Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fusing incomplete preference rankings in design for manufacturing applications through the ZM II -technique

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

Abstract

The authors recently presented a technique (denominated “ZM”) to fuse multiple (subjective) preference rankings of some objects of interest—in manufacturing applications—into a common unidimensional ratio scale Franceschini and Maisano J Intell Manuf, 2019. Although this technique can be applied to a variety of decision-making problems in the manufacturing field, it is limited by a response mode requiring the formulation of complete preference rankings, i.e., rankings that include all objects. Unfortunately, this model is unsuitable for some practical contexts—such as decision-making problems characterized by a relatively large number of objects and field surveys—where respondents can barely identify the more/less preferred objects, without realistically being able to construct complete preference rankings. The purpose of this paper is to develop a new technique (denominated “ZMII”) which also “tolerates” incomplete preference rankings, e.g., rankings with the more/less preferred objects only. This technique borrows the underlying postulates from the Thurstone’s Law of Comparative Judgment and uses the Generalized Least Squares method to obtain a ratio scaling of the objects of interest, with a relevant uncertainty estimation. Preliminary results show the effectiveness of the new technique even for relatively incomplete preference rankings. Description is supported by an application example concerning the design of a coach-bus seat.

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. Franceschini F, Maisano D (2019) Adapting Thurstone’s Law of Comparative Judgment to fuse preference orderings in manufacturing applications. J Intell Manuf. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-018-1452-5

  2. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Coaley K (2014) An introduction to psychological assessment and psychometrics, 2nd edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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):1587–1604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lin CJ, Cheng LY (2017) Product attributes and user experience design: how to convey product information through user-centered service. J Intell Manuf 28(7):1743–1754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zheng P, Xu X, Xie SQ (2019) A weighted interval rough number based method to determine relative importance ratings of customer requirements in QFD product planning. J Intell Manuf 30:459–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-016-1224-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Çakır S (2018) An integrated approach to machine selection problem using fuzzy SMART-fuzzy weighted axiomatic design. J Intell Manuf 29(7):1433–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hosseini S, Al Khaled A (2016) A hybrid ensemble and AHP approach for resilient supplier selection. J Intell Manuf 30:207–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-016-1241-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang GX, Huang SH, Yan Y, Du JJ (2017) Reconfiguration schemes evaluation based on preference ranking of key characteristics of reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 89(5-8):2231–2249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. DeVellis RF (2016) Scale development: theory and applications, 4th edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  11. Franceschini F, Galetto M, Maisano D (2019) Designing performance measurement systems: theory and practice of key performance indicators. Springer Nature, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Harzing AW, Baldueza J, Barner-Rasmussen W, Barzantny C, Canabal A, Davila A, Espejo A, Ferreira R, Giroud A, Koester K, Liang YK, Mockaitis A, Morley MJ, Myloni B, Odusanya JOT, O’Sullivan SL, Palaniappan AK, Prochno P, Roy Choudhury S, Saka-Helmhout A, Siengthai S, Viswat L, Uzuncarsili Soydas A, Zander L (2009) Rating versus ranking: What is the best way to reduce response and language bias in cross-national research? Int Bus Rev 18(4):417–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Edwards AL (1957) Techniques of attitude scale construction. Irvington Publishers, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Vanacore A, Marmor YN, Bashkansky E (2019) Some metrological aspects of preferences expressed by prioritization of alternatives. Measurement 135:520–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Thurstone LL (1927) A law of comparative judgments. Psychol Rev 34(4):273–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Roberts FS (1979) Measurement theory: with applications to decision-making, utility, and the social sciences, Encyclopaedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 7. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nederpelt R, Kamareddine F (2004) Logical Reasoning: A First Course. King’s College Publications, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Lagerspetz E (2016) Social choice and democratic values. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Montag ED (2006) Empirical formula for creating error bars for the method of paired comparison. J Electron Imaging 15(1):010502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Alvo M, Cabilio P (1991) On the balanced incomplete block design for rankings. Ann Stat 19:1597–1613

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. González-Pachón J, Romero C (2001) Aggregation of partial ordinal rankings: an interval goal programming approach. Comput Oper Res 28(8):827–834

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Gulliksen H, Tucker LR (1961) A general procedure for obtaining paired comparisons from multiple rank orders. Psychometrika 26(2):173–183

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Kendall (1963) Rank correlation methods. Griffin & C, London

    Google Scholar 

  24. Vincke P (1982) Aggregation of preferences: a review. Eur J Oper Res 9(1):17–22

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Kariya T, Kurata H (2004) Generalized least squares. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Kowalska M, Pazdzior M, Krzton-Maziopa A (2018) Implementation of QFD method in quality analysis of confectionery products. J Intell Manuf 29(2):439–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Franceschini F, Maisano D (2015) Prioritization of QFD customer requirements based on the law of comparative judgments. Qual Eng 27(4):437–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Franceschini F, Maisano D, Mastrogiacomo L (2015) Customer requirement prioritization on QFD: a new proposal based on the generalized Yager’s algorithm. Res Eng Des 26(2):171–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gulliksen H (1956) A least squares solution for paired comparisons with incomplete data. Psychometrika 21:125–134

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Paruolo P, Saisana M, Saltelli A (2013) Ratings and rankings: voodoo or science? J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc 176(3):609–634

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Ross SM (2014) Introduction to probability and statistics for engineers and scientists. Academic Press, Amsterdam

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Lenartowicz T, Roth K (2001) Does subculture within a country matter? A cross-cultural study of motivational domains and business performance in Brazil. J Int Bus Stud 32(2):305–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fahandar MA, Hüllermeier E, Couso I (2017). Statistical inference for incomplete ranking data: the case of rank-dependent coarsening. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01158

  34. Arbuckle J, Nugent JH (1973) A general procedure for parameter estimation for the law of comparative judgement. Br J Math Stat Psychol 26(2):240–260

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. JCGM 100:2008 (2008) Evaluation of measurement data - guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. BIPM, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  36. Box GE, Hunter WG, Hunter JS (1978) Statistics for experimenters. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Aludaat KM, Alodat MT (2008) A note on approximating the normal distribution function. Appl Math Sci 2(9):425–429

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by the award “TESUN-83486178370409 finanziamento dipartimenti di eccellenza CAP. 1694 TIT. 232 ART. 6,” which was conferred by “Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DIGEP (Department of Management and Production Engineering), Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129, Torino, Italy

    Fiorenzo Franceschini & Domenico Maisano

Authors
  1. Fiorenzo Franceschini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Domenico Maisano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiorenzo Franceschini.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Franceschini, F., Maisano, D. Fusing incomplete preference rankings in design for manufacturing applications through the ZM II -technique . Int J Adv Manuf Technol 103, 3307–3322 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03675-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03675-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation