Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

User selection for collaboration in product development based on QFD and DEA approach

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

User collaboration has been recognized as a critical factor in successful product development. To select the proper users who have a higher satisfaction to meet product development requirements, this study proposes an integrated approach based on quality function deployment (QFD) and data envelopment analysis (DEA). The proposed approach considers product development requirements, the inner dependencies of user evaluation criteria, and the relationships between requirements and criteria simultaneously and presents them in house of quality (HoQ). For the fuzzy and imprecise information in HoQ, fuzzy weighted average method is employed to determine the weight of each user evaluation criterion. Furthermore, to determine the priorities of users with a large number efficiently, this study implements linguistic variables to assess the weight of each user under each criterion, the DEA method to determine the optimal values of linguistic variables, and the simple additive weighting approach to aggregate the weight of each criteria and the local score of each user with respect to each criterion. An illustrative case is presented to demonstrate the applications of the proposed approach based on QFD and DEA in this paper.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aghdam, M. M., Jelodar, M. J., & Mahdavi, I. (2015). Engineering design requirements ranking in QFD by fuzzy data envelopment analysis. Arth Prabandh: A Journal of Economics and Management, 4(3), 134–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azadi, M., & Saen, R. F. (2013). A combination of QFD and imprecise DEA with enhanced Russell graph measure: A case study in healthcare. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 47(4), 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilgram, V., Brem, A., & Voigt, K.-I. (2008). User-centric innovations in new product development—Systematic identification of lead users harnessing interactive and collaborative online-tools. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(03), 419–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchereau, V., & Rowlands, H. (2000). Methods and techniques to help quality function deployment (QFD). Benchmarking: An International Journal, 7(1), 8–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cariaga, I., El-Diraby, T., & Osman, H. (2007). Integrating value analysis and quality function deployment for evaluating design alternatives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(10), 761–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L. H., & Ko, W. C. (2009). Fuzzy linear programming models for new product design using QFD with FMEA. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 33(2), 633–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L. H., & Weng, M. C. (2006). An evaluation approach to engineering design in QFD processes using fuzzy goal programming models. European Journal of Operational Research, 172(1), 230–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djelassi, S., & Decoopman, I. (2013). Customers’ participation in product development through crowdsourcing: Issues and implications. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 683–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dursun, M., & Karsak, E. E. (2013). A QFD-based fuzzy MCDM approach for supplier selection. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(8), 5864–5875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilat, H., Golany, B., & Shtub, A. (2008). R&D project evaluation: An integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach. Omega, 36(5), 895–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faems, D., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 238–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, N., & Shah, S. (2003). How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy, 32(1), 157–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, N., Von Hippel, E., & Schreier, M. (2006). Finding commercially attractive user innovations: A test of lead-user theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(4), 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gok, A. (2015). A new approach to minimization of the surface roughness and cutting force via fuzzy TOPSIS, multi-objective grey design and RSA. Measurement, 70, 100–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer, C. R., & Lei, D. (2012). Collaborative innovation with customers: A review of the literature and suggestions for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(1), 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadi-Vencheh, A., & Mohamadghasemi, A. (2011). A fuzzy AHP–DEA approach for multiple criteria ABC inventory classification. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4), 3346–3352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeppesen, L. B., & Frederiksen, L. (2006). Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? The case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organization Science, 17(1), 45–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeppesen, L. B., & Molin, M. J. (2003). Consumers as co-developers: Learning and innovation outside the firm. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(3), 363–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karsak, E. E. (2008). Using data envelopment analysis for evaluating flexible manufacturing systems in the presence of imprecise data. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 35(9–10), 867–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karsak, E. E., & Dursun, M. (2014). An integrated supplier selection methodology incorporating QFD and DEA with imprecise data. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(16), 6995–7004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karsak, E. E., & Dursun, M. (2015). An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach for supplier evaluation and selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 82, 82–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffmann, P., Unal, R., Fernandez, A., & Keating, C. (2000). A model for allocating resources to research programs by evaluating technical importance and research productivity. Engineering Management Journal, 12(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kausch, C. (2007). A risk-benefit perspective on early customer integration. Contributions to management science (pp. 1–218). Springer.

  • Kilincci, O., & Onal, S. A. (2011). Fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a washing machine company. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9656–9664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüthje, C. (2004). Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods field: An empirical study of sport-related product consumers. Technovation, 24(9), 683–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüthje, C., & Herstatt, C. (2004). The Lead User method: An outline of empirical findings and issues for future research. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 34(5), 553–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C., & Von Hippel, E. (2005). User-innovators and "local" information: The case of mountain biking. Research Policy, 34(6), 951–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. L., Tang, J. F., & Luo, X. G. (2010). An ECI-based methodology for determining the final importance ratings of customer requirements in MP product improvement. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(9), 6240–6250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M.-J. J., & Huang, C.-H. (2012). The impact of customer participation on NPD performance: The mediating role of inter-organisation relationship. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, F.-H. F., & Hai, H. L. (2005). The voting analytic hierarchy process method for selecting supplier. International Journal of Production Economics, 97(3), 308–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S.-T. (2005). Rating design requirements in fuzzy quality function deployment via a mathematical programming approach. International Journal of Production Research, 43(3), 497–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrjerdi, Y. Z., Owlia, M., & Dorodzani, A. T. (2012). Evaluation and ranking the relative importance of design requirements by combining QFD and DEA techniques (case study: Tile industry of Iran). International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 23(2), 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom?: An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32(8), 1481–1499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieto, M. J., & Santamaría, L. (2007). The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation, 27(6), 367–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noguchi, H., Ogawa, M., & Ishii, H. (2002). The appropriate total ranking method using DEA for multiple categorized purposes. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 146(1), 155–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E. L., & Bakke, G. (2001). Implementing the lead user method in a high technology firm: A longitudinal study of intentions versus actions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(6), 388–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramanathan, R., & Yunfeng, J. (2009). Incorporating cost and environmental factors in quality function deployment using data envelopment analysis. Omega, 37(3), 711–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaarschmidt, M., & Kilian, T. (2014). Impediments to customer integration into the innovation process: A case study in the telecommunications industry. European Management Journal, 32(2), 350–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreier, M., Oberhauser, S., & Prügl, R. (2007). Lead users and the adoption and diffusion of new products: Insights from two extreme sports communities. Marketing Letters, 18(1–2), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreier, M., & Prügl, R. (2008). Extending lead-user theory: Antecedents and consequences of consumers’ lead userness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(4), 331–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanmugam, R., & Johnson, C. (2007). At a crossroad of data envelopment and principal component analyses. Omega, 35(4), 351–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, L. J., Yang, Y., Zhang, X. D., & Yang, J. (2007). Preference-based algorithm for collaborative design partners evaluation & selection. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13(10), 2053–2059.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. H., & Wu, H. S. (2016). A novel framework to evaluate programmable logic controllers: A Fuzzy MCDM perspective. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 27(2), 315–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, W.-L., Yang, Y., & Wang, M.-K. (2007). RS and SVM- based partner selection research for customer collaborative innovation. Jisuanji Gongcheng yu Yingyong(Computer Engineering and Applications), 42(29), 245–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y.-M., & Chin, K.-S. (2011). Technical importance ratings in fuzzy QFD by integrating fuzzy normalization and fuzzy weighted average. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 62(11), 4207–4221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Chin, K., & Yang, J. (2007). Three new models for preference voting and aggregation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(10), 1389–1393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. M., Liu, J., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2008). An integrated AHP–DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 54(3), 513–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J., Yang, Y., Wang, W., Zhao, X., & Song, L. (2008). Evaluation of collaborative innovative customer based on PWNN model and its application. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 14(5), 882–890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Information Sciences, 8(3), 199–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by The Key Project of Academic Humanities and Social Science of Anhui Education Department (SK2017A0120), and The Scientific Research Starting Foundation of Anhui Polytechnic University for Talent Introduction (2016YQQ008). The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, School of Management Engineering, AnHui Polytechnic University, Wuhu, AnHui, China

    Xuefeng Zhang

Authors
  1. Xuefeng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xuefeng Zhang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, X. User selection for collaboration in product development based on QFD and DEA approach. J Intell Manuf 30, 2231–2243 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-017-1386-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-017-1386-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation