Kavramsal Tasarımda “AAS-Analitik Ağ Süreci” Yönteminin Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Tasarım sürecinin kavramsal tasarım aşaması, tasarlanan nesneyle ilgili temel kararların yapılandırıldığı önemli bir süreçtir. Kavramsal tasarım, bitmiş tasarımın sahip olması gereken birçok detaydan yoksun olmasına rağmen bu sürecin başarısı doğrudan nihai tasarımı etkiler. Kavramsal tasarım fikirleri, süreçte sürekli olarak iyileştirme-değerlendirme çevirimlerine tabi tutulur ve süreç sonunda pazardaki en yüksek başarı şansına sahip olacağı düşünülen kavram, detay tasarım ve üretim için seçilir. Yapılan değerlendirmeler sırasında öznel ve sezgisel yöntemler kullanılması, sonuçların kişiden kişiye değişkenlik göstermesine neden olmaktadır. Değerlendirme ve seçimlerin nesnel olarak gerçekleştirilmesi, tasarım sürecini geliştirecek ve dolayısıyla sonuçta ortaya çıkacak tasarımların başarı düzeyini arttıracaktır. Çalışmamızda, kavramsal tasarım aşamasındaki değerlendirme ve karar verme işlemlerinin daha nesnel ve hatasız hale getirilmesini amacıyla Analitik Ağ Süreci’ne dayalı bir yöntem önerisi yapılmaktadır. Yazıda öncelikle yöntem hakkında bilgi verilip kısaca işleyişi açıklanmıştır. Sonrasında, metodun üç farklı kahve makinesi kavramsal tasarımının değerlendirilmesinde kullanıldığı bir alan çalışması sunulmuştur. Son bölümde alan çalışması sonucunda elde edilen bulgular yorumlanarak, daha ileri seviye tasarım, geliştirme ve nihai üretime en uygun kavramsal tasarım belirlenmiştir. Önerilen yöntem, endüstri tasarımı, mimarlık, iç mimarlık gibi diğer tasarım alanlarına, kavramsal tasarımların ve/veya tasarım detaylarının değerlendirilmesi amacıyla kolayca uyarlanabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kavramsal tasarım,analitik network süreci,tasarım değerlendirme,tasarım seçimi

Kaynakça

1. Aragonés-Beltrán, Pablo, Fidel Chaparro-González, Juan Pascual Pastor-Ferrando, and Andrea Pla-Rubio. 2014. “An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Approach for the Selection of Solar-Thermal Power Plant Investment Projects.” Energy 66: 222–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.016.
2. Ayağ, Zeki. 2005. “An Integrated Approach to Evaluating Concept Design Alternatives in a New Product Development Environment.” International Journal of Production Research 43 (4): 687–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540512331311831.
3. Azizi, Amir, and Razieh Maleki. 2014. “Comparative Study of AHP and ANP on Multi – Automotive Suppliers with Multi-Criteria.” In Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists. Vol. II. Hong Kong. http://www.iaeng.org/publication/ IMECS2014/IMECS2014_pp1031-1036.pdf.
4. Barić, Danijela, Hrvoje Pilko, and Josip Strujić. 2016. “An Analytic Hierarchy Process Model to Evaluate Road Section Design.” Transport 31 (3): 312–21. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2016.1157830.
5. Bayazıt, Özden, and Ozden Bayazit. 2006. “Use of Analytic Network Process in Vendor Selection Decisions.” Benchmarking: An International Journal 13 (5): 566–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770610690410.
6. Bayrakçı, Oğuz, ed. 2012. Corporate Identity and Design Trend Researches on Small Electrical Home Appliances. istanbul: Mimar Sinan University of Fine Arts. Berger, S, M L Dertouzos, R K Lester, R M Solow, and L C Thurow. 1989. “Toward a New Industrial American.” Scientific Am 260 (June): 21–29. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a224888.pdf#page=13.
7. Boonkanit, Prin, and Akajate Aphikajornsin. 2010. “An Energetic Ecodesign at Conceptual Design Phase.” International Journal of Industrial Engineering : Theory Applications and Practice 17 (3): 190–99.
8. Büyükyazıcı, Murat, and Meral Sucu. 2003. “The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes.” Hacettepe Journal of Mathematics and Statistics 32: 65–73. http://www.hjms.hacettepe.edu.tr/uploads/49221df6-6484-4143-a95c-7e3336313629.pdf.

9. Cheng, Eddie W. L., and Heng Li. 2004. “Contractor Selection Using the Analytic Network Process.” Construction Management and Economics 22 (March 2015): 1021–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619042000202852.
10. D’Ippolito, Beatrice. 2014. “Technovation The Importance of Design for Firms’ Competitiveness: A Review of the Literature.” Technovation 34: 716–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.01.007.
11. Dağdeviren, Metin, Nilay Dönmez, and Mustafa Kurt. 2006. “BİR İŞLETMEDE TEDARİKÇİ DEĞERLENDİRME SÜRECİ İÇİN YENİ BİR MODEL TASARIMI VE UYGULAMASI.” Gazi Üniv. Müh. Mim. Fak. Der 21 (2): 247–55. http://www.mmfdergi.gazi.edu.tr/article/download/1061001329/1061001077.
12. Eshtehardian, Ehsan, Parviz Ghodousi, and Azadeh Bejanpour. 2013. “Using ANP and AHP for the Supplier Selection in the Construction and Civil Engineering Companies; Case Study of Iranian Company.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 17 (2): 262–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-013-1141-z.
13. Freeman, Chris. 1994. “The Economics of Technical Change.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 18 (5): 463–514. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035286.
14. Fung, Richard Y K, Yizeng Chen, and Jiafu Tang. 2007. “A Quality-Engineering-Based Approach for Conceptual Product Design.” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 32 (11–12): 1064–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-006-0434-5.
15. Graham, Andrea M. 2012. “Using An Ahp/Anp Hybrid Methodology For Freight Transport Networks Selection Towards Sustainable Transportation.” The University of Texas at Arlington. https://uta-ir.tdl.org/uta-ir/bitstream/handle/10106/11528/Graham_ uta_2502D_11817.pdf?sequence=1.
16. Hertenstein, Julie H, Marjorie B Platt, and Robert W Veryzer. 2013. “What Is ‘Good Design’?: An Investigation of the Complexity and Structure of Design.” Design Management Journal 8 (1): 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmj.12000.
17. Hsiao, S. 2002. “Concurrent Design Method for Developing a New Product.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 29 (1): 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(01)00048-8.
18. Hsu, Wynne, and Irene M Y Woon. 1998. “Current and Future Research in the Conceptual Design of Mechanical Products.” Computer-Aided Design 30 (15): 377–89. http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~whsu/publication/1998/survey.PDF.
19. Marini, C D, N Fatchurrohman, A Azhari, and S Suraya. 2016. “Product Development Using QFD, MCDM and the Combination of These Two Methods.” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 114: 012089. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757- 899X/114/1/012089.
20. R. K. Srivastava, Atul Sharma, Parul Gupta. 2015. “Application of AHP and ANP Methods for Selection of Best Material for an Axle.” International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology 4 (5): 2894–2901. https://doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0405032.
21. Raharjo, Hendry, Aarnout C. Brombacher, and Min Xie. 2008. “Dealing with Subjectivity in Early Product Design Phase: A Systematic Approach to Exploit Quality Function Deployment Potentials.” Computers and Industrial Engineering 55 (1): 253–78. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.12.012.
22. Renzi, Cristina, Francesco Leali, and Luca Di Angelo. 2017. “A Review on Decision-Making Methods in Engineering Design for the Automotive Industry for the Automotive Industry.” Journal of Engineering Design 28 (2): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1274720.
23. Roy, Robin, and Johann C.k.h. Riedel. 1997. “Design and Innovation in Successful Product Competition.” Technovation 17 (10): 537–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00050-3.
24. Saaty, Thomas L., and Hsu Shih Shih. 2009. “Structures in Decision Making: On the Subjective Geometry of Hierarchies and Networks.” European Journal of Operational Research 199 (3): 867–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.064.
25. Saaty, Thomas L., and Luis G. Vargas. 2013. “The Analytic Network Process.” Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process 195: 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7279-7_1.
26. Salonen, Mikko, and Matti Perttula. 2005. “Utilization of Concept Selection Methods: A Survey of Finnish Industry.” In 17th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, 5a:527–35. Long Beach, California. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2005-85047.
27. Shang, Jennifer S., Youxu Tjader, and Yizhong Ding. 2004. “A Unified Framework for Multicriteria Evaluation of Transportation Projects.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 51 (3): 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2004.830848.
28. Sipahi, Seyhan, and Mehpare Timor. 2010. “The Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: An Overview of Applications.” Management Decision 48 (5): 775–808. https://doi.org/10.1108/02517471080000700.
29. Suarez, Fernando F, and James M. Utterback. 1995. “Dominant Designs and the Survival of Firms.” Strategic Management Journal 16 (6): 415–30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486786?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
30. Ulrich, and Eppinger. 2011. Product Design and Development. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill.
31. Wey, Wann Ming, and Yin Hao Chiu. 2013. “Assessing the Walkability of Pedestrian Environment under the Transit-Oriented Development.” Habitat International 38: 106–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.05.004.
32. Wray, G.R. 1991. “Design or Decline--a National Emergency?” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 205 (B): 153–70. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1243/PIME_PROC_1991_205_065_02.
33. Xiao, Adrian, Simon S. Park, and Theo Freiheit. 2011. “A Comparison of Concept Selection in Concept Scoring and Axiomatic Design Methods.” Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association. http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/PCEEA/article/ view/3769.
34. Xu, Lida, Zongbin Li, Shancang Li, and Fengming Tang. 2007. “A Decision Support System for Product Design in Concurrent Engineering.” Decision Support Systems 42 (4): 2029–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2004.11.007.
35. Yin, Yaoyao, Juwei Shi, Yinong Li, and Ping Zhang. 2006. “Cluster Head Selection Using Analytical Hierarchy Process,” 6–10.
36. Yüksel, I, and M Dağdeviren. 2007. “Using the Analytic Network Process (ANP) in a SWOT Analysis – A Case Study for a Textile Firm.” Information Sciences 177 (16): 3364–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.01.001.