
be addressed:
addressed:
..
Stakeholder's
Stakeholder's over
over all
all satisfaction
satisfaction with
with methods
methods
Simplicity
Simplicity in
in use,
use, Practicability
Practicability
Consensus, acceptance
acceptance of
of result
result
Consensus,
Fairness
Fairness of
of consideration
consideration of
of own
own perspectives
perspectives
Feeling of
Feeling
of confidence
confidence in
in the
the results
results of
of the
the prioritization
prioritization method
method
Assumptions of
Assumptions
of the
the Method
Method to
to be
be validated
validated by
by the
the Field
Field
5.5.1.6
5.5.1.6
TcFc
Tci-c
As
As specified
specified in
in the
the previous
previous section
section H3
H3 (efficiency)
(efficiency) and
and H4
H4 (improvement
(improvement to
to
accepted Methods)
accepted
Methods) from
from the
the pilot
pilot tests
tests will
will be
be repeated
repeated in
in the
the field
field tests.
tests.
5.5.1.7
5.5.1.7
Measures
Measures in
in the
the Field
Field Tests
Tests
The difference
The
difference to
to the
the investigated
investigated relative
relative priorities
priorities will
will be
be used
used as
as measure
measure for
for
method accuracy,
method
accuracy, as
as it
it was
was used
used in
in the
the pilot
pilot tests.
tests. The
The time
time consumptions
consumptions and
and
time needed
needed for
for negotiations
negotiations will
will be
be compared
compared along
along with
with the
the comparison
comparison of
of the
the
time
results from
results
from the
the qualitative
qualitative surveys
surveys from
from the
the stakeholders.
stakeholders.
In
In order
order to
to reduce
reduce the
the time
time consumption
consumption of
of the
the experiments
experiments with
with the
the proposed
proposed
method and
method
and to
to enhance
enhance the
the attractiveness
attractiveness for
for industrial
industrial partner,
partner, a
a software
software
version
of the
the prioritization
prioritization method
method should
should already
already be
be available
available for
forthe
thefield
field
version of
tests.
tests.
5.5.1.8
5.5.1.8
Choice
Choice of
of Subjects
Subjects for
for the
the Field
Field Test
Test
The selection
The
selection of
of experiment
experiment subjects
subjects for
for the
the field
field test
test
in
in
industry
industry and
and
organizations,
organizations, will
will be
be bound
bound to
to the
the restrictions
restrictions from
from the
the side
side of
of the
the industrial
industrial
partners. Industrial
partners.
Industrial partners
partners with
with the
the ability
ability to
to perform
perform extensive
extensive customer
customer
inquiries to
inquiries
to determine
determine the
the "standard"
"standard" for
for the
the prioritization
prioritization should
should be
be considered
considered
preferable.
preferable.
5.5.2
5.5.2
VALIDATION PROCESS
VALIDATION
PROCESS FOR
FOR THE
THE TW-MEASUREMENT
TW-MEASUREMENT
The
validation of
of the
the proposed
proposed TW-measurement
TW-measurement has
has two
two critical
criticalissues,
issues,(a)
(a)isis
The validation
the used
the
used and
and adjusted
adjusted Model
Model of
of Mayer
Mayer et
et al.
al. useful
useful to
to measure
measure the
the trust
trust in
in
somebody to
somebody
to prioritize
prioritize CR's
CR's and
and (b)
(b) is
is the
the proposed
proposed measurement
measurement method
method
reliable
reliable and
and consistent?
consistent?
Whereas
Whereas the
the validation
validation process
process of
of the
the prioritization
prioritization method
method is
is strictly
strictly carried
carried out
out
in two
in
two separate
separate sequential
sequential steps,
steps, the
the validation
validation of
of the
the 1W-measurement
TW-measurement will
will
actually have
actually
have three
three parts,
parts, but
but will
will sequentially
sequentially be
be repeated
repeated (see
(see Table
Table 5.3).
5.3). The
The
three parts
three
parts are
are integration
integration of
of qualified
qualified feedback
feedback on
on items
items with
with a
a check
check of
of the
the
scale reliability,
scale
reliability, a
a confirmatory
confirmatory factor
factor analysis
analysis (CFA)
(CFA) to
to evaluate
evaluate the
the consistency
consistency
between the
between
the proposed
proposed measurement
measurement model
model and
and the
the empirical
empirical data
data and
and a
a
regression analysis
regression
analysis to
to confirm
confirm the
the consistency
consistency of
of the
the TW-measurement.
TW-measurement. These
These
three parts
three
parts will
will be
be first
first carried
carried out
out on
on a
a convenience
convenience sample
sample in
in an
an artificial
artificial
setting of
of pilot
pilot tests
tests and
and then
then repeated
repeated with
with similar
similar settings
settings in
in field
field tests.
tests. It
It is
is
setting
intended,
intended, that
that the
the pilot
pilot tests
tests might
might already
already deliver
deliver critical
critical findings
findings to
to improve
improve
the
the TW-measurement,
TW-measurement, before
before itit is
is applied
applied in
in the
the field
field experiment.
experiment.
5.5.2.1
5.5.2.1
Three
Three Part
Part Validation
Validation Process
Process
The best
The
best validation
validation for
for the
the proposed
proposed trust
trust measurement
measurement method
method would
would be
be a
a
comparison to
comparison
to an
an existing,
existing, already
already accepted
accepted measurement
measurement method.
method.Because
Becauseof
of
the
the uniqueness
uniqueness and
and special
special focus
focus of
of the
the proposed
proposed measurement
measurement such
such a
a
comparison is
is not
not possible.
possible.
comparison
The proposed
The
proposed three
three part
part approach
approach is
is based
based on
on literature
literature review
reviewconcerning
concerningthe
the
validation
validation procedures
procedures for
for new
new multi
multi item
item scales
scales [Gill.
[Gill. 2003,
2003, Maye.
Maye. 1999,
1999, McAI.
McAI.
1995 and
and Froe.
Froe. 2004].
2004]. In
In the
the first
first step
step the
the terminology,
terminology, redundancy,
redundancy, integrity,
integrity,
1995
clarity of
clarity
of the
the items
items of
of the
the survey
survey is
is cleaned
cleaned up
up by
by the
the qualitative
qualitative feedback
feedback of
of
the respondents.
the
respondents. The
The first
first step
step is
is also
also used
used to
to rephrase
rephrase or
or eliminate
eliminate problematic
problematic
items.
items. A
A calculation
calculation of
of Cronbach's
Cronbach's Alpha
Alpha for
for each
each question
question group
group will
will reveal
reveal its
its
reliability, whereas
reliability,
whereas the
the a
a >
> 0.8
0.8 should
should be
be achieved
achieved [Gliem
[Gliem 2003].
2003].
After this
After
this first
first part
part a
a Confirmatory
Confirmatory Factor
Factor Analysis
Analysis (CFA)
(CFA) should
should be
be used
used to
to
verify
the consistency
consistency of
of the
the factor
factor model
model we
we intended
intended to
to use
use (please
(pleaserefer
referto
to
verify the
Fig. 5.14)
Fig.
5.14) and
and the
the empirical
empirical data.
data. The
The CFA
CFA will
will be
be used
used to
to map
map the
the theoretical
theoretical
model on
on the
the empirical
empirical data.
data. The
The calculation
calculation of
of the
the goodness
goodness of
of fit
fit parameters
parameters
model
of the
of
the CFA,
CFA, will
will reveal
reveal ifif the
the proposed
proposed extended
extended model
model is
is appropriate
appropriate to
to use.
use.
The CFA
The
CFA shall
shall give
give us
us the
the answer
answer "how
"how well
well the
the covariance
covariance matrix
matrix of
of the
the
theoretical model,
model, match
match the
the covariance
covariance matrix
matrix observed
observed in
in the
the empirical
empirical data".
data".
theoretical
Ability
Familarity
with Product
(FP)
Corporate
Strategy
(CS)
Societal
Concerns
(SC)
KB Customer
(KBC)
H12
______________
9
Trust in
Knowledge and
Experience (KB)
Validity
Knowledgebase
KB Quality
related Issues
(KBQ)
Integnty
Rtal,
Pnoritizing
Reliability on
Decision (REL)
Personal
Consistency
(CON)
H8
Personal
Commitment
(COM)
Unselfish
Motives
(MOT)
Benevolen
towards
Product Quality
Nil
Trust in Personal
Character (PER)
Departure from
Decision
Objective (OBJ)
Care for
Product Quality
(CAR)
Figure 5.14 The Taxonomy Model of the 1W-Measurement
Three theoretical models will be compared to the empirical data:
The null model considers no relation among found parameters within the
Covariance matrix of the empirical data.
The basic model shows evidence that there are three main constructs
within the Covariance of the empirical data (Ability, Integrity and
Benevolence).
The extended model considers nine different relation constructs within
the covariance matrix of the empirical data (i.e. KBC, FP, CS, SC, RAT,
CON, COM, MOT and CAR).
The goodness of fit statistics will reveal if the proposed extended model fits the
empiricaldata well.
The last of the three validation parts is a multivariate regression analysis to
examine the consistency of the proposed 1W-measurement. It focuses whether
the
the estimations
estimations of
of the
the stakeholders
stakeholders within
within the
the model
model are
are consistent.
consistent. Hereby
Hereby the
the
Hypotheses
Hypotheses 7-12
7-12 are
are analyzed
analyzed one
one by
by one.
one. The
The stakeholders
stakeholders will
will have
have to
to fill
fill out
out
an
an evaluation
evaluation survey
survey about
about the
the TW-measurement
TW-measurement about
about the
the most
most and
and least
least
trusted
trusted fellow
fellow stakeholder
stakeholder in
in their
their individual
individual view
view (Details
(Details to
to the
the evaluation
evaluation
survey will
will follow
follow in
in section
section 5.5.2.3).
5.5.2.3). Within
Within this
this evaluation
evaluation survey
survey they
they will
will
survey
have to
to rate
rate their
their overall
overall Trust
Trust in
in prioritizing,
prioritizing, in
in PKB,
PKB, in
in PER,
PER, in
in REL,
REL, in
in OBJ,
OBJ, in
in
have
KPQ, but
KPQ,
but they
they will
will also
also rate
rate their
their perceptions
perceptions of
of the
the trustee
trustee (KBC,
(KBC, FP,
FP, CS,
CS, SC,
SC,
RAT, CON,
CON, COM,
COM, MOT
MOT and
and CAR)
CAR) in
in a
a seven
seven point
point Likert
Likert scale
scale with
with the
the least
least and
and
RAT,
most
most trusted
trusted fellow
fellow stakeholder
stakeholder
in
in
mind.
mind. These
These estimations
estimations will
will then
then be
be
compared to
to each
each other
other with
with a
a multivariate
multivariate regression
regression analysis.
analysis. If
If the
the error
error
compared
term
term in
in the
the regression
regression model
model is
is impossibly
impossibly minimized,
minimized, the
the model
modelmight
mightnot
notbe
be
consistent.
consistent. Using
Using
a
a
large
large enough
enough sample
sample the
the inconsistencies
within the
inconsistencies within
the
individual respondents
respondents might
might be
be neglected.
neglected. In
In this
this way
way the
the adjusted
adjusted trust
trust model
model
individual
will be
be examined
examined on
on its
its consistency.
consistency. If
If the
the error
error term
term are
are minimized
minimized in
in the
the
will
regression
regression analysis
analysis the
the weights
weights of
of the
the variables
variables proposed
proposed in
in the
the taxonomy
taxonomy of
of
the
the survey
survey will
will eventually
eventually be
be calibrated.
calibrated.
5.5.2.2
5.5.2.2
Settinci of
of the
the Pilot
Pilot Tests
Tests for
the TW-Measurement
TW-Measurement
Settinci
for the
In
In contrast
contrast to
to the
the different
different specifications
specifications and
and instructions
instructions for
for the
the experiments
experiments
concerning the
the validation
validation of
of the
the prioritization
prioritization method,
method, the
the experiments
experiments for
for the
the
concerning
TW-measurement
TW-measurement will
will follow
follow the
the same
same set
set up.
up. The
The goal
goal is
is to
to have
have a
a large
large
sample
sample size
size with
with a
a large
large qualitative
qualitative feed-back
feed-back for
for the
the improvement
improvement of
of the
the
survey.
survey.
As
As shown
shown in
in Table
Table 5.4
5.4 the
the pilot
pilot tests
tests concerning
concerning the
the survey
survey will
will be
be performed
performed
simultaneously with
simultaneously
with the
the pilot
pilot tests
tests concerning
concerning the
the prioritization
prioritization method.
method. Both
Both
tests
tests will
will be
be set
set up
up as
as laboratory
laboratory tests
tests with
with student
student project
project groups
groups with
with three
three to
to
eight group
eight
group members.
members. The
The experiments
experiments of
of the
the pilot
pilot tests
tests for
for the
the validation
validation of
of
the TW-measurement
the
TW-measurement will
will simulate
simulate the
the overhead
overhead in
in Fig.
Fig. 4.1,
4.1, i.e.
i.e. an
an individual
individual
prioritization
prioritization and
and short
short presentation
presentation of
of the
the reasons
reasons the
the teammates
teammates have
have used
used to
to
prioritize
prioritize the
the items
items in
in the
the list.
list.
[;i
Randomly allocated
Randomly
allocated groups
groups will
will have
have to
to prioritize
prioritize either
either a
a dummy
dummy list
list of
of items
items or
or
their real
real list
list of
of CR's
CR's of
of their
their student
student project.
project. If
If using
using a
a dummy
dummy list
list the
the TWTWtheir
measurement has
has to
to be
be adjusted
adjusted to
to the
the dummy
dummy list
list of
of items.
items. After
After the
the short
short
measurement
explanations from
explanations
from all
all the
the group
group members,
members, they
they will
will fill
fill out
out individually
individually the
the
survey concerning
survey
concerning each
each other.
other. The
The participants
participants should
should be
be felt
felt encouraged
encouraged and
and
confident to
confident
to fill
fill out
out the
the surveys
surveys about
about the
the other
other group
group members
members truthfully.
truthfully. To
To
limit
limit the
the effect
effect of
of becoming
becoming dull,
dull, the
the individual
individual group
group members
members will
will only
only be
be
asked
asked to
to fill
fill out
out the
the evaluation
evaluation surveys
surveys for
for the
the teammate
teammate they
they trust
trust most
most and
and
least to
least
to prioritize.
prioritize.
The participating
participating project
project groups
groups will
will have
have to
to have
have a
a joined
joined working
working history
history and
and
The
the prospect
the
prospect to
to reach
reach a
a goal
goal together.
together. The
The survey
survey will
will be
be administered
administered as
as a
a web
web
based or
based
or a
a printed
printed version
version where
where as
as the
the items
items will
will be
be randomly
randomly ordered,
ordered, so
so that
that
the question
question groups
groups are
are mixed
mixed with
with each
each other.
other.
the
5.5.2.3
5.5.2.3
Oualitative
Qualitative Survey
Survey About
About TW-Items
TW-Items
Along with
with the
the actual
actual survey,
survey, a
a qualitative
qualitative validation
validation survey,
survey, i.e.
i.e. evaluation
evaluation
Along
will be
be passed
for two
two trustor-trustee
trustor-trustee
survey
passed out
out for
survey about
about the
the TW-items
TW-items will
this evaluation
survey, the
the
assessments
evaluation survey,
assessments from
from every
every group
group member.
member. In
In this
participants will
will have
have to
to rate
rate if
if the
the item
item is
is easy
easy to
to understand,
understand, if
if the
the participant
participant
participants
had
had trouble
trouble to
to answer
answer the
the item
item and
and ifif the
the items
items fulfill
fulfill their
their indented
indented purpose.
purpose. If
If
e.g. the
the survey
survey item
item asks:
asks: II fully
fully accept
accept how
how [Stakeholder
[Stakeho/der X]
X] represented
represented the
the
e.g.
interests
interests of
of our
our target
target customer,
customer, then
then validation
validation question
question would
would ask
ask ifif this
this
question represents
represents the
the trust
trust of
of the
the participant
participant
question
in
in
the capability
capability of
of the
the
the
teammate xx to
teammate
to prioritize
prioritize the
the CR's
CR's correctly.
correctly. The
The respondents
respondents might
might answer
answer
these evaluation
evaluation questions
questions by
by a
a seven
seven point
point Likert
Likert scale
scale as
as well.
well.
these
At
At the
the end
end of
of the
the validation
validation survey,
survey, the
the participants
participants might
might rate
rate his/her
his/her over
over all
all
trust in
in the
the teammates
teammates capability
capability of
of prioritizing
prioritizing the
the dummy
dummy items
items HZ
HZ Then
Then each
each
trust
a question
a
question to
to his/her
his/her trust
trust in
in the
the personal
personal character
character in
in order
order to
to prioritize
prioritize well
well
(PER), in
(PER),
in the
the ability
ability (KB),
(KB), in
in the
the benevolence
benevolence (OBJ)
(OBJ) and
and in
in the
the integrity
integrity
(REL)
(REL)
to
to
prioritize of
prioritize
of the
the trustee
trustee will
will follow.
follow. Additionally
Additionally the
the respondent
respondent will
willbe
beasked
askedto
to
rate
his/her trust
trust in
in trustee's
trustee's Expertise
Expertise about
about the
the products
products environment
environment(KPQ).
(KPQ.
rate his/her
He/she
He/she will
will also
also estimate
estimate the
the perceptions
perceptions he/she
he/she has
has from
from the
the trustee's
trustee's
according KBC,
KBC, FP,
FP, CS,
CS, SC,
SC, RAT,
RAT, CON,
CON, COM,
COM, MOT
MOT and
and CAR.
CAR.
according
He/she will
He/she
will also
also be
be asked
asked to
to rate
rate how
how well
well he/she
he/she thinks
thinks the
the survey
survey is
is capable
capable
of
of measuring
measuring the
the participant's
participant's trust
trust in
in others
others capability
capability prioritizing
prioritizing and
and if
if the
the
participant has
has some
some constructive
constructive critics.
critics.
participant
5.5.2.4
5.5.2.4
Validation
Validation of
of Taxonomy
Taxonomy of
of 1W-measurement
1W-measurement
The adjusted
adjusted model
model of
of trust
trust in
in prioritizing
prioritizing (please
(please refer
refer to
to section
section 4.2.2)
4.2.2) is
is
The
constituted
constituted by
by nine
nine independent
independent variables,
variables, i.e.
i.e. Perception
Perception variables
variables (KBC,
(KBC, PP,
PP,
CS, SC,
SC, RAT,
RAT, CON,
CON, COM,
COM, MOT
MOT and
and CAR)
CAR) and
and five
five dependent
dependent variables,
variables, i.e.
i.e. Trust
Trust
CS,
variables (Knowledge
(Knowledge Base
Base Product
Product environment
environment (KPQ),
(KPQ), Reliability
Reliability of
of Trustee's
Trustee's
variables
Decision (REL),
(REL), Departure
Departure from
from Decision
Decision Objective
Objective (OBJ),
(OBJ), Knowledge
Knowledge and
and
Decision
Experience (KB),
(KB), Personal
Personal Character
Character (PER)).
(PER)). The
The weights
weights for
for each
each question
question
Experience
group
group are
are pre-set
pre-set by
by the
the author,
author, but
but will
will be
be iteratively
iteratively validated
validated through
through
regression analysis
analysis in
in the
the pilot
pilot tests
tests and
and field
field tests.
tests.
regression
The
The perception
perception variables
variables are:
are:
Knowledgebase
Knowledgebase
(KBC, 30%)
30%)
(KBC,
Customer
Customer
Trustee's Consistency
Trustee's
Consistency (CON,
(CON,
10%)
10%)
Familiarity
Familiarity with
with product
product (PP,
(PP,
7.5%)
7.5%)
Trustee's
Trustee's
(COM, 10%)
10%)
(COM,
Familiarity with
Familiarity
with Corporate
Corporate
strategy (CS,
(CS, 7.5%)
7.5%)
strategy
Trustee's
Trustee's unselfish
unselfish motives
motives
(MOT, 10%)
10%)
(MOT,
Familiarity
with
Familiarity
with
concerns (SC,
(SC, 5%)
5%)
concerns
Trustee'scare
care for
Trustee's
for product
product
Trustee's
Trustee's Rationality
Rationality
10%)
10%)
societal
societal
Commitment
Commitment
quality (CAR,
(CAR, 10%)
10%)
quality
(RAT,
(RAT,
The pilot
pilot tests
tests will
will give
give a
a first
first impression
impression if
if the
the weights
weights of
of the
the questions
questions groups
groups
The
are accurate
are
accurate or
or ifif they
they might
might have
have to
to be
be changed
changed according
according the
the results
results of
of the
the
multivariate
multivariate regression
regression analysis
analysis in
in the
the pilot
pilot tests.
tests. The
The regression
regression analysis
analysis will
will be
be
91
91
repeated in
in the
the field
field tests
tests and
and this
this will
will complete
complete the
the calibration
calibration process
process of
of the
the
repeated
weights
weights for
for the
the 1W-measurement.
TW-measurement.
5.5.2.5
5.5.2.5
Measures
Measures for
for the
the Pilot
Pilot Tests
Tests
The qualitative
qualitative feedback
feedback about
about the
the items
items shall
shall help
help to
to evaluate
evaluate ifif the
the item
item is
is
The
understood
understood well
well and
and if
if the
the respondent
respondent had
had difficulties
difficulties to
to answer
answer the
the item.
item. The
The
feedback might
feedback
might be
be used
used to
to pin
pin point
point items
items which
which have
have to
to be
be rephrased
rephrased or
or
eliminated. The
eliminated.
The ratings
ratings if
if the
the item
item fulfilled
fulfilled its
its purpose
purpose in
in the
the eyes
eyes of
of the
the
respondents will
will be
be examined
examined and
and low
low valued
valued items
items might
might be
be changed
changed or
respondents
or
eliminated.
eliminated.
The
The Cronbach's
Cronbach's Alpha
Alpha will
will indicate
indicate the
the in-group-reliability
in-group-reliability of
of the
the items,
items, where
where as
as
a
minimum of
of a>0.8
a>0.8 should
a minimum
should be
be achieved
achieved [Froe.
[Froe. 2004].
2004].
The measures
measures from
from the
the CFA
CFA will
will slightly
slightly vary
vary depending
depending on
on the
the method
method applied.
applied.
The
The output
output usually
usually contains
contains Goodness
Goodness of
of Fit
Fit index
index (GFI),
(GFI), Root
Root mean
mean square
square
The
error of
of approximation
approximation (RMSEA).
(RMSEA). The
The CFA
CFA results
results for
for reliability
reliability and
and convergent
convergent
error
validity
validity might
might further
further indicate
indicate ifif the
the theoretical
theoretical model
model is
is appropriate.
appropriate.
The following
following Hypotheses
Hypotheses will
will be
be evaluated
evaluated by
by a
a regression
regression analysis,
analysis, wherein
wherein
The
weights for
for the
the taxonomy
taxonomy of
of the
the 1W-measurement
TW-measurement might
might be
be retrieved.
retrieved.
weights
H7: Trust
Trust in
In prioritizing
prioritizing is
Is aa construct
construct from
from trust
trust In
In somebody's
somebody's
H7:
knowledge and
and experience
experience to
to prioritize
prioritize CR'S
CR'S and
and trust
trust in
in the
the personal
personal
character
character of
of this
this somebody
somebody to
to prioritize.
prioritize.
The
The
regression
regression
will
will
y,, =ciKB,,
=ciKB,, +/3.PER11
+/3.PER,1
y,1
be
be
used
used
to
to
validate
validate
the
the
function
function
+e,
where i,j_-1...N,
i,j-1...N,
+e, where
Nequals
Nequalstotothe
thetotal
totalamount
amount of
stakeholders
stakeholdersand
and ee to
to the
the error
error term
term of
of the
the regression.
regression. Within
Within the
the validation
validation
process the
the error
error term
term should
should be
be minimized.
minimized. The
The value
value of
of yp KB,
process
and PERU
is
KB and
PERU 15
estimated by
estimated
by the
the trustor
trustor him/herself.
him/herself. Repeating
Repeating this
this for
for all
all samples
samples the
the weights
weights
a,
3 will
be compared
compared to
to the
the weights
weights proposed
proposed by
by
will get
get more
more accurate
accurate and
and might
might be
the
the taxonomy.
taxonomy. The
The following
following hypotheses
hypotheses will
will be
be validated
validated by
by the
the same
same way.
way.
92
92
H8: The
H8:
The trust
trust in
in personal
personal character
character to
toprioritize
prioritize of
of the
the trustee
trustee is
is aa
construct of
construct
of the
the trust
trust in
in the
the reliability
reliability of
ofthe
the trustee's
trustee's prioritization
prioritization
and trust
and
trust in
in trustee's
trustee's loyalty
loyalty to
to the
the prioritization
prioritization objective
objective (high
(high
product quality).
product
quality).
H9:
H9: The
The trust
trust in
in trustee's
trustee's expertise
expertise and
and experience
experience is
is derived
derived from
from the
the
ability of
of the
ability
customer and
and
the trustee
trustee to
to get
get familiar
familiar with
with the
the targeted
targeted customer
the
of
the trust
trust in
in him/her
him/her to
to understand
understand concerns
concerns from
from the
the environment
environment of
the
the product.
product.
H1O: The
of the
H1O:
The trust
trust in
in the
the reliability
reliability of
is a
a
the trustee's
trustee's prioritization
prioritization is
construct of
rationality of
ofthe
construct
of the
the rationality
in
the trustee
trustee and
and his/her
his/her consistency
consistency in
prioritizing CR'S.
CR's.
prioritizing
Hil: The
The trust
trust in
in trustee's
trustee's loyalty
loyalty to
to the
the prioritization
prioritization objective
objective is
is
Hil:
depending on
depending
on the
the trustee's
trustee's commitment,
commitment, motivation
motivation and
and care
care for
for high
high
product quality.
quality.
product
H12: The
H12:
The trust
trust in
in trustee's
trustee's understanding
understanding of
of the
the concerns
concerns from
from the
the
environment of
envfronment
of the
the product
product is
is dependent
dependent on
on the
the trustee's
trustee's familiarity
familiarity
with the
the product,
product, his/her
his/her understanding
understanding of
with
and
of the
the corporate
corporate strategy
strategy and
the understanding
understanding of
the
ofthe
the societal
societal concerns.
concerns.
The
The consistency
consistency of
of the
the respondents
respondents estimation
estimation might
might be
be monitored
monitored by
by
comparing the
the estimation
estimation of
of KBC,
KBC, FP,
FP, CS,
CS, SC,
SC, RAT,
RAT, CON,
CON, COM,
COM, MOT,
MOT, CAR
CAR with
with
comparing
the
the calculated
calculated values
values from
from the
the TW-measurement.
TW-measurement.
If
If it
it is
is not
not possible
possible to
to minimize
minimize the
the error
error terms
terms of
of the
the regression
regression analysis
analysis or
or the
the
distribution
distribution for
for
a,
a,
3
3 is
is too
too large,
large, the
the model
model would
would either
either be
be inconsistent
inconsistent or
or not
not
complete. In
In any
any case
case inconsistencies
inconsistencies are
are found
found and
and therefore
therefore might
might be
be
complete.
corrected
corrected specifically.
specifically.
93
93
5.5.2.6
5.5.2.6
Field
Field Tests
Tests of
of the
the TW-Measurement
TW-Measurement
As specified
As
specified previously
previously the
the field
field tests
tests for
for the
the TW-measurement
TW-measurement will
will mainly
mainly be
be a
a
repetition of
repetition
of the
the pilot
pilot tests.
tests. The
The field
field tests
tests of
of the
the experiments
experiments will
will not
not only
only
enlarge the
enlarge
the statistical
statistical sample
sample size,
size, but
but also
also the
the value
value of
of the
the validation
validation process.
process.
In contrast
In
contrast to
to the
the pilot
pilot tests
tests the
the professional
professional environment
environment will
will make
make the
the
qualitative
qualitative feed
feed back
back more
more meaningful
meaningful because
because of
of the
the direct
direct insights
insights from
from the
the
industrial
industrial
partners. Comments
partners.
Comments and
and discussion
discussion will
wilt help
help to
to improve
improve the
the
measurement as
measurement
as well
well as
as the
the whole
whole prioritization
prioritization method.
method.
The results
The
results from
from the
the TW-measurement
TW-measurement will
will have
have to
to be
be kept
kept confidentially
confidentially or
or
made
made anonymous
anonymous in
in any
any case,
case, otherwise
otherwise the
the integrity
integrity of
of the
the stakeholders
stakeholders might
might
be
be endangered.
endangered.
6
6 CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION AND
AND FUTURE
FUTURE WORK
WORK
6.1 Concluding
Concluding Remarks
Remarks on
on Proposed
Proposed Prioritization
Prioritization Method
Method
6.1
In this
this study
study a
a method
method to
to collaboratively
collaboratively find
find the
the relative
relative importance
importance of
of
In
customer requirements
customer
requirements has
has been
been introduced.
introduced. The
The method
method has
has the
the goal
goal to
to
improve the
improve
the accuracy
accuracy of
of relative
relative priorities
priorities of
of CR's
CR's by
by better
better supporting
supporting and
and
guiding
guiding a
a group
group of
of stakeholders
stakeholders through
through its
its decision
decision process
process at
at an
an early
early stage.
stage.
The
The factors
factors that
that are
are considered
considered in
in the
the proposed
proposed method
method include
include consumer,
consumer,
developer's organization's
organization's and
and societal
societal concerns.
concerns. The
The individual
individual perception
perception of
of
developer's
the priorities
priorities of
of CR's
CR's are
are registered
registered in
in the
the first
first step
step of
of the
the presented
presented approach.
approach.
the
Hereby
Hereby the
the stakeholders
stakeholders might
might distinguish
distinguish the
the importance
importance of
of each
each single
single CR
CR by
by
relative amounts
amounts rather
rather than
than fixed
fixed ranks.
ranks. In
In the
the second
second step
step of
of the
the presented
presented
relative
method each
each stakeholder's
stakeholder's "individual
"individual priorities"-decision
priorities"-decision is
is updated
updated through
through a
a
method
weighted sum
sum of
of all
all individual
individual priorities.
priorities. The
The weights
weights are
are stemming
stemming from
from a
a
weighted
specifically designed
specifically
designed trustworthiness
trustworthiness measurement.
measurement. With
With the
the second
secondstep
stepthe
the
stakeholders are
are using
using their
their interdependency
interdependency to
to take
take the
the opinions
opinions of
of all
all other
other
stakeholders
into the
the fellow
fellow
stakeholders into
stakeholders
into account
account to
to the
the extent
extent they
they have
have trust
trust into
stakeholders
stakeholders to
to prioritize
prioritize the
the right
right CR's.
CR's. The
The hereby
hereby used
used measurement
measurement is
is a
a
comprehensive multi
multi item
item measurement,
measurement, which
which evaluates
evaluates the
the willingness
willingness of
of a
a
comprehensive
stakeholder
stakeholder to
to rely
rely on
on the
the overall
overall capability
capability of
of every
every other
other stakeholder
stakeholder including
including
him/herself
him/herself to
to prioritize
prioritize CR's.
CR's. The
The introduced
introduced final
final step
step of
of the
the method
method unifies
unifies
these updated
these
updated individual
individual priorities
priorities to
to a
a set
set of
of relative
relative priorities
priorities retrieved
retrieved by
by the
the
group through
through another
another weighted
weighted sum.
sum. The
The weights
weights for
for this
this last
last step
step are
are the
the
group
normalized sums
sums of
of the
the trust
trust every
every stakeholder
stakeholder has
has gotten
gotten from
from the
the group
group to
to
normalized
prioritize
prioritize CR's.
CR's.
The developed
developed Urn-Scheme
Urn-Scheme approach
approach takes
takes into
into account
account that
that each
each stakeholder
stakeholder
The
in a
a cross-functional
cross-functional group
group will
will have
have different
different perceptions
perceptions of
of what
what is
is important
important
in
for the
the product
product quality.
quality. The
The method
method provides
provides also
also a
a framework
framework to
to consider
consider
for
inherent differences
differences in
in voters
voters in
in their
their capability
capability to
to prioritize,
prioritize, i.e.
i.e. difference
difference in
in
inherent
ability, experience,
experience, expertise,
expertise, commitment,
commitment, motivation,
motivation, preference
preference and
and intuition
intuition
ability,
95
95
of voters.
of
voters. The
The necessary
necessary distinction
distinction in
in voting
voting power
power is
is based
based on
on the
the social
social
network among
network
among the
the stakeholders,
stakeholders, i.e.
i.e. in
in this
this study
study on
on trust
trust and
and trustworthiness
trustworthiness
into the
into
the capability
capability of
of all
all stakeholders
stakeholders to
to prioritize.
prioritize.
The
The presented
presented analysis
analysis tools
tools help
help to
to guide
guide necessary
necessary negotiations
negotiations to
to those
those CR,
CR,
which are
which
are conflicting
conflicting and
and therefore
therefore reduce
reduce the
the amount
amount of
of negotiations
negotiations needed.
needed.
The proposed
proposed relative
relative importance
importance scale
scale might
might help
help to
to make
make the
the result
result of
of the
the
The
decision making
decision
making process
process clearly
clearly visible.
visible. Further
Further information
information and
and negotiations
negotiations on
on
the identified
identified conflicts
conflicts about
about CR
CR priorities
priorities might
might be
be in
in some
some cases
cases necessary.
necessary.
the
The unique
unique advantage
advantage of
of the
the proposed
proposed method
method is
is its
its simplicity
simplicity combined
combined with
with
The
manifold
manifold analysis
analysis capability
capability by
by a
a minimum
minimum of
of needed
needed stakeholder
stakeholder data
data what
what
results in
in an
an optimum
optimum of
of method
method efficiency.
efficiency. ItIt will
will help
help to
to reduce
reduce the
the time
time
results
needed for
needed
for negotiations
negotiations and
and supports
supports the
the real
real expertise
expertise to
to prioritize
prioritize CR's
CR's hidden
hidden
in the
the social
social network.
network. The
The clear
clear product
product priorities
priorities found
found by
by the
the weighted
weighted votes
votes
in
of the
the stakeholder
stakeholder might
might give
give the
the basis
basis for
for further
further design
design decision,
decision, what
what
of
enhances indirectly
indirectly the
the autonomy
autonomy of
of design
design teams
teams downwards.
downwards.
enhances
6.2
Thoughts on
on Further
Further Research
Research Efforts
Efforts
6.2 Thoughts
As
As extended
extended research
research effort,
effort, the
the investigations
investigations in
in the
the four
four following
following areas
areas are
are
tentatively planned:
tentatively
planned:
6.2.1
6.2.1
EXTENSION OF
OF THE
THE URN-SCHEME
URN-SCHEME METHOD
METHOD
EXTENSION
6.2.1.1
6.2.1.1
Power Issues
Issues
Power
The
The allocation
allocation of
of number
number of
of balls
balls to
to every
every stakeholder
stakeholder might
might specifically
specifically be
be
focused.
focused. Initially
Initially all
all stakeholder
stakeholder get
get the
the same
same amount
amount of
of balls,
balls, but
but in
in specific
specific
cases balls
balls might
might be
be assigned
assigned according
according to
to an
an existing
existing power
power hierarchy.
hierarchy. The
The
cases
Urn-Scheme
Urn-Scheme enables
enables the
the user
user to
to examine
examine the
the influence
influence of
of power
power by
by calculation
calculation
of decision
decision bias
bias related
related to
to power.
power.
of
6.2.1.2
6.2.1.2
Dearee of
Dearee
of Consensus
Consensus
The extent
The
extent of
of the
the consensus
consensus among
among stakeholders
stakeholders might
might be
be analyzed
analyzed by
by using
using
different
different color
color of
of balls
balls for
for each
each stakeholder.
stakeholder. It
It might
might be
be instantly
instantly visible
visible ifif the
the
different
different colors
colors are
are rather
rather split
split among
among different
different CR's
CR's or
or ifif there
there seems
seems to
to be
be a
a
sound distribution
sound
distribution of
of colors
colors and
and hence
hence the
the extent
extent of
of consensus
consensus recognized.
recognized.
Besides the
Besides
the analysis
analysis of
of the
the consensus
consensus the
the color
color difference
difference might
might also
also reveal
reveal the
the
balance
balance of
of the
the individual
individual prioritization.
prioritization. A
A stakeholder's
stakeholder's heavy
heavy emphasize
emphasize of
of one
one
CR,
CR, might
might instantly
instantly be
be recognized.
recognized. In
In such
such a
a case
case the
the specific
specific stakeholder
stakeholder might
might
be
be interviewed
interviewed and
and his/her
his/her reason
reason for
for the
the emphasizing
emphasizing explained.
explained. Therefore
Therefore
using
using different
different colors
colors might
might also
also reduce
reduce the
the sensitivity
sensitivity to
to gamesmanship
gamesmanship of
of the
the
method.
method.
6.2.1.3
6.2.1.3
Voting Group
Votinci
GrouD Reconstruction
Reconstruction
The authors
The
authors suggested
suggested a
a guide
guide to
to decide,
decide, when
when a
a distinction
distinction among
among the
the
importance of
importance
of CR's
CR's is
is significant
significant enough
enough (please
(please refer
refer to
to Table
Table 5.1).
5.1). There
There
might
might be
be cases
cases where
where no
no decision
decision can
can be
be reached
reached and
and further
further negotiations
negotiations
might not
might
not reveal
reveal the
the necessary
necessary consensus.
consensus. For
For such
such cases
cases the
the group
group influence
influence
and
and team
team factors
factors shall
shall be
be examined
examined in
in order
order to
to understand
understand effects
effects leading
leading to
to a
a
flat decision
flat
decision outcome.
outcome. This
This investigation
investigation might
might lead
lead to
to suggestions
suggestions how
how to
to
select
select or
or build
build a
a cross-functional
cross-functional team
team that
that can
can find
find a
a good
good prioritization
prioritization of
of CR's.
CR's.
In
In other
other words
words factors
factors to
to form
form stakeholder
stakeholder groups
groups might
might be
be studied
studied to
to have
have
good
good and
and balanced
balanced opinions
opinions represented
represented about
about the
the customers'
customers' perceived
perceived
desired
desired product
product qualities.
qualities. Empirical
Empirical studies
studies may
may be
be carried
carried out
out in
in graduate
graduate
classrooms
classrooms with
with both
both engineering
engineering and
and business
business major
major students
students involved.
involved.
WEIGHTINGMETHODS
METHODS
6.2.2 WEIGHTING
6.2.2
6.2.2.1
6.2.2.1
Trust-Model
Trust-Model and
and TW-Measurement
TW-Measurement Improvement
Improvement
Currently the
Currently
the
model
model
TW-measurementmight
might be
be too
strongly
for the
for
the TW-measurement
too strongly
emphasized on
emphasized
on decision
decision making
making perceptions
perceptions and
and too
too less
less on
on trust
trust behavior.
behavior.
97
97
Although
Although the
the validation
validation process
process might
might reveal
reveal this
this shortcoming
shortcoming of
of the
the TWTWmeasurement, it
measurement,
it might
might be
be necessary
necessary to
to conceptually
conceptually change
change the
the model
model to
to
integrate more
integrate
more trust
trust behavior
behavior before
before itit even
even is
is being
being evaluated.
evaluated.
6.2.2.2
6.2.2.2
Other Social
Other
Social Factors
Factors
In
In the
the proposed
proposed method
method each
each stakeholder's
stakeholder's vote
vote are
are weighted
weighted by
by the
the amount
amount
he/she
to prioritize
prioritize well.
well. Afthough
Although trust
trust is
is
he/she is
is trusted
trusted by
by the
the other
other stakeholders
stakehoders to
able
able to
to integrate
integrate several
several different
different levels
levels of
of stakeholders'
stakeholders' personality,
personality, i.e.
i.e. ability,
ability,
benevolence
benevolence and
and integrity,
integrity, itit might
might be
be interesting
interesting to
to investigate
investigate other
other
differences
differences
as well,
as
well,
e.g.
e.g. confidence
confidence in
in own
own judgment,
judgment, communicational
communicational
behavior, combinations
behavior,
combinations of
of personal
personal character
character etc.
etc. with
with always
always the
the maximum
maximum of
of
perceived
perceived product
product quality
quality in
in mind.
mind.
6.2.3
6.2.3
DIFFERENT
DIFFERENT DESIGN
DESIGN STAGE
STAGE
The
The proposed
proposed method
method is
is used
used between
between the
the generation
generation of
of aa CR's
CR's pool
pool and
and
development of
development
of an
an engineering
engineering strategy.
strategy. The
The method
method could
could also
also be
be used
used to
to
make
make a
a final
final decision
decision in
in other
other parts
parts of
of the
the product
product development,
development, e.g.
e.g. the
the
selection of
selection
of concepts,
concepts, selection
selection of
of materials
materials or
or selection
selection supply
supply parts.
parts. The
The basic
basic
urn
urn scheme
scheme could
could be
be used
used with
with or
or without
without trust
trust as
as weighting
weighting factor
factor in
in order
order to
to
make the
make
the decision.
decision. Trust
Trust might
might be
be replaced
replaced e.g.
e.g. by
by expertise,
expertise, know-how
know-how or
or
other
other distinctive
distinctive factors
factors among
among stakeholders.
stakeholders.
6.2.4
6.2.4
FIT
FIT INTO
INTO REAL
REAL WORLD
WORLD DESIGN
DESIGN APPLICATIONS
APPLICATIONS
The implementation
The
implementation of
of the
the proposed
proposed method
method in
in potential
potential applications
applications in
in e.g.
e.g.
risk-based design,
risk-based
design, environmental
environmental design,
design, etc.
etc. might
might lead
lead to
to insights
insights whether
whether the
the
method
method leads
leads to
to satisfying
satisfying decisions
decisions under
under special
special conditions.
conditions. In
In order
order to
to
shorten the
the calculation
calculation time
time of
of the
the whole
whole procedure
procedure and
and measuring
measuring the
the trust
trust
shorten
among
among stakeholders,
stakeholders, itit would
would make
make sense
sense to
to develop
develop aa software
software tool
tool for
for the
the
whole
whole voting
voting and
and analysis
analysis process.
process.The
Thesoftware
softwarecould
couldrun
run on
on a
a server
server
accessible
accessible by
by the
the different
different stakeholders
stakeholders on
on their
their terminals.
terminals. The
The trust
trust surveys
surveys
might
might be
be filled
filled out
out arid
and each
each stakeholder
stakeholder would
would have
have put
put virtual
virtual balls
balls in
in CR
CR urns.
urns.
The relative
relative importance
importance values
values might
might be
be calculated
calculated automatically
automatically and
and the
the results
results
The
displayed
displayed in
in appropriate
appropriate charts.
charts. The
The facilitator
facilitator or
or administrator
administrator might
might even
even have
have
analysis tools
access to
access
to special
special analysis
tools like
like consensus
consensus examinations,
examinations, balance
balance of
of
individual votes
votes based
based on
on the
the average
average voting
voting of
of the
the whole
whole group
group or
or might
might
individual
display the
the trust
trust network
network in
in prioritizing,
prioritizing, etc
etc
display
7 CONTRIBUTION
CONTRIBUTION TO
TO KNOWLEDGE
KNOWLEDGE AND
AND DESIGN
DESIGN PRACTICE
PRACTICE
7
The focus
focus of
of the
the proposed
proposed study
study is
is the
the improvement
improvement of
of the
the prioritization
prioritization of
of
The
customer requirements.
customer
requirements. With
With the
the integration
integration of
of an
an interpersonal,
interpersonal, social
social factor
factor in
in
a
a design
design methodology,
methodology, a
a new
new concept
concept has
has been
been introduced.
introduced. It
It has
has been
been shown,
shown,
that
that trust
trust act
act as
as tie
tie strength
strength in
in social
social networks
networks and
and that
that it
it therefore
therefore is
is one
one of
of
the connecting
the
connecting factors
factors in
in interpersonal
interpersonal relationships.
relationships. By
By paying
paying attention
attentionto
to
trust in
trust
in interpersonal
interpersonal connections
connections among
among stakeholders,
stakeholders, the
the method
method shows
shows that
that
trust
trust also
also influences
influences the
the technical
technical product
product development.
development. The
The proposed
proposed concept
concept
is
is based
based on
on connectedness
connectedness of
of the
the two
two involved
involved systems
systems and
and the
the fact
fact that
that in
in
product development
development the
the human
human as
as well
well as
as the
the technical
technical system
system become
become
product
intertwined has
has been
been used.
used.
intertwined
A rigorous
rigorous math-framework
math-framework based
based on
on an
an Urn-Scheme
Urn-Scheme approach
approach has
has been
been
A
developed
developed to
to carry
carry the
the new
new concept.
concept. The
The method
method makes
makes the
the finding
finding of
of relative
relative
priorities easier
priorities
easier and
and more
more reliable.
reliable. It
It opens
opens the
the voting
voting process
process to
to a
a great
great
number of
of analysis
analysis possibilities
possibilities with
with a
a minimum
minimum of
of required
required stakeholder
stakeholder data.
data.
number
The proposed
proposed method
method contributes
contributes to
to the
the study
study how
how social
social factors
factors might
might
The
influence
influence the
the product
product development
development and
and how
how they
they might
might be
be used
used in
in a
a rigorous
rigorous
method to
to improve
improve the
the product
product development
development process.
process.
method
The goal
goal of
of the
the method
method to
to support
support the
the prioritization
prioritization of
of CR's
CR's aims
aims at
at better
better
The
understanding the
the customers
customers concerns
concerns and
and to
to better
better integrating
integrating their
their desired
desired
understanding
product qualities.
qualities. The
The method
method has
has been
been shown
shown as
as an
an efficient
efficient group
group decision
decision
product
making method
method in
in design
design to
to reach
reach this
this goal.
goal. The
The method
method presented
presented a
a way
way how
how
making
a
a cross-functional
cross-functional group
group of
of stakeholders
stakeholders might
might enhance
enhance their
their decision
decision quality
quality
without
without having
having to
to pass
pass an
an enduring
enduring negotiation
negotiation process.
process. By
By showing
showing a
a way
way how
how
differences among
among stakeholders
stakeholders might
might be
be fairly
fairly quantified
quantified and
and used
used in
in a
a voting
voting
differences
process,
process, the
the method
method opens
opens the
the discussion
discussion for
for ways
ways how
how to
to make
make very
very focused
focused
group decisions
decisions with
with emphasize
emphasize of
of the
the right
right expertise.
expertise. With
With the
the measurement
measurement of
of
group
a social
social factor
factor the
the purposed
purposed power
power manipulation
manipulation of
of votes
votes is
is justified
justified and
and might
might
a
100
100
have
have a
a high
high acceptance
acceptance among
among the
the stakeholders,
stakeholders, because
because the
the manipulation
manipulation is
is
based on
based
on their
their own
own judgment.
judgment.
Moreover the
the methodical
methodical support
support to
to find
find CR
CR priorities
priorities will
will help
help to
to enhance
enhance the
the
Moreover
decision
decision autonomy
autonomy of
of design
design teams
teams downwards.
downwards. Because
Because once
once CR
CR priorities
priorities are
are
documented and
documented
and communicated
communicated every
every other
other design
design decision
decision might
might be
be based
based on
on
these
these priorities.
priorities. Overall
Overall this
this might
might lead
lead to
to time
time savings
savings along
along the
the product
product
development and
development
and to
to a
a better
better integration
integration of
of customers'
customers' desired
desired product
product qualities
qualities
along
along the
the way.
way. The
The proposed
proposed method
method opens
opens therefore
therefore the
the possibility
possibility of
of
meaningful applications
applications in
in design
design practice.
practice.
meaningful
101
101
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
[Akao 1990]
1990]
[Akao
Akao, Y.,
Y., 1990,
1990, Quality
Quality function
function Deployment:
Deployment: Integrating
Integrating Customer
Customer
Akao,
Requirements into
Requirements
into Product
Product Design,
Desiqn, Productivity
Productivity Press,
Press, Cambridge,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Massachusetts.
[Bell. 1994]
1994]
[Bell.
Bellamy, L.,
L., Evans,
Evans, D.,
D., Linder,
Linder, D.,
D., McNeil,
McNeil, B.
B. and
and Raupp,
Raupp, G.,
G., Team
Team
Bellamy,
Training Workbook,
Workbook, Assembled
Assembled by
by College
College of
of Engineering
Engineering and
and Applied
Applied
Training
Sciences, Arizona
://www.eas.asu .edu/"asufc/
Sciences,
Arizona State
StateUniversity,
University,http
http://www.eas.asu.edu/asufc/
teaminginfo/teamwkbk.pdf.
teaminginfo/teamwkbk.pdf.
[Berg. 1985]
1985]
[Berg.
Berger,
.0., 1985,
1985, Statistical
Statistical DecLcion
DecLsion Theoty
Theoty and
and Bayes/an
Bayesian Analysis,
Berger, J3.0.,
Analysis,
Springer-Verlag, New
New York.
York.
Springer-Verlag,
[Bhat. 1998]
1998]
[Bhat.
Bhattacharya, R.
R. and
and Pillutla,
Pillutla, M.
M. M.,
M., 1998,
1998, "A
"A Formal
Formal Model
Model of
of Trust
Trust
Bhattacharya,
Base on
on Outcomes",
Outcomes", Academy
Academy of
of Management
Management Review,
Review, Vol.
Vol. 23,
23, No.
No. 3,
3,
Base
pp. 459-472.
459-472.
pp.
[Borg. 2003]
2003]
[Borg.
[Cohen 1995]
1995]
[Cohen
Borgatti, S.
S. P.
Borgatti,
P. and
and Foster,
Foster, P.
P. C.,
C., 2003,
2003, "The
"The network
network Paradigm
Paradigm in
in
Organizational Research:
Research: A
Organizational
A Review
Review
Management, Vol.
Vol. 29(6),
29(6), pp.
pp. 991-1013.
991-1013.
Management,
and Typology,"
and
Typology," Journal
Journal of
of
Cohen,
L., 1995,
1995, Quality
Quality Function
Function Deployment,
Deployment, How
How to
to Make
Make QFD
QFD
Cohen, L.,
Work for
for You,
You, Engineering
Engineering Process
Process Improvement
Improvement Series,
Series, AddisonAddisonWork
Wesley Publishing
Publishing Company.
Company.
Wesley
[Cross 2002]
2002]
[Cross
[Dela. 2000]
2000]
[Dela.
Cross, R.,
R., Borgatti,
Borgatti, S.
S. P.
P. and
and Parker,
Parker, A.,
A., 2002,
2002, "Making
"Making invisible
invisible work
work
Cross,
visible:
Using social
visible:
Using
social network
network analysis
analysis to
support strategic
strategic
to support
collaboration", California
Cailfornia Management
Management Review,
Review, Vol.
Vol. 44(2),
44(2), Winter.
Winter.
collaboration",
Delano, G.,
G., Parnell,
Parnell, G.
G. S.,
S., Smith,
Smith, C.
C. and
and Vance,
Vance, M.,
M., 2000,
2000, "Quality
"Quality
Delano,
Function Deployment
Deployment and
and Decision
Decision Analysis:
Analysis: A
A R&D
R&D Case
Case Study,"
Study,"
Function
International
International Journal
Journal of
of Operation&Production
Operation&Production Management,
Management, Vol.
Vol.
20(5),
20(5), pp.
pp. 591-609.
591-609.
[Deut. 1958]
1958]
[Deut.
Deutsch,
Deutsch,
M.,
M.,
1958,
1958,
"Trust and
and Suspicion,"
"Trust
Suspicion," Journal
Journal of
of conflict
conflict
resolution, 1958(2),
1958(2), pp.
pp. 265-279.
265-279.
resolution,
[Dym 2002]
2002]
[Dym
Dym, C.
Dym,
C. L.,
L., Wood,
Wood, W.
W. H.
H. and
and Scott,
Scott, M.
M. 3.,
3., 2002,
2002, "Rank
"Rank Ordering
Ordering
Engineering Designs:
Designs: Pairwise
Pairwise Comparison
Comparison Charts
Charts and
and Borda
Borda Counts,"
Counts,"
Engineering
Research in
Vol. 13,
13, pp.
pp. 236-242.
236-242.
Research
in Engineering
Engineering Desiqn,
Desi'n, Vol.
[Eise. 1989]
[Eise.
1989]
Eisenhardt, K.M.,
K.M., 1989,
Eisenhardt,
1989, "Making
"Making fast
fast Strategic
Strategic Decisions
Decisions in
high
in high
Velocity
Velocity Environments,"
Environments," Academy
Academy of
of Management
Management Journal,
Journal, Vol.
Vol. 32(3),
32(3),
pp. 543-576.
543-576.
pp.
[Fox 1987]
1987]
[Fox
Fox, W.
Fox,
W. M.,
M., 1987,
1987, Effective
Effective Group
Group Problem
Problem Solving,
Solving, Jossey-Bass
Jossey-Bass
[Fox 1989]
1989]
[Fox
Fox, W.
W. M.,
M., 1989,
1989, "The
"The Improved
Improved Nominal
Nominal Group
Group Technique
Technique (INGT),"
(INGT),"
Fox,
Journal
of Management
Management Development,
Development, Vol.
Vol. 8,
8, pp.
pp. 20-2
20-27.
Journal of
7.
Publishers, San
San Francisco.
Francisco.
Publishers,
102
102
[Froe. 2004]
[Froe.
2004]
Froehle,
Froehle, C.
C. M.
M. and
and Roth,
Roth, A.
A. V.,
V., 2004,
2004, "New
"New measurement
measurement scales
scales for
for
evaluating
perceptions
of
the
technology
mediated
customer
service
evaluating perceptions of the technology mediated customer service
experience,"
experience," Journal
Journal of
of Operations
Operations Management,
Management, Vol.
Vol. 22,
22, pp.
pp. 1-21.
1-21.
[Froyd]
[Froyd]
Froyd, J.,
Froyd,
J., Effective
Effective Decision
Decision Making
Making in
in Teams,
Teams, Foundation
Foundation Coalition,
Coalition,
http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/brochu
res/effective_d
http
://www.foundationcoalition .org/publications/brochures/effective_d
ecisionmaking.pdf.
ecision_making.pdf.
[Gill.
[Gill. 2003]
2003]
Gillespie, N.,
N., 2003,
2003, "Measuring
"Measuring Trust
Trust in
in working
working relationships:
relationships: The
The
Gillespie,
[Gliem 2003]
[Gliem
2003]
Gliem, 3.
Gliem,
J. A.
A. and
and Gliem,
Gliem, R.
R. R.,
R., 2003,
2003, "Calculating,
"Calculating, Interpreting,
Interpreting, and
and
Reporting Cronbach's
Reporting
Cronbach's Alpha
Alpha Reliability
Reliability Coeffeicient
Coeffeicient for
for Likert-Type
Likert-Type
Scales," 2003
2003 Midwest
Midwest Research
Research to
to Practice
Practice Conference
Conference in
in Adult,
Adult,
Scales,"
http://www.alumnihttp://www.alumniCommunity Education.
Education.
Continuing,
and Community
and
Continuing,
behavioral
behavioral trust
trust inventory,"
inventory," MBS
MBS Working
Working Papers,
Papers, Melbourne
Melbourne Business
Business
School, University
School,
University of
of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Carlton,
Carlton, Victoria.
Victoria.
osu.org/midwest/midwest%2opapers/Gliem%20&%2OGliem-osu
.org/midwest/midwest%20papers/Gliem%20&%2OGliem-Done.pdf.
Done.
pdf.
[Gundy 1988]
1988]
[Gundy
VanGundy, A.
A. B.,
B., 1988,
1988, Techniques
Techniques Of
Of Structured
Structured Problem
Problem Solving,
Solving,
VanGundy,
[Haze. 1998]
[Haze.
1998]
Hazelrigg, G.
Hazelrigg,
G. A,
A, 1998,
1998, "A
"A Framework
Framework for
for Decision-Based
Decision-Based Engineering
Engineering
Design," ASME
Vol. 120
120 (December),
(December),
Design,"
ASME Journal
Journal of
of Mechanical
Mechanical Desiqn,
Des,'n, Vol.
pp. 653-658.
653-658.
pp.
[Haze. 1999]
1999]
[Haze.
Hazelrigg, G.
G. A,
A, 1999,
1999, "An
"An Axiomatic
Axiomatic Framework
Framework for
for Engineering
Engineering
Hazelrigg,
[Ho 1999]
1999]
[Ho
Ho, E.
Ho,
E. S.
S. S.
S. A.,
A., Lai,
Lai, Y.-J.
Y.-J. and
and Chang,
Chang, S.I.,
S.I., 1999,
1999, "An
"An integrated
integratedgroup
group
deployment," lIE
lIE
quality function
function deployment,"
decision-making approach
approach to
to quality
decision-making
Transactions,
Transactions, Vol.
Vol. 31,
31, pp.
pp. 553-567.
553-567.
[John. 1977]
[John.
1977]
Johnson, N.
N. L.
L. and
and Kotz,
Kotz, S.,
5., 1977,
Johnson,
1977, Urn
Urn Models
Models and
and Their
Their Application,
Application,
&
An Approach
Approach to
to Modern
Modern Discrete
Discrete Probability
Probability Theory,
Theoty, John
An
John Wiley
Wiley &
Van Nostrand
Nostrand Reinhold
Reinhold Company,
Company, New
New York.
York.
Van
Design,"
ASME Journal
Journal of
of Mechanical
Mechanical Desiqn,
Design, Vol.
Vol. 121(September),
121(September),
Design," ASME
pp. 342-347.
342-347.
pp.
Sons, New
New York.
York.
Sons,
[Jones 1998]
[Jones
1998]
Jones, G.
G. R.
R. and
and George,
George, J.
J. M.,
M., 1998,
1998, "The
"The Experience
Experience and
and Evolution
Evolution
Jones,
of
of Trust:
Trust: Implication
Implication for
for Cooperation
Cooperation and
and Teamwork",
Teamwork", Academy
Academy of
of
Management Review,
Management
Review, Vol.
Vol. 23,
23, No.
No. 3,
3, pp.
pp. 531-546.
531-546.
[Kana. 2002]
[Kana.
2002]
Kanawattanachai, P.
Kanawattanachai,
P. and
and Yoo,
Yoo, Y.,
Y., 2002,
2002, "Dynamic
"Dynamic Nature
Nature of
of Trust
Trust in
in
on information
information
Sprouts:
Working Papers
Working
Papers on
Virtual
Teams," Sprouts:
Virtual Teams,"
2,
2,
Spring.
Spring.
and Organizations,
Organizations, Vol
Vol
Environments,
Environments, Systems
Systems and
Http://weatherhead.ewru.edu/sprouts/2002/020204.pdf
Http://weatherhead.ewru.edu/sprouts/2002/020204.pdf
[Karl. 1997]
[Karl.
1997]
Karlsson, J.
Karlsson,
J. and
and Ryan,
Ryan, K.,
K., 1997,
1997, "A
"A Cost-Value
Cost-Value Approach
Approach for
forPrioritizing
Prioritizing
Requirements," Transaction
Requirements,"
Transaction of
of lEE
lEE Software,
Software, September/October,
September/October, pp.
pp.
67-74.
67-74.
103
103
[Katz 2003]
[Katz
2003]
Katz, N.
Katz,
N. and
and Lazer,
Lazer, D.,
D., 2003,
2003, "Building
"Building effective
effective Intra-Organizational
Intra-Organizational
Networks, the
Networks,
the role
role of
of Teams,"
Teams," Working
Working Paper
Paper No.3,
No.3, Center
Center for
for Public
Public
Leadership, Harvard
Leadership,
Harvard University
University and
F. Kennedy
and John
John F.
Kennedy School
School of
of
Government.
Government.
[Koeh. 1996]
1996]
[Koeh.
Koehler, J.
J. W.
W. and
and Pankowski,
Pankowski, J.
J. M.,
M., 1996,
1996, Continual
Continual Improvement
Improvement in
in
Koehler,
Government:
Government: Too/s
Tools and
and Methods,
Methods, St.
St. Lucie
Lucie Press,
Press, Florida.
Florida.
[Kors. 1995]
[Kors.
1995]
Korsgaard, M.
Schweiger, D.
D. M.
Korsgaard,
M. A.,
A., Schweiger,
M. and
and Sapienza,
Sapienza, H.
H. J.,
J., 1995,
1995,
"Building Commitment,
Commitment, Attachment,
Attachment, and
and Trust
Trust in
in Strategic
Strategic Decision
Decision
"Building
Making
Making Teams:
Teams: The
The Role
Role of
of Procedural
Procedural Justice,"
Justice," Academy
Academy of
of
Management
Management Journal,
Journal, 38(1),
38(1), pp.
pp. 60-84.
60-84.
[Krac.
[Krac. 1993]
1993]
Krackhardt,
Krackhardt, D.
D. and
and Hanson,
Hanson, J.R.,
J.R., 1993,
1993, "Informal
"Informal Networks:
Networks: The
The
Company
Company Behind
Behind the
the Chart,"
Chart," Harvard
Business Review,
Review, July-August,
July-August,
Harvard Bus/ness
Reprint 93406.
93406.
Reprint
[Lai 1998]
1998]
[Lai
Lai, Y.-J.,
Y.-J., Ho,
Ho, E.
E. S.
S. S.
S. A.
A. and
and Chang,
Chang, S.
S. I.,
I., 1998,
1998, "Identifying
"Identifying Customer
Customer
Lai,
Preferences in
in Quality
Quality Function
Function Deployment
Deployment using
using Group
Group Decision
Decision
Preferences
Making Techniques,"
Techniques," Integrated
Integrated Product
Product and
and Process
Process Development
Development
Making
(Edited by
by Usher,
Usher, J.,
J., Roy,
Roy, U.
U. and
and Parsaei,
Parsaei, H.),
H.), John
John Wiley
Wiley &
& Sons,
Sons, pp.
pp.
(Edited
1-28.
1-28.
[Like.
[Like. 1932]
1932]
Likert, R.,
R., 1932,
1932, A
A Technique
Techn/que for
for the
the Measurement
Measurement of
of Attitudes,
Attitudes, New
New
Likert,
York.
York.
[MacK. 1966a]
1966a]
[MacK.
MacKinnon,
MacKinnon, W.
W. J.,
J., 1966,
1966, "Development
"Development of
of the
the SPAN
SPAN Technique
Technique for
for
Making Decisions
Making
Decisions in
in Human
Human Group,"
Group," The
The American
American Behavioral
Behavioral
Scientist,
Vol.9(May),
9(May), pp.
pp. 9-13.
9-13.
Scient,t, Vol.
[MacK.
[MacK. 1966b]
1966b]
MacKinnon, W.
W. J.,
J., 1966,
1966, "Elements
"Elements of
of the
the SPAN
SPAN Technique
Technique for
for Making
Making
MacKinnon,
Group
Group Decisions,"
Decisions," The
The Journal
Journal of
of Social
Soc/al Psychology,
Psychology, Vol.
Vol. 70,
70, pp.
pp. 149149164.
164.
[MacK.
[MacK. 1969]
1969]
MacKinnon, W.
W. J.
J. and
and MacKinnon,
MacKinnon, M.
M. M.,
M., 1969,
1969, "The
"The Decisional
Decisional Design
Design
MacKinnon,
and
and Cyclic
Cyclic Computation
Computation of
of SPAN,"
SPAN," Behavioral
Behavioral Science,
Sc/ence, Vol.
Vol. 14,
14, pp.
pp.
244-247.
244-247.
[MacK.
1976]
[MacK. 1976]
MacKinnon, W.
W. J.
J. and
and Anderson,
Anderson, L.
L. M.,
M., 1976,
1976, "The
"The SPAN
SPAN III
III computer
computer
MacKinnon,
program
program for
for synthesizing
synthesizing group
group decisions:
decisions: Weighting
Weighting participants'
participants'
judgements in
in proportion
proportion to
to confidence,"
confidence," Behavior
Behavior Research
Research Methods
Methods
judgements
&
& Instrumentation,
Instrumentation, Vol.
Vol. 8(4),
8(4), pp.
pp. 409-410.
409-410.
[Mars. 2002]
2002]
[Mars.
Marston, M.
M. and
and Mistree,
Mistree, F.,
F., 1997,
1997, "A
"A Decision
Decision Based
Based Foundation
Foundation for
for
Marston,
System
System Design:
Design: A
A Conceptual
Conceptual Exposition,"
Exposition," Working
Work/ng Paper
Paper Systems
Systems
RealLzation Laboratoty,
Laboratory, Georgia
Realization
Georgia Institute
Institute of
of Technology,
Technology, Atlanta,
Atlanta,
Georgia, April.
April.
Georgia,
[Mayer
[Mayer 1995]
1995]
Mayer,
Mayer, R.C.,
R.C., Davis,
Davis, J.H.
J.H. and
and Schoorman,
Schoorman, F.D.,
F.D., 1995,
1995, "An
"An integrative
integrative
model
model of
of organizational
organizational Trust,"
Trust," Academy
Academy of
of Management
Management Review,
Review, Vol.
Vol.
20(3), pp.
pp. 709-734.
709-734.
20(3),
104
104
[Mayer 1999]
[Mayer
1999]
Mayer, R.C.
Mayer,
R.C. and
and Davis,
Davis, J.H.,
J.H., 1999,
1999, "The
"The Effect
Effect of
of the
the Performance
Performance
[McAl.
[McAI. 1995]
1995]
McAllister,
McAllister,
[Meier
[Meier 2004]
2004]
Meler, S.
Meier,
S. and
and Ge,
Ge, P.,
P., 2004,
2004, "Towards
"Towards Integrating
Integrating the
the Effects
Effects of
of Trust
Trust
Making of
of
in the
the Early
Early Stage
Stage Decision
Decision Making
among Stakeholders
among
Stakeholders in
Collaborative Design,"
Collaborative
Design,"Proceedings
Proceedingsofofthe
the2'2 International
International Seminar
Seminar on
on
13th15th,
September
Seattle,
Seattle,
Digital Enterprise
Enterprise Technology,
Technology,
September 13th15th,
Di/tal
Appraisal System
Appraisal
System on
on Trust
Trust for
for Management:
Management: A
A field
field Quasi-Experiment,"
Quasi-Experiment,"
Journal
of app//ed
applied Psychology,
Vol. 84(1),
84(1), pp.
pp. 123-126.
123-126.
Journal of
Psychology, Vol.
as
D. J.,
"Affect- and
and Cognition-based
Cognition-based Trust
Trust as
D.
J., 1995,
1995, "AffectFoundations
Foundations for
for Interpersonal
Interpersonal Cooperation
Cooperation in
in Organizations,"
Organizations," Academy
Academy
of
of Management
Management Journal,
Journal, 1995,
1995, 38(1),
38(1), pp.
pp. 24-59.
24-59.
Washington.
Washington.
[Moul. 1988]
[Moul.
1988]
Moulin,
H., 1988,
1988, AxIoms
Axioms of
of cooperative
cooperative dec/s/on
decision making,
making, Cambridge
Cambridge
Moulin, H.,
[Noor. 2002]
[Noor.
2002]
Noorderhaven,
N.G., Koen,
Koen, C.I.
C.I. and
and Beugelsijk,
Beugelsijk, 2002,
2002, "Organizational
"Organizational
Noorderhaven, N.G.,
Culture and
Culture
and Network
Network Embeddedness,"
Embeddedness," Discussion
Discuss/on Paper
Paper No.
No. 2002-91,
2002-91,
October, Department
October,
Department of
of Organization
Organization and
and Strategy,
Strategy, Tilburg
Tilburg University,
University,
The
The Netherlands.
Netherlands.
[Olson 1982]
[Olson
1982]
Construct/on Management
Management and
and
Div.,
Div., 1982,
1982, A
A Wiley
Wiley Series
Series in
in Construction
in
Group Planning
Planning and
and Problem-Solving
Problem-Solving Methods
Engineering: Group
Engineering:
Methods in
University Press,
University
Press, Cambridge,
Cambridge, New
New York.
York.
Engineering
Engineering Management
Management (Edited
(Edited by
by Olson,
Olson, S.
S. A.),
A.), John
John Wiley&Sons,
Wiley&Sons,
New
New York.
York.
[Otto 2001]
[Otto
2001]
Otto,
Otto,
K.
K.
N. and
N.
and Wood,
Wood, K.,
K., 2001,
2001, Product
Product Design:
Design: Techniques
Techniques in
in
Reverse Engineering
Reverse
Engineering and
and New
New Product
Product Development,
Development, Prentice
Prentice Hall,
Hall,
New Jersey.
New
Jersey.
[Park 1999]
[Park
1999]
H., 1999,
1999, "Supporting
"Supporting
Park, J.-W.,
Park,
J.-W., Port,
Port, D.,
D., Boehm,
Boehm, B.
B. and
and In,
In, H.,
WinWin Requirements
Requirements
Distributed
Collaborative Prioritization
Prioritization for
for WinWin
Distributed Collaborative
Capture
World Multiconference
Capture and
and Negotiations,"
Negotiations," International
International 3'
3 World
Multiconference on
on
Systemics,
System/cs, Cybernetics
CybernetIcsand
andInformatics
Informatics(SCI'99),
(SCI'99), Ills,
IllS,July,
July, pp.
pp. 578578-
584.
584.
[Rous. 1998]
[Rous.
1998]
Rousseau,
Rousseau, D.M.,
D.M., Sitkin,
Sitkin, S.B.,
S.B., Burt,
Burt, R.S.
R.S. and
and Camerer,
Camerer, C.,
C., 1998,
1998, "Not
"Not so
so
different
all: A
A cross-discipline
cross-discipline view
view of
of trust",
trust", Academy
Academy of
of
different after
after all:
Management Review,
Management
Review, 1998,
1998, Vol.23
Vol.23 (3),
(3), pp.
pp. 393-404.
393-404. [1.4]
[1.4]
[Saaty
[Saaty 1982]
1982]
Saaty,
Saaty, T.
T. L.,
L., 1982,
1982, Decision
Decision Making
Making for
for Leaders,
Leaders, Wadsworth,
Wadsworth, Belmont,
Belmont,
[Saaty
[Saaty 2001]
2001]
Saaty,
Saaty, T.
T. L.
L. and
and Vargas,
Vargas, L.
L. G.,
G., 2001,
2001, Models,
Models, methods,
methods, concepts
concepts &
&
California.
California.
applicat/ons of
applications
of the
the analytic
analytic her/archy
her/archy process,
process, KI
KI uwer
uwer Academic
Academic
Publishers, Massachusetts.
Publishers,
Massachusetts.
[Scott 2003]
[Scott
2003]
Scott,
Scott, J.
J. M.
M. and
and Zivkovic,
Zivkovic, I.,
I., 2003,
2003, "On
"On Rank
Rank Reversals
Reversals in
in the
the Borda
Borda
Count",
Engineering Technical
Count", Proceedings
Proceedings of
of ASME
ASME 2003
2003 Des,'n
Des,n Engineering
Technical
105
105
Conference and
Conference
and Computers
Computers and
Inform
at/on in
and In
formation
in Engineering
Engineering
Conference, September
Conference,
September 2-6,
2-6, Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois,
Illinois, DETC
DETC 2003/DTM-48674.
2003/DTM-48674.
[Silv. 1994]
1994]
[Silv.
Silverberg,
Silverberg, G.
G. and
and Soete,
Soete, L.,
L., 1994,
1994, The
The Economics
Economics of
of Growth
Growth and
and
Technical Change,
Technical
Change, Technologies,
Technologies, Nations,
Nations, Agents,
Agents, 1-85278-958-1,
1-85278-958-1,
Edward Elgar
Edward
Elgar Publishing
Publishing Limited,
Limited, Hants,
Hants, England.
England.
[Smith
[Smith 1988]
1988]
Smith,
J. Q.,
Q., 1988,
1988, DecLcion
Decision Analysis:A
Smith, J.
Analysis: ABayesian
Bayesian Approach,
Approach, Chapmann
Chapmann
and Hall,
and
Hall, London.
London.
[Star. 1992]
1992]
[Star.
Starky,
Starky, C.V.,
C.V., 1992,
1992, Engineering
Engineering Desiqn
Design Decision,
Decision, Edward
Edward Arnold,
Arnold, Great
Great
Britain.
Britain.
[UlIm. 2003]
2003]
[UlIm.
UlIman, D.G.,
D.G., 2003,
2003, The
Ullman,
Themechanical
mechanicalDesiqn
DesiqnProcess,
Process, McGraw-Hill
McGraw-Hill
[VanD.
1974]
[VanD. 1974]
Van
Van De
De Ven,
Ven, A.
A. H.
H. and
and Delbecq,
Delbecq, A.
A. L.,
L., 1974,
1974, "The
"The Effectiveness
Effectiveness of
of
Nominal, Delphi,
Nominal,
Delphi, and
and Interacting
Interacting Group
Group Decision
Decision Making
Making Processes,"
Processes,"
Companies.
Companies.
Academy of
of Management
Management Journal,
1.
Academy
Journal, Vol.
Vol. 17(4),
17(4), 4,
4, pp.
pp. 605-62
605-621.
[Vange
[Vange 2003]
2003]
and
and Huxham,
Huxham, C.,
C., 2003,
2003, "Building
"Building Trust
Trust in
in InterInterOrganizational
Organizational Collaboration",
Collaboration", Proceedings
Proceedings of
of European
European Academy
Academy of
of
Management Conference,
Management
Conference,
Milan
Milan
(Italy),
(Italy), April
April 03-05,
03-05, 2003,
2003,
hlIp ://www.wiwiss.fuhttp
://www.wiwiss.fu-
Vangen,
Vangen,
S.
S.
berlin
.de/w3/w3sydow/EURAM/paper_download
berlin .de/w3/w3sydow/EURAM/paper
down load. htm
htm
.
[Wald.
[Wald. 2001]
2001]
Waldstroem, C.,
C., 2001,
Waldstroem,
"Informal Networks
Networks in
2001, "Informal
in Organizations
Organizations
a
a
literature review,"
review," DDL
DDL Working
Working Paper
Paper No.2,
No.2, February,
February, The
The Aarhus
Aarhus
literature
School
School
of
of
business,
business,
Denmark,
Denmark,
http ://www.org.
.dk/org/ddl/papers/CWA-WPhttp
://www.org. hha
hha.dk/org/
ddl/papers/CWA-WP- 1.
1. pdf.
pdf.
[Wass.
[Wass. 2001]
200fl
Wassenaar, H.
Wassenaar,
H. J.
J. and
and Chen,
Chen, W.,
W., 2001,
2001, "An
"An Approach
Approach to
to Decision-Based
Decision-Based
Design,"
Design," Proceedings
Proceedings of
of ASME
ASME 2001
2001 Desiqn
Desiqn Engineering
Engineering Technical
Technical
Conferences and
and Computers
Computersand
andIn
Information
Conferences
formation in
in Engineering
Engineering
Conference, September
Conference,
September 9-12,
9-12, Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania, DETC'Ol/DTMDETC'Ol/DTM21683.
21683.
[Zolin
[Zolin 2003]
2003]
Zolin,
Zolin, R.,
R., Fruchter,
Fruchter, R.
R. and
and Hinds,
Hinds, P.,
P., 2003,
2003, "Communication,
"Communication, Trust
Trust &
Performance:
Performance: The
The Influence
Influence of
of Trust
Trust on
on Perfromance
Perfromance in
in A/EtC
A/E/C CrossCrossfunctional,
functional, Geographically
Geographically Distributed
Distributed Work,"
Work," CIFE
CIFE Working
Working Paper
Paper
#78,
#78, April,
April, Stanford
Stanford University.
University.