Skip to main content

A Dynamic Intelligent Recommendation Method Based on the Analytical ER Rule for Evaluating Product Ideas in Large-Scale Group Decision-Making

Abstract

In large-scale group decision-making, participants with large differences in knowledge structures and educational backgrounds are unlikely to give an accurate evaluation of each criterion of product ideas. To solve this problem and to effectively extract and combine uncertainty in the evaluation information to ultimately obtain a ranking of product ideas, we propose a dynamic intelligent integration recommendation method for product ideas. First, we construct a new evaluation criteria system for product ideas that includes input criteria and output criteria. Second, we describe steps for static information extraction and information combination. We use the basic probability assignment function as an information extraction method to effectively capture and accurately reflect the authenticity of experts’ evaluation. For information combination, we employ the analytical evidence reasoning rule for both individual and group combination of evaluation information. On this basis, we can achieve real-time updating of ideas, the screening of effective ideas, and a dynamic intelligence recommendation method. We apply our method to an illustrative example to demonstrate our method’s practical use.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Baskerville RL, Wood-Harper AT (1996) A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. J Inf Technol 11:235–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/026839629601100305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Benmoussa K, Laaziri M, Khoulji S, Kerkeb ML, Yamami AE (2019) AHP-based approach for evaluating ergonomic criteria. Proc Manuf 32:856–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blair C, Mumford M (2007) Errors in idea evaluation: preference for the unoriginal? J Creative Behav. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2007.tb01288.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blohm I, Bretschneider U, Leimeister JM, Krcmar H (2011) Does collaboration among participants lead to better ideas in IT-based idea competitions? An empirical investigation. Int J Netw Virt Organ 9(2):106–122. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijnvo.2011.042413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chan KW, Li SY, Zhu JJ (2018) Good to be novel? Understanding how idea feasibility affects idea adoption decision making in crowdsourcing. J Interact Mark 43:52–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dean DL, Hender JM, Rodgers TL, Santanen EL (2006) Identifying good ideas: constructs and scales for idea evaluation. J Assoc Inf Syst 7:646–699

    Google Scholar 

  7. Du Y, Wang Y (2017) Evidence combination rule with contrary support in the evidential reasoning approach. Expert Syst Appl 88:193–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.06.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Du Y, Yang N, Ning J (2018a) IFS/ER-based large-scale multiattribute group decision-making method by considering expert knowledge structure. Knowl Based Syst 162:124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.07.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Du Y, Shan Y, Li C, Wang R (2018b) Mass collaboration-driven method for recommending product ideas based on dempster-shafer theory of evidence. Math Probl Eng 2018:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1980152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Du Y, Wang Y, Qin M (2018c) New evidential reasoning rule with both weight and reliability for evidence combination. Comput Ind Eng 124:493–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.07.037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dziallas M (2020) How to evaluate innovative ideas and concepts at the front-end? A front-end perspective of the automotive innovation process. J Bus Res 110:502–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ebner W, Leimeister JM, Krcmar H (2009) Community engineering for innovations: the ideas competition as a method to nurture a virtual community for innovations. R&D Manag 39:342–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00564.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Eling K, Langerak F, Griffin A (2015) The performance effects of combining rationality and intuition in making early new product idea evaluation decisions. Creativ Innov Manag 24:464–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fan C, Son Y, Lei L, Wang X, Bai S (2018) Evidence reasoning for temporal uncertain information based on relative reliability evaluation. Expert Syst Appl 113:264–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.06.048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ferioli M, Dekoninck E, Culley S, Roussel B, Renaud J (2010) Understanding the rapid evaluation of innovative ideas in the early stages of design. Int J Prod Dev 12:67. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpd.2010.034313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gabriel A, Camargo M, Monticolo D, Boly V, Bourgault M (2016) Improving the idea selection process in creative workshops through contextualisation. J Clean Prod 135:1503–1513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hardwick J, Anderson AR (2019) Supplier-customer engagement for collaborative innovation using video conferencing: a study of SMEs. Ind Market Manag 80:43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kleinmintz OM, Ivancovsky T, Shamay-Tsoory SG (2019) The two-fold model of creativity: the neural underpinnings of the generation and evaluation of creative ideas. Curr Opin Behav Sci 27:131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Li S, Wei C (2020) A large scale group decision making approach in healthcare service based on sub-group weighting model and hesitant fuzzy linguistic information. Comput Ind Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu B, Zhou Q, Ding R, Ni W, Herrera F (2019) Defective alternatives detection-based multi-attribute intuitionistic fuzzy large-scale decision making model. Knowl Based Syst 186:104962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2019.104962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Luo S, Su C, Lee W (2011) Constructing intelligent model for acceptability evaluation of a product. Expert Syst Appl 38(11):13702–13710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. MacCrimmon KR, Wagner C (1994) Stimulating ideas through creativity software. Manag Sci 40:1514–1532. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.11.1514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Magnusson PR, Netz J, Wästlund E (2014) Exploring holistic intuitive idea screening in the light of formal criteria. Technovation 34:315–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Martinsuo M, Poskela J (2011) Use of evaluation criteria and innovation performance in the front end of innovation. J Prod Innovat Manag 28:896–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00844.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Özaygen A, Balagué C (2018) Idea evaluation in innovation contest platforms: a network perspective. Decis Support Syst 112:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Perry-Smith JE, Mannucci PV (2017) From creativity to innovation: the social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Acad Manag Rev 42:53–79. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Plucker JA, Beghetto RA, Dow GT (2004) Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educ Psychol 39:83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Qin J, Xi Y, Pedrycz W (2020) Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) for risk assessment based on interval type-2 fuzzy evidential reasoning method. Appl Soft Comput 89:106134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ren R, Tang M, Liao H (2020) Managing minority opinions in micro-grid planning by a social network analysis-based large scale group decision making method with hesitant fuzzy linguistic information. Knowl Based Syst 189:105060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rietzschel EF, Nijstad BA, Stroebe W (2010) The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: choosing between creativity and impact. Brit J Psychol 101:47–68. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X414204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rochford L (1991) Generating and screening new products ideas. Ind Market Manag 20:287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-8501(91)90003-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rodríguez RM, Labella Á, Tré GD, Martínez L (2018) A large scale consensus reaching process managing group hesitation. Knowl Based Syst 159:86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.06.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tang M, Liao H (2019) From conventional group decision making to large-scale group decision making: what are the challenges and how to meet them in big data era? A state-of-the-art survey. Omega. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.102141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tang M, Liao H, Xu J, Streimikiene D, Zheng X (2020) Adaptive consensus reaching process with hybrid strategies for large-scale group decision making. Eur J Oper Res 282:957–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Udell GG, Baker KG (1982) Evaluating new product ideas….systematically. Technovation 1:191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(82)90002-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Xu X, Du Z, Chen X (2015) Consensus model for multi-criteria large-group emergency decision making considering non-cooperative behaviors and minority opinions. Decis Support Syst 79:150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Xu Y, Xu J, Bai Y (2017) A study on the factors about customers’ acceptability to airline ancillary products. Proc Comput Sci 107:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.03.053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yang Y, Xu D, Yang J, Chen Y (2018) An evidential reasoning-based decision support system for handling customer complaints in mobile telecommunications. Knowl Based Syst 162:202–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.09.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang C, Hu Y, Chan FTS, Sadiq R, Deng Y (2014) A new method to determine basic probability assignment using core samples. Knowl Based Syst 69:140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.06.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zhang Z, Guo C, Martinez L (2017) Managing multi-granular linguistic distribution assessments in large-scale multi-attribute group decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 47:3063–3076

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Major Program of National Social Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 18ZDA055, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant No. 71874167 and 71462022, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant No. 202041005, and the Special Funds of Taishan Scholars Project of Shandong Province under Grant No. tsqn20171205. The authors would like to thank anonymous referees and the editor for their valuable comments and suggestions that help to improve the quality of the paper to its current standard.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuan-Wei Du.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Du, YW., Shan, YK. A Dynamic Intelligent Recommendation Method Based on the Analytical ER Rule for Evaluating Product Ideas in Large-Scale Group Decision-Making. Group Decis Negot (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09687-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Large-scale group decision-making
  • Product ideas
  • Analytical evidence reasoning rule
  • Dynamic recommendation