4.1 Article

Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Medical Device Development

期刊

ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 102-119

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10429247.2022.2040267

关键词

Medical device; new product development; design parameter; innovation; decision making; analytic hierarchy process; Program & Project Management; Systems Engineering

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents DPMA, a multi-criteria decision-making process to assist engineering managers in making decisions during the development process of medical devices. The model involves weighting criteria, measuring device performance, and calculating a final score using the SAW method. A case study on the development of a femoral implant demonstrates the application of the DPMA process.
The development of a new product is a complicated multi-stakeholder process with a significant risk of failure. This is particularly true in the medical device sector, where there are strict therapeutic, psychological, and normative constraints. This article presents a multi-criteria decision making process called Define, Prioritize, Measure, and Aggregate (DPMA). DPMA is designed to help engineering managers in decision making during the development process of new medical devices. The model is based on two sets of criteria linked to business and customer satisfaction. These criteria are weighted using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and group decision making (GDM) process. The performance of a medical device is measured according to each criterion. Furthermore, the final score of GO/NO GO alternatives are calculated with the simple additive weighting (SAW) method. A case study for the development of a new kind of femoral implant is presented to demonstrate the implementation of the DPMA process. This study shows that the application of the DPMA process during the design of a 3D printed femoral prosthesis provided engineering managers the key elements and green light to go ahead with the development of this medical device.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据