Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 1221–1245 | Cite as

Robust DEA methodology via computer model for conceptual design under uncertainty

  • Angus JeangEmail author


This paper presents an integrated approach for an alternative exploration and selection of product development via computer aided engineering under uncertainty. For the proposed approach, a set of possible alternatives (decision making units, DMUs) are generated by designers during product development. The computer models are introduced to convert the design values of the controllable variables of DMUs into the multiple responses of interest; these are categorized into inputs and outputs. These inputs and outputs are randomized values under uncertain environments. Because of incompatible dimensions in terms of input and output values, they are further normalized prior to data envelopment analysis (DEA). Subsequently, the randomized and normalized inputs and outputs are used for DEA analysis. The first DMU ranking, chosen on the basis of the DEA analysis, is considered to be the best DMU of all available DMUs under the impact of uncertainty. Two examples: a bike frame design and an electronic circuit design are introduced to demonstrate the proposed approach. The computer models, where ANSY represents an example of the former and WEBENCH represents an example of the latter, are adopted as conversion processes during DEA analysis.


Product development DEA Uncertainty Computer model Mechanical frame design Electronic circuit design ANSYS WEBENCH 


  1. ANSYS Manual, Element User’s Guide. (1997). Canonsburg, PA: Swanson Analysis System.Google Scholar
  2. Azadeh, A., Nazari, T., & Charkhand, H. (2015). Optimisation of facility layout design problem with safety and environmental factors by stochastic DEA and simulation approach. International Journal of Production Research, 53(11), 3370–3389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banker, R. D. (1984). Estimating most productive scale size using data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operation Research, 17(1), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banxia Software. (2013). Banxia Software Ltd, P.O. Box 134, Kendal, LA9 4XF, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Bilsel, R. U., & Ravindran, A. (2011). A multiobjective chance constrained programming model for supplier selection under uncertainty. Transportation Research, Part B: Methodological, 45(8), 1284–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowlin, W. F., Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Sherman, H. D. (1985). Data envelopment and regression approaches to efficiency estimation and evaluation. Annals of Operational Research, 2, 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruni, M., Conforti, D., Beraldi, P., & Tundis, E. (2009). Probabilistically constrained models for efficiency and dominance in DEA. International Journal of Production Economics, 117, 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. L. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cubbin, J. S., & Zamani, H. (1996). A comparison of performance indicators for training and enterprise councils in the UK. Annals of Public and Co-operative Economics, 67, 603–632.Google Scholar
  11. Cubbin, J., & Tzanidakis, G. (1998). Regression versus data envelopment analysis for efficiency measurement: An application to the England and Wales regulated water industry. Utilities Policy, 7, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Del Prete, A., Mazzotta, D., & Anglani, A. (2010). Design optimization application in accordance with product and process requirements. Advances in Engineering Software, 41, 427–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emrouznejad, A., Parker, B. R., & Tavares, G. (2008). Evaluation of research in efficiency and productivity: A survey and analysis of the first 30 years of scholarly literature in DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 42, 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeang, A., & Liang, F. (2012). An innovation funnel process for set-based conceptual design via DOE exploration, DEA selection and computer simulation. International Journal of Production Research, 50(23), 6792–6810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jeang, A., Liang, F., & Chung, C. P. (2008). Robust product development for multiple quality characteristics using computer experiments and an optimization technique. International Journal of Production Research, 46(12), 3415–3439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jyh-Cheng, Y., Krizan, S., & Ishii, K. (1993). Computer-aided design for manufacturing process selection. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 4(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kabak, Ö., & Ülengin, F. (2011). Possibilistic linear-programming approach forsupplychain networking decisions. European Journal of Operational Research, 209(3), 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu, C., Ramirez-Serrano, A., & Yin, G. (2011). Customer-driven product design and evaluation method for collaborative design environments. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 22(5), 751–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li, L., & Zabinsky, Z. B. (2011). Incorporating uncertainty into a supplier selectionproblem. International Journal of Production Economics, 134, 344–356.Google Scholar
  20. Montgomery, D. C. (2009). Design and analysis of experiments. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Neamen, D. A. (2009). Microelectronics circuit analysis and design (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Science Engineering.Google Scholar
  22. Olesen, O. B., & Petersen, N. C. (2016). Stochastic data envelopment analysis—A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 251, 2–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ostrosi, E., Fougères, A.-J., Ferney, M., & Klein, D. (2012). A fuzzy configuration multi-agent approach for product family modelling in conceptual design. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(6), 2565–2586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Phadke, M. S. (1989). Quality engineering using robust design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Qin, R., & Liu, Y.-K. (2010). Modeling data envelopment analysis by chance method in hybrid uncertain environments. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 80, 922–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmidt, P. (1986). Frontier production functions. Econometric Reviews, 4(2), 289–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simar, L., & Wilson, P. (1999). Of course we can bootstrap DEA scores! But doesit mean anything? Logic trumps wishful thinking. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 11, 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sobek, D. K., Ward, A. C., & Liker, J. K. (1999). Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Management Review, Winter, 40(2), 67–83.Google Scholar
  29. Syan, C. S., & Menon, U. (1994). Concurrent engineering—Concepts, implementation and practice. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Tabucanon, M. T. (1988). Multiple criteria decision making in industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.Google Scholar
  31. Thanassoulis, E. (1993). A comparison of regression analysis and data envelopment analysis as alternative methods for performance assessments. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44, 1129–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2008). Product design and development. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.Google Scholar
  33. WEBENCH, Texas Instruments. 2012.
  34. Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. Annual Meeting of AAAS, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  35. Zhang, X., & Zhang, L. (2011). Supplier selection and purchase problem with fixed cost and constrained order quantities under stochastic demand. International Journal of Production Economics, 129(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering and Systems ManagementFeng Chia UniversityTaichungTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations