nach oben

Research in Engineering Design

Erschienen in:

01.04.2015 | Original Paper

Customer requirement prioritization on QFD: a new proposal based on the generalized Yager’s algorithm

verfasst von: Fiorenzo Franceschini, Domenico Maisano, Luca Mastrogiacomo

Erschienen in: Research in Engineering Design | Ausgabe 2/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The focus of this paper is on the prioritization of customer requirements (CRs) in the quality function deployment (QFD) process. There are numerous techniques for this task, which are based on different types of judgements (e.g., in the form of preference orderings, relative importance ratings, paired comparisons), generally collected by questionnaires/interviews. Unfortunately, many of these techniques violate some properties of the scales on which judgements are defined and/or are not flexible and user-friendly for respondents. This paper introduces a prioritization technique based on a recent algorithm—denominated as generalized Yager’s algorithm—aimed at fusing the preference orderings by multiple respondents into a single ordering. This technique can be applied even when (1) some CRs are tied or omitted in the individual preference orderings, and (2) respondents have a hierarchical importance ranking. Also, the procedure is automatable and relatively robust and provides a solution which is consistent with the preference orderings. The description is supported by a realistic application example, concerning the prioritization of QFD’s CRs in the design of an aircraft seat.

Vorheriger Artikel Synergistic human-agent methods for deriving effective search strategies: the case of nanoscale design

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

In general, it is recommended to use neither too small nor too large values of x: for low values, the fused ordering may not well reflect the preference orderings, while for large ones, the respondents’ importance hierarchy may be overlooked. This is the reason why x is conventionally set to 50 %; for details see (Franceschini et al. 2015).

By a decision-making agent we can consider any of a wide variety of different types of entities. Examples could be human beings, individual criteria in a multi-criteria decision process or software based intelligent agents on the Internet.

Burke E, Kloeber JM Jr, Deckro RF (2002) Using and abusing QFD scores. Qual Eng 15(1):9–21CrossRef

Buyukozkan G, Ertay T, Kahraman C, Ruan D (2004) Determining the importance weights for the design requirements in the house of quality using the fuzzy analytic network approach. Int J Intell Syst 19(5):443–461CrossRef

Buyukozkan G, Feyzioglu O, Ruan D (2007) Fuzzy group decision-making to multiple preference formats in quality function deployment. Comput Ind 58(5):392–402CrossRef

Chan LK, Wua ML (2002) Quality function deployment: a comprehensive review of its concepts and methods. Qual Eng 15(1):23–35CrossRef

Chaudha A, Jain R, Singh AR, Mishra PK (2011) Integration of Kano’s model into quality function deployment (QFD). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 53(5–8):689–698CrossRef

Chen LH, Chen CN (2014) Normalisation models for prioritising design requirements for quality function deployment processes. Int J Prod Res 52(2):299–313CrossRef

Chen CW, Huang ST (2011) Implementing KM programmes using fuzzy QFD. Total Qual Manag 22(4):387–406CrossRef

Chuang PT (2001) Combining the analytic hierarchy process and quality function deployment for a location decision from a requirement perspective. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 18(11):842–849CrossRef

Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York

Franceschini F (2002) Advanced quality function deployment. CRC Press, Boca Raton

Franceschini F, Rossetto S (2002) QFD: an interactive algorithm for the prioritization of product’s technical design characteristics. Integr Manuf Syst 13(1):69–75CrossRef

Franceschini F, Galetto M, Maisano D (2007) Management by measurement: designing key indicators and performance measurement systems. Springer, Berlin

Franceschini F, Maisano D, Mastrogiacomo L (2015) A new proposal for fusing individual preference orderings by rank-ordered agents: a generalization of the Yager’s algorithm. Eur J Oper Res (forthcoming)

Gonzalez ME, Quesada G, Bahill AT (2003) Improving product design using quality function deployment: the school furniture case in developing countries. Qual Eng 16(1):47–58CrossRef

Griffin A, Hauser JR (1993) The voice of customer. Mark Sci 12(1):1–27CrossRef

Hauser JR, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Bus Rev 66(3):63–73

Iqbal Z, Grigg NP, Govinderaju K, Campbell-Allen N (2014) Statistical comparison of final weight scores in quality function deployment (QFD) studies. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 31(2):184–204CrossRef

Jiao JR, Chen CH (2006) Customer requirement management in product development: a review of research issues. Concur Eng 14(3):173–185CrossRef

Karsak EE, Sozer S, Alptekin SE (2002) Product planning in quality function deployment using a combined analytic network process and goal programming approach. Comput Ind Eng 44:171–190CrossRef

Kwong CK, Bai H (2002) A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment. J Intell Manuf 13(5):367–377CrossRef

Kwong CK, Ye Y, Chen Y, Choy KL (2011) A novel fuzzy group decision-making approach to prioritising engineering characteristics in QFD under uncertainties. Int J Prod Res 49(19):5801–5820CrossRef

Lee YT, Wu WW, Tzeng GH (2008) An effective decision-making method using a combined QFD and ANP approach. WSEAS Trans Bus Econ 12(5):541–551

Li Y, Tang J, Luo X, Xu J (2009) An integrated method of rough set, Kano’s model and AHP for rating customer requirements’ final importance. Expert Syst Appl 36(3):7045–7053CrossRef

Matzler K, Hinterhuber HH (1998) How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano’s model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment. Technovation 18(1):25–38CrossRef

Nahm YE, Ishikawa H, Inoue M (2013) New rating methods to prioritize customer requirements in QFD with incomplete customer preferences. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 65(9–12):1587–1604CrossRef

Nederpelt R, Kamareddine F (2004) Logical reasoning: a first course. King’s College Publications, London

Roberts FS (1979) Measurement theory, encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications, vol 7. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Massachusetts

Shahin A, Zairi M (2009) Kano model: a dynamic approach for classifying and prioritising requirements of airline travellers with three case studies on international airlines. Total Qual Manag 20(9):1003–1028CrossRef

Sharma JR, Rawani AM, Barahate M (2008) Quality function deployment: a comprehensive literature review. Int J Data Anal Tech Strateg 1(1):78–103CrossRef

Sireli Y, Kauffmann P, Ozan E (2007) Integration of Kano’s model into QFD for multiple product design. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 54(2):380–390CrossRef

Song W, Ming X, Han Y (2014) Prioritising technical attributes in QFD under vague environment: a rough-grey relational analysis approach. Int J Prod Res. doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.917213

Tan KC, Shen XX (2000) Integrating Kano’s model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment. Total Qual Manag 11(8):1141–1151CrossRef

Tran TL, Sherif JS (1995) Quality function deployment (QFD): an effective technique for requirements acquisition and reuse. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE software engineering standards symposium. Montreal, Canada, pp 191–200

Wang YM (2012) A fuzzy-normalisation-based group decision-making approach for prioritising engineering design requirements in QFD under uncertainty. Int J Prod Res 50(23):6963–6977CrossRef

Yager RR (2001) Fusion of multi-agent preference orderings. Fuzzy Sets Syst 117(1):1–12CrossRefMATHMathSciNet

Yan HB, Ma T, Li Y (2013) A novel fuzzy linguistic model for prioritising engineering design requirements in quality function deployment under uncertainties. Int J Prod Res 51(21):6336–6355CrossRef

Zhong S, Zhou J, Chen Y (2014) Determination of target values of engineering characteristics in QFD using a fuzzy chance-constrained modelling approach. Neurocomputing 142:125–135CrossRef

Titel: Customer requirement prioritization on QFD: a new proposal based on the generalized Yager’s algorithm
verfasst von: Fiorenzo Franceschini
Domenico Maisano
Luca Mastrogiacomo
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2015
Verlag: Springer London
Erschienen in: Research in Engineering Design / Ausgabe 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0934-9839
Elektronische ISSN: 1435-6066
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-015-0191-2

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht