Search results

The paper provides an overview of research published in the innovation and operations management (IOM) literature on 15 methods for cost management in new product development, and it provides a comparison to an earlier review of the management accounting (MA) literature (Wouters & Morales, 2014).

This structured literature search covers papers published in 23 journals in IOM in the period 1990–2014.

The search yielded a sample of 208 unique papers with 275 results (one paper could refer to multiple cost management methods). The top 3 methods are modular design, component commonality, and product platforms, with 115 results (42%) together. In the MA literature, these three methods accounted for 29%, but target costing was the most researched cost management method by far (26%). Simulation is the most frequently used research method in the IOM literature, whereas this was averagely used in the MA literature; qualitative studies were the most frequently used research method in the MA literature, whereas this was averagely used in the IOM literature. We found a lot of papers presenting practical approaches or decision models as a further development of a particular cost management method, which is a clear difference from the MA literature.

This review focused on the same cost management methods, and future research could also consider other cost management methods which are likely to be more important in the IOM literature compared to the MA literature. Future research could also investigate innovative cost management practices in more detail through longitudinal case studies.

This review of research on methods for cost management published outside the MA literature provides an overview for MA researchers. It highlights key differences between both literatures in their research of the same cost management methods.

This study aims to adapt analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for choosing the optimal location for sport facilities. The location of a sports facility contributes significantly to its potential success or failure. Therefore, factors affecting such location-related decisions must be carefully studied and prioritized in a systematic fashion.

This study develops a seven-step framework which may be used to decide on a location from among several alternatives. Through an extensive literature review, this study first determines the factors affecting sports facility location selection and then applies AHP steps by asking several sports facility owners and managers to assess importance of the criteria.

This study determined the sport facility location selection factors as “ease of access,” “facility features,” “financial issues,” “neighborhood” and “market,” and further divided each factor into its subfactors. To illustrate the framework of using AHP as a tool to select the right location for sport facilities, we chose three candidate locations and scored them according to the calculated weight scores of the criteria, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each location.

This study provides several managerial implications that may guide sport facility investors in choosing the right location.

This study presents a method to evaluate different factors for different actors of sport industry in a systematic way. Private investors can use the method for securing sufficient number of potential customers in a well-selected location. Government institutions and public policymakers can use the method, possibly with different sets of factors, to decide on the location of public sports facilities to maximize the number of visitors or to reach disadvantaged or underserved populations.

This framework of AHP method can help private and public investors and policymakers evaluate and make the optimal decision for choosing sports facility locations. This study contributes both to sport management theory and practice as well as to operation management literature. This study also refined the scattered factors in the literature of selecting a sport facility site in a more understandable and adaptable way.

Poor conditions of rural roads in most developing countries have hindered the growth of their rural economy. Investments from government and other sources in rural road projects are inadequate, leading often to political, rather than socio‐economic, considerations in allocating funds to specific projects. Realizing this, many donor organizations demand an unbiased study for prioritizing rural roads for funds allocation. This requires prioritizing rural roads on a rational basis. This paper seeks to examine this issue.

A two‐stage AHP model is developed considering several socio‐economic criteria relevant to a road and the region through which it passes. The model is exercised in a group‐decision environment. The final scores indicate a list of roads in decreasing order of priority.

The framework, when applied to 178 rural roads in two districts of Orissa, a relatively backward state of India, yields a ranked‐order list of roads.

Experts' judgments during pair‐wise comparison are associated with imprecision. Fuzzy AHP is a distinct alternative. Possible dependency among criteria has been ignored. Use of Analytic Network Process (ANP) can overcome problems arising from such dependencies.

Funds that are limited can be allotted to the highly ranked roads.

The paper presents application of AHP for ranking of rural roads in a developing country; development of a generic road prioritization framework; and devising a group decision‐making procedure that combines the best features of the group consensus and geometric mean methods.