Abstract
Quality function deployment (QFD) is a multi-step method that monitors customer needs throughout a product development process. The House of Quality (HOQ) exercise undertaken in the first phase of QFD is considered as the most important, since customer needs must be accurately translated into a set of technical requirements for the final product. This paper provides a PROMETHEE group decision support system (GDSS) approach that integrates the design preferences of the QFD team. We highlight the selection and ranking of the technical requirements in the HOQ exercise, where a group of multidisciplinary decision makers (DMs) in a globally dispersed QFD team is required to input their individual preferences. Our approach advances the HOQ group decision making context in three important areas. First, it treats each criterion and DM as unique in terms of the preference function and threshold levels. Second, it seeks a multi-criteria approach for the HOQ process, where some DMs may play a more important role than others on a certain criterion. Third, sensitivity analysis through the Geometrical Analysis for Interactive Assistance (GAIA) plane provides valuable information about the conflicts, similarities, or independencies between the criterion and the DMs, respectively. A case on an automotive part illustrates the performance of the PROMOTHEE approach with GAIA.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armacost RL, Componation PJ, Mullens MA, Swart WW (1994) An AHP framework for prioritizing customer requirements in QFD: an industrialized housing application. IIE Trans 26(4): 72–79
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
Bai H, Kwong K (2003) Inexact genetic algorithm approach to target values setting of engineering requirements in QFD. Int J Prod Res 41(16): 3861–3881
Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on applications and methodologies. Eur J Oper Res 200: 198–215
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: 327–339
Brans JP (1982) Lingenierie de la decision. Elaboration dinstruments daide a la decision. Methode PROMETHEE. In: Nadeau R, LandryM(eds) Laide a la decision: nature, instrument s et perspectives davenir. Presses de Universite Laval, Quebec
Brans JP, Vincke P (1985) A preference ranking organization method: the PROMETHEE method for MCDM. Manag Sci 31: 641–656
Brans JP, Mareschal B (2005) PROMETHEE methods. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, Berlin
Buyukozkan G, Feyzioglu O (2005) Group decision-making to better respond to customer needs in software development. Comput Ind Eng 48(2): 427–441
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
Carlsson C, Walden P (1995) AHP in political group decision: a study in the art of possibilities. Interfaces 25(4): 14–29
Chan LK, Wu ML (2005) A systematic approach to quality function deployment with a full illustrative example. Omega 33: 119–139
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
Cohen L (1995) Quality function deployment: how to make it work for you. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Colson G (2000) The OR’s prize winner and the software ARGOS: how a multijudge and multicriteria ranking GDSS helps a jury to attribute a scientific award. Comput Oper Res 27: 741–755
Cristiano JJ, Liker JK, White CC (2000) Customer-driven product development through quality function deployment in the US and Japan. J Prod Innov Manag 17(4): 286–308
Dweiri FT, Kablan MM (2005) An integration of the analytic hierarchy process into the quality function deployment process. Int J Ind Eng Theory Appl Pract 12(2): 180–188
Fung RYK, Chen YZ, Chen L, Tang JF (2005) A fuzzy expected value-based goal programming model for product planning using quality function deployment. Eng Optim 37(6): 633–647
Haralambopoulos DA, Polatidis H (2003) Renewable energy projects: structuring a multicriteria group decision-making framework. Renew Energy 28: 961–973
Ho ESSA, Lai YJ, Chang SI (1999) An integrated group decision-making approach to quality function deployment. IIE Trans 31(6): 553–567
Hsiao SW (2002) Concurrent design method for developing a new product. Int J Ind Ergon 29: 41–55
Hsiao SW, Liu E (2005) A structural component-based approach for designing product family. Comput Ind 56: 13–28
Ignatius J, Motlagh SMH, Motlagh MM, Behzadian M, Mustafa A (2010) Hybrid models in decision making under uncertainty: the case of training provider evaluation. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 21: 147–162
Jariri F, Zegordi SH (2008) Quality function deployment planning for platform design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 36: 419–430
Kahraman C, Ertay T, Büyüközkan G (2006) A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using analytic network approach. Eur J Oper Res 171: 390–411
Karsak EE (2004) Fuzzy multiple objective decision-making approach to prioritize design requirements in quality function deployment. Int J Prod Res 42(18): 3957–3974
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
Kim KJ, Moskowitz H, Dhingra A, Evans G (2000) Fuzzy multicriteria models for quality function deployment. Eur J Oper Res 121(3): 504–518
Lai X, Xie M, Tan KC (2005) Dynamic programming for QFD optimization. Qual Reliab Eng Int 21(8): 769–780
Liu ST (2005) Rating design requirements in fuzzy quality function deployment via a mathematical programming approach. Int J Prod Res 43(3): 497–513
Macharis C, Brans JP, Mareschal B (1998) The GDSS PROMETHEE procedure—a PROMETHEE-GAIA based procedure for group decision support. J Decis Syst 7: 283–307
Mareschal B, Brans JP (1988) Geometrical representations for MCDA: the GAIA module. Eur J Oper Res 34(1): 69–77
Morais DC, De Almeida AT (2007) Group decision-making for leakage management strategy of water network, resources. Conserv Recycl 52(2): 441–459
Perez J (1995) Comments on Saaty’s AHP. Manag Sci 41(6): 1091–1095
Raharjo H, Xie M, Brombacher AC (2006) Prioritizing quality characteristics in dynamic quality function deployment. Int J Prod Res 44(23): 5005–5018
Raju KS, Duckstein L, Arondel C (2000) Multicriterion analysis for sustainable water resources planning: a case study in Spain. Water Resour Manag 14: 435–456
Reich Y, Levy E (2004) Managing product design quality under resource constraints. Int J Prod Res 42(13): 2555–2572
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
Temponi C, Yen J, Tiao WA (1999) House of quality: a fuzzy logic-based requirements analysis. Eur J Oper Res 117: 340–354
Tu YL, Fung RYK, Tang JF, Kam JJ (2003) Computer aided customer interface for rapid product development. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 21(10–11): 743–753
Xie M, Tan KC, Goh TN (2003) Advanced QFD application. ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee
Zakarian A, Kusiak A (1999) Forming teams: an analytical approach. IIE Trans 31: 85–97
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Behzadian, M., Hosseini-Motlagh, SM., Ignatius, J. et al. PROMETHEE Group Decision Support System and the House of Quality. Group Decis Negot 22, 189–205 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-011-9257-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-011-9257-3