یکپارچه‌سازی ماتریس چنددامنه و سیستم استنتاج فازی در طراحی، ایجاد و توسعه نقشه راه فناوری برای سیستم‌ها | ||
| چشم‌انداز مدیریت صنعتی | ||
| دوره 11، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 41، فروردین 1400، صفحه 211-245 اصل مقاله (1.7 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.52547/jimp.11.1.211 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سید محمد سجادیان1؛ رضا حسنوی* 2؛ مرتضی عباسی3؛ مهدی کرباسیان4؛ محمدحسین کریمی گوارشکی3 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری، دانشگاه صنعتی مالک اشتر. | ||
| 2استاد، دانشگاه صنعتی مالک اشتر. | ||
| 3استادیار، دانشگاه صنعتی مالک اشتر. | ||
| 4دانشیار، دانشگاه صنعتی مالک اشتر. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| نقشه راه و به‌ویژه نقشه راه فناوری یک ابزار و تکنیک مدیریتی برای رسیدن به اهداف در آینده به‌منظور پیوند دادن کسب‌وکار به فناوری‌ها است؛ بنابراین با روند افزایش و لزوم استفاده از انواع نقشه‌های راه، ابزارهایی جدید برای تجزیه‌وتحلیل روابط پیچیده بین لایه‌ها و عناصر نقشه راه، بیش‌ازپیش موردنیاز است. هدف این مطالعه تمرکز بر ابزار جدید تحلیل روابط بین لایه‌های نقشه راه با یک روش ترکیبی با یک چارچوب پیشنهادی است. پژوهش‌های قبلی، تنها با ابزارهایی چون گسترش‌عملکرد‌کیفیت و ماتریس‌ارتباطی به روابط بین لایه‌ها پرداخته‌اند. هرچند DSM و TRM به‌طور مستقل تاکنون بسیار موردمطالعه قرارگرفته‌اند، اما این مطالعه یک چارچوب پیشنهادی یکپارچه ششمرحله‌ای از ترکیب ماتریس چنددامنه و ماتریس ساختار طراحی و نظریه مجموعه فازی در طراحی، ایجاد و توسعه نقشه راه فناوری برای سیستم‌ها به‌منظور پشتیبانی از تصمیم‌گیری و مطالعه موردی انجام‌شده را پیشنهاد می‌دهد. در این مطالعه از ماتریس چنددامنه MDM و استنتاج فازی و نظریه شبکه در طراحی نقشه راه فناوری هم‌زمان استفاده شد. مزیت استفاده از ماتریس چنددامنه تحلیل هم‌زمان هر حوزه به‌طور خاص در قالب DSM و نیز کل حوزه‌ها در قالب MDM است. نتایج پژوهش حاضر حاکی از ارائه دستورالعمل دقیق برای مدیران به‌منظور تهیه نقشه راه مناسب است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| نقشه راه فناوری؛ ماتریس ساختار طراحی؛ تحلیل ارتباطات و وابستگی؛ ماتریس چنددامنه؛ استنتاج فازی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Integration of MDM and Fuzzy Inference System in Designing, Creating, and Developing TRM for Systems | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Seyed Mohammad Sajadiyan1؛ Reza Hosnavi2؛ Morteza Abbasi3؛ Mehdi Karbasian4؛ Mohammad Hossein Karimi Gavareshki3 | ||
| 1Ph.D student, Malek Ashtar University of Technology. | ||
| 2Professor, Malek Ashtar University of Technology. | ||
| 3Assistant Professor, Malek Ashtar University of Technology. | ||
| 4Associate Professor, Malek Ashtar University of Technology. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Roadmap and especially technology roadmap is a management tool and technique to achieve future goals in order to link business to technology. With the increasing trend and the need to use different types of roadmaps, new tools are needed to analyze the complex relationships between layers and roadmap elements. The purpose of this study is to focus on a new tool for analyzing the relationships between roadmap layers with a combined method with a proposed framework. Previous research has addressed relationships between layers only with tools such as quality function deployment (QFD) and the linking grid. Although DSM and TRM have been extensively studied independently so far, this study, therefore, proposes an integrated six-step framework combining a multi-domain matrix and design structure matrix and fuzzy set theory in designing, creating, and developing technology roadmaps for Suggest systems to support decision making and case studies. In this study, multi-domain MDM matrix and fuzzy inference, and network theory were used in designing the technology roadmap. The advantage of using a multi-domain matrix is the simultaneous analysis of each domain specifically in the DSM format as well as the entire domain in the MDM format. The results of the present study indicate the provision of detailed instructions for managers to prepare a suitable roadmap. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Technology Roadmap, Design Structure Matrix, Relationship and DependencyAnalysis, Multi-Domain Matrix, Fuzzy Inference | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
1. Amindoust, A., Ahmed, S., Saghafinia, A., & Bahreininejad, A. (2012). Sustainable supplier selection: A ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. Applied Soft Computing, 12(6), 1668-1677. 2. An, Y., Lee, S., & Park, Y. (2008). Development of an integrated product‐service roadmap with QFD. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(5), 621-638. 3. Browning, T. R. (2016). Design Structure Matrix Extensions and Innovations: A Survey and New Opportunities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 63(1), 27-52. 4. Browning, T. R., & Eppinger, S. D. (2002). Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(4), 428-442. 5. Caetano, M., & Amaral, D. C. (2011). Roadmapping for technology push and partnership: A contribution for open innovation environments. Technovation, 31(7), 320-335. 6. Carlos, R., Amaral, D. C., & Caetano, M. (2018). Framework for continuous agile technology roadmap updating. Innovation & Management Review, 15(3), 321-336. 7. Cho, Y., Yoon, S.-P., & Kim, K.-S. (2016). An industrial technology roadmap for supporting public R&D planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 107, 1-12. 8. de Alcantara, D. P., & Martens, M. L. (2019). Technology Roadmapping (TRM): a systematic review of the literature focusing on models. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 138, 127-138. 9. Daim, T. U., & Oliver, T. (2008). Implementing technology roadmap process in the energy services sector: A case study of a government agency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(5), 687-720. 10. Danilovic, M., & Browning, T. R. (2007). Managing complex product development projects with design structure matrices and domain mapping matrices. International Journal of Project Management, 25(3), 300-314. 11. Danilovic, M., & Sandkull, B. (2005). The use of dependence structure matrix and domain mapping matrix in managing uncertainty in multiple project situations. International Journal of Project Management, 23(3), 193-203. 12. Danilovic, M., & Sigemyr, T. (2003, October). DSM approach in early product development phases. In Proceedings of the 5th International Design Structure Matrix (DSM) Workshop, Oct (pp. 22-23). 13. Dunn, T. P., & Sussman, J. M. (2006). Design Structure Matrices to Improve Decentralized Urban Transportation Systems. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1978(1), 193-200. 14. Garcia, M. L., & Bray, O. H. (1997). Fundamentals of technology roadmapping. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2172/471364 15. Geum, Y., Jeon, J., & Seol, H. (2013). Identifying technological opportunities using the novelty detection technique: a case of laser technology in semiconductor manufacturing. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(1), 1-22. 16. Geum, Y., Lee, S., & Park, Y. (2014). Combining technology roadmap and system dynamics simulation to support scenario-planning: A case of car-sharing service. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 71, 37-49. 17. Geum, Y., Lee, S., Kang, D., & Park, Y. (2011). Technology roadmapping for technology-based product–service integration: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 28(3), 128-146. 18. Geum, Y., Lee, S., Kang, D., & Park, Y. (2011). The customisation framework for roadmapping product-service integration. Service Business, 5(3), 213-236. 19. Greitemann, J., Hehl, M., Wagner, D., & Reinhart, G. (2016). Scenario and roadmap-based approach for the analysis of prospective production technology needs. Production Engineering, 10(3), 337-343. 20. Groenveld, P. (1997). Roadmapping Integrates Business and Technology. Research-Technology Management, 40(5), 48-55. 21. Herrera-Viedma, E., & Peis, E. (2003). Evaluating the informative quality of documents in SGML format from judgements by means of fuzzy linguistic techniques based on computing with words. Information Processing & Management, 39(2), 233-249. 22. Jeon, J., Lee, H., & Park, Y. (2011). Implementing technology roadmapping with supplier selection for semiconductor manufacturing companies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(8), 899-918. 23. Jeong, Y., & Yoon, B. (2015). Development of patent roadmap based on technology roadmap by analyzing patterns of patent development. Technovation, 39-40, 37-52. 24. Jin, G., Jeong, Y., & Yoon, B. (2015). Technology-driven roadmaps for identifying new product/market opportunities: Use of text mining and quality function deployment. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 29(1), 126-138. 25. Kim, J., Park, Y., & Lee, Y. (2016). A visual scanning of potential disruptive signals for technology roadmapping: investigating keyword cluster, intensity, and relationship in futuristic data [Article]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(10), 1225-1246. 26. Kusiak, A., & Wang, J. (1993). Decomposition of the Design Process. Journal of Mechanical Design, 115(4), 687-695. 27. Lee, H., & Geum, Y. (2017). Development of the scenario-based technology roadmap considering layer heterogeneity: An approach using CIA and AHP. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117, 12-24. 28. Lee, C., Song, B., & Park, Y. (2015). An instrument for scenario-based technology roadmapping: How to assess the impacts of future changes on organisational plans. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 285-301. 29. Lee, J. H., Phaal, R., & Lee, S.-H. (2013). An integrated service-device-technology roadmap for smart city development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(2), 286-306. 30. Lee, S., Yoon, B., Lee, C., & Park, J. (2009). Business planning based on technological capabilities: Patent analysis for technology-driven roadmapping. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 769-786. 31. Lee, S., & Park, Y. (2005). Customization of technology roadmaps according to roadmapping purposes: Overall process and detailed modules. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(5), 567-583. 32. Lindemann, U., & Maurer, M. (2007). Facing Multi-Domain Complexity in Product Development The Future of Product Development (pp. 351-361): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 33. Lindemann, U., Maurer, M., & Braun, T. (2009). Methods for managing complex data in product design Structural Complexity Management (pp. 43-60): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 34. Lindemann, U., Maurer, M., & Braun, T. (2009).Product design application Structural Complexity Management (pp. 143-154): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 35. Martin, H., & Daim, T. U. (2012). Technology roadmap development process (TRDP) for the service sector: A conceptual framework. Technology in Society, 34(1), 94-105. 36. Moghbel Baarz, A., Azar, A., Taghavi, A., & Nahavandi, B. (2013). Representing a Methodology for Refinement of Strategic Objectives in Strategy Map Establishment: Combining Quality Function Deployment and Fuzzy Screening. Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 3(Issue 3), 9-38. (In Persian) 37. Narimani Ghutlar, E., Fegh-hi Farahmand, N., pilevar, N., Rahmani, K., Motadel, M. (2021). Design of fuzzy inference system for green supply chain evaluation of export manufacturing companies. Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, (In Persian) 38. Oliveira Valério, K. G. d., Sanches da Silva, C. E., & Neves, S. M. (2021). Overview on the technology roadmapping (TRM) literature: gaps and perspectives. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 33(1), 58-69. 39. Okhravi, A., & Shakibamanesh, A. (2019). Provide the model of technology roadmapping for an advanced system. Journal of Technology Development Management, 7(1), 91-118. (In Persian) 40. Park, H., Phaal, R., Ho, J.-Y., & O'Sullivan, E. (2020). Twenty years of technology and strategic roadmapping research: A school of thought perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154, 119965. 41. Phaal, R., & Muller, G. (2009). An architectural framework for roadmapping: Towards visual strategy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 39-49. 42. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., & Probert, D. R. (2004). Technology roadmapping—A planning framework for evolution and revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(1-2), 5-26. 43. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., & Probert, D. R. (2013). Technology Management and Roadmapping at the Firm Level Technology Roadmapping for Strategy and Innovation (pp. 13-29): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 44. Phaal, R., O'Sullivan, E., Routley, M., Ford, S., & Probert, D. (2011). A framework for mapping industrial emergence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(2), 217-230. 45. Rezaei, E., Paydar, M., & Safaei, A. (2020). Implementation of Accelerating Benders Decomposition Algorithm for Supply Chain Considering New Product Development and Customer Relationship Management. Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 10(Issue 1), 41-63 (In Persian) 46. Saritas, O., & Aylen, J. (2010). Using scenarios for roadmapping: The case of clean production. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(7), 1061-1075. 47. Schafer, T., & Mezini, M. (2005). Towards More Flexibility in Software Visualization Tools. Paper presented at the 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis. 48. Shi, Q., & Blomquist, T. (2012). A new approach for project scheduling using fuzzy dependency structure matrix. International Journal of Project Management, 30(4), 503-510. 49. Son, H., Kwon, Y., Park, S. C., & Lee, S. (2017). Using a design structure matrix to support technology roadmapping for product–service systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(3), 337-350. 50. Son, W., & Lee, S. (2018). Integrating fuzzy-set theory into technology roadmap development to support decision-making. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(4), 447-461. 51. Steward, D. V. (1965). Partitioning and Tearing Systems of Equations. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Series B Numerical Analysis, 2(2), 345-365. 52. Suh, J. H., & Park, S. C. (2009). Service-oriented Technology Roadmap (SoTRM) using patent map for R&D strategy of service industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 6754-6772. 53. Tseng, C. C., Torng, C. C., & Lin, S. C. (2010). Prioritization of product design tasks using QFD, TRIZ and DSM. Paper presented at the 2010 IEEE 17Th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. 54. Warfield, J. N. (1973). Binary Matrices in System Modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-3(5), 441-449. 55. Willyard, C. H., & McClees, C. W. (1987). Motorola's Technology Roadmap Process. Research Management, 30(5), 13-19. 56. Winkowski, C. (2020). Technology development roadmaps: a bibliometric analysis of scientific literature. 57. Yoon, B., & Phaal, R. (2013). Structuring technological information for technology roadmapping: data mining approach. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(9), 1119-1137. 58. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3,485 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,817 |
||