Paired Comparison Analysis Technique

Based on these figures, the choir theme is the advertising idea seen as most likely to deliver on the market-share goal for the client s new product. Be careful though—the Paired Comparison Analysis technique is used for determining which alternative is best based on only one criterion the operational definition. 

The next task is to prioritize and select a design by filtering through a number of design concepts to the point where just one is pursued for further development. Two techniques are very helpful in this regard Paired Comparison Analysis and Pugh Matrix. You can also use both of these techniques... 

Use Paired Comparison Analysis when you need to compare either more upstream innovation ideas or more downstream design concepts. This technique is especially helpful when you don t have objective data regarding how different ideas could meet your customers outcome expectations (see Technique 2), or when you re uncertain about how different design concepts could meet customer performance and perception expectations (see Technique 30). 

Part of this technique s advantage is that it s easier to use than such other comparative techniques as the Pugh Matrix (Technique 36). Therefore, Paired Comparison Analysis enables you to quickly but comprehensively assess the relative worth of all your options before committing to any specific one. 

Classically, completing a Paired Comparison Analysis calls for the use of brainstorming techniques to come up with great alternatives. We recommend using any or all of the ideation techniques in this book to move significantly beyond classic brainstorming. If simple brainstorming were sufficient, more teams would come up with more innovations more often than not. But this is not the case. 

If the product cannot be disassembled and reassembled, the technique to use is paired comparisons. The concept is to select pairs of good and bad units and compare them, using whatever visual, mechanical, electrical, chemical, etc., comparisons are possible, recording whatever differences are noticed. Do this for several pairs, continuing until a pattern of differences becomes evident. In many cases, a half-dozen paired comparisons is enough to detect repeatable differences. The units chosen for this test should be selected at random to establish statistical confidence in the results. If the number of differences detected is more than four, then use of variables search is indicated. For four or fewer, a full factorial analysis can be done. 

There are four main types of data that frequently occur in sensory analysis pair-wise differences, attribute profiling, time-intensity recordings and preference data. We will discuss in what situations such data arise and how they can be analyzed. Especially the analysis of profiling data and the comparison of such data with chemical information calls for a multivariate approach. Here, we can apply some of the techniques treated before, particularly those of Chapters 35 and 36. 

An alternative approach for MOCA analysis by HPLC, also involving reverse phase chromatography on a yBondapak Cis column, utilizes the paired ion technique. Paired ion chromatographic (PIC) analysis is effective for the determination of compounds which may exist as ionic species in the polar mobile phase. A counter ion, such as an alkyl sulfonate for cations or tetrabutylammonium phosphate for anions, is added to the mobile phase at a concentration of approximately 0.005 M. This technique generally affords Improved efficiencies in comparison to ion exchange chromatography. For the analysis of MOCA by PIC, the following conditions apply ... 

When the paired departments use fundamentally different methods of analysis, as is possible with serum enzyme determinations, for instance, the comparisons may be of only limited value. However, many laboratories now use AutoAnalyzer techniques for 60-80% of their total work, and a start on regular interlaboratory comparisons of these methods should be worthwhile and involve relatively little additional effort. Although the AutoAnalyzer methods used in the different laboratories might themselves show some differences in detail, the information provided by these comparisons should serve to detect in one laboratory the development of some systematic error in the routine performance of a method at an earlier stage than if the laboratory had itself been solely responsible for its assessment of results of quality control programs. 

Zaporozhan J, Ley S, Eberhardt R et al. (2005) Paired inspira-tory/expiratory volumetric thin-slice CT scan for emphysema analysis comparison of different qimntitative evaluations and pulmonary function test. Chest 128 3212-3220 Zaporozhan J, Ley S, Weinheimer O etal. (2006) Multi-detector CT of the chest influence of dose onto quantitative evaluation of severe emphysema a simulation study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30 460-468 Zhang J, Hasegawa I, Feller-Kopman D, Boiselle PM (2003) 2003 AUR Memorial Award. Dynamic expiratory volumetric CT imaging of the central airways comparison of standard-dose and low-dose techniques. Acad Radiol 10 719-724... 

---