Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fuzzy PROMETHEE GDSS for technical requirements ranking in HOQ

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper provides a fuzzy Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) in a Group Decision Support System (GDSS) approach to ranking the technical requirements for the house of quality (HOQ) process in multi-criteria product design. The problem under study involves incorporating the design alternatives of a group of designers located in different geographies who often provide vague and imprecise linguistic design information to the HOQ process. As such, the proposed fuzzy PROMETHEE GDSS allows the quality function deployment (QFD) team of designers to minimize any deviation arising from the individual designer preferences and to capture the ambiguity of the imprecise design information when expressing the importance of customer needs and to delineate the linkage between customer needs and the technical requirements. The approach advances the HOQ group decision-making context in two important aspects. First, it treats each criterion and decision maker (DM) as unique in terms of the preference function and threshold levels. Second, it facilitates a rapid communication among DMs for the HOQ process. A case of a design team for an ergonomic chair manufacturer serves to validate this approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Akao Y (1990) Quality function deployment. Integrating customer requirements into product design. Productivity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bae SM, Ha SH, Park SC (2005) A web-based system for analyzing the voices of call center customers in the service industry. Expert Syst Appl 28:29–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh R, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on applications and methodologies. Eur J Oper Res 200(1):198–215

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Behzadian M, Khanmohammadi Otaghsara S, Yazdani M, Ignatius J (2012) A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst Appl 39:13051–13069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Benner M,Linnemann AR, Jongen WMF, Folstar P (2003) Quality Function Deployment (QFD)—can it be used to develop food products? Food Qual Prefer 14(4):327–339

  6. Bisel RU, Buyukozkan G, Ruan D (2006) A fuzzy preference-ranking model for a quality evaluation of hospital websites. Int J Intell Syst 21(11):1181–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brans JP, Mareschal B (2005) PROMETHEE methods. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M, Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Science + Business Media, 163–196

  8. Brans JP, Mareschal B, Vincke P (1984) PROMETHEE: a new family of outranking methods in MCDM, IFORS 84, North Holland. Amsterdam, 477–490

  9. Buyukozkan G, Feyzioglu O (2005) Group decision making to better respond customer needs in software development. Comput Ind Eng 48(2):427–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chan LK, Wu ML (2005) A systematic approach to quality function deployment with a full illustrative example. Omega 33:119–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen Y, Chen L (2006) A non-linear possibilistic regression approach to model functional relationships in product planning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28:1175–1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Chou WC, Lin WT, Lin CY (2007) Application of fuzzy theory and PROMETHEE technique to evaluate suitable ecotechnology method: a case study in Shihmen Reservoir Watershed, Taiwan. Ecol Eng 31(4):269–280

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Christiano JJ, Liker JK, White CC III (2000) Customer-driven product development through quality function deployment in the US and Japan. J Prod Innov Manag 17(4):286–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen L (1995) Quality function deployment: inhow to make QFD work for you. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fernandez-Castro AS, Jimenez M (2005) PROMETHEE: an extension through fuzzy mathematical programming. J Oper Res Soc 56(1):119–122

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Fung RYK, Tang J, Tu PY, Chen Y (2003) Modelling of quality function deployment planning with resource allocation. Res Eng Des 14(4):247–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Geldermann J, Spengler T, Rentz O (2000) Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment. Case study: iron and steel making industry. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115(1):45–65

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Haralambopoulos DA, Polatidis H (2003) Renewable energy projects: structuring a multicriteria group decision-making framework. Renew Energy 28(6):961–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ho ESSA, Lai YJ, Chang SI (1999) An integrated group decision-making approach to quality function deployment. IIE Trans 31(6):553–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hsiao SW (2002) Concurrent design method for developing a new product. Int J Ind Ergon 29:41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hsiao SW, Liu E (2005) A structural component-based approach for designing product family. Comput Ind 56:13–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hwang C, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision-makings: methods and application. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Ignatius J, Motlagh SMH, Sepehri MM, Behzadian M, Mustafa A (2010) Hybrid models in decision making under uncertainty: the case of training provider evaluation. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 21(1):147–162

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Iranmanesh SE, Salimi MH (2003) An investigation of rank reversal when using fuzzy importance lrvrls in QFD analysis. Int J Reliab Qual Saf Eng 10(2):185–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kahraman C, Ertay T, Büyüközkan G (2006) A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using analytic network approach. Eur J Oper Res 171(2):390–411

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Karsak EE (2004) Fuzzy multiple objective decision making approach to prioritize design requirements in quality function deployment. Int J Prod Res 42(18):3957–3574

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Kazemzadeh RB, Behzadian M, Aghdasi M, Albadvi A (2009) Integration of marketing research techniques into house of quality and product family design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 41:1019–1033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim KJ, Moskowitz H, Dhingra A, Evans G (2000) Fuzzy multicriteria models for quality function deployment. Eur J Oper Res 121(3):504–518

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lai X, Xie M, Tan KC (2005) Dynamic programming for QFD optimization. Qual Reliab Eng Int 21(8):769–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Le Teno JF, Mareschal B (1998) An interval version of PROMETHEE for the comparison of building products’design with ill-defined data on environmental quality. Eur J Oper Res 109(2):522–529

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Leyya-Lopez JC, Fernandez-Gonzalez E (2003) A new method for group decision support based on ELECTRE III methodology. Eur J Oper Res 148(1):14–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Liu CH, Wu HH (2008) A fuzzy group decision-making approach in quality function deployment. Qual Quant 42(4):527–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Morais DC, De Almeida AT (2007) Group decision-making for leakage management strategy of water network. Resour Conserv Recycl 52(2):441–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mayyas A, Shen Q, Mayyas A, Abdelhamid M, Shan D, Qattawi A, Omar M (2011) Using quality function deployment and analytical hierarchy process for material selection of body-in-white. Mater Des, 2771–2782

  38. Raharjo H, Xie M, Brombacher AC (2006) Prioritizing quality characteristics in dynamic quality function deployment. Int J Prod Res 44(23):5005–5018

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Raju KS, Duckstein L, Arondel C (2000) Multicriterion analysis for sustainable water resources planning: a case study in Spain. Water Resour Manag 14(6):435–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Reich Y, Levy E (2004) Managing product design quality under resource constraints. Int J Prod Res 42(13):2555–2572

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Roychowdhury S, Pedrycz W (2001) A survey of defuzzification strategies. Int J Intell Syst 16(6):679–695

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Shen XX, Tan KC, Xie M (2000) An integrated approach to innovative product development using Kano_s model and QFD. Eur J Innov Manag 3(2):91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tuzkaya G, Gulsun B, Kahraman C, Ozgen D (2010) An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology for material equipment selection problem and an application. Expert Syst Appl 37(4):2853–2863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Vranegl S, Stanojevi M, Stevanovi V, Lui M (1996) INVEX: investment advisory expert system. Expert Syst 13(2):105–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wu HH, Liao AYH, Wang PC (2005) Using grey theory in quality function deployment to analyse dynamic customer requirements. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 25(11):1241–1247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Xie M, Tan KC, Goh TN (2003) Advanced QFD application. ASQ Quality Press, Milwaulee

    Google Scholar 

  47. Yan W, Khoo LP, Chen CH (2005) A QFD-enabled product conceptualisation approach via design knowledge hierarchy and RCE neural network. Knowl-Based Syst 18(6):279–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Seyyed Mahdi Hosseini Motlagh

  2. School of Industrial Engineering, Shomal University, Tehran, Iran

    Majid Behzadian

  3. School of Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

    Joshua Ignatius

  4. Decision Sciences Department, School of Business, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Mark Goh

  5. School of Business IT and Logistics, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, Australia

    Mark Goh

  6. Department of Industrial Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad Mehdi Sepehri

  7. Nottingham Business School,, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Tan Kim Hua

Authors
  1. Seyyed Mahdi Hosseini Motlagh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Majid Behzadian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joshua Ignatius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark Goh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mohammad Mehdi Sepehri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tan Kim Hua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua Ignatius.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hosseini Motlagh, S.M., Behzadian, M., Ignatius, J. et al. Fuzzy PROMETHEE GDSS for technical requirements ranking in HOQ. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 76, 1993–2002 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6233-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6233-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation