Advanced Fuzzy Sets and Multicriteria Decision Making on Product Development

  • Cengiz KahramanEmail author
  • Fatma Kutlu Gündoğdu
  • Ali Karaşan
  • Eda Boltürk
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 279)


Product design is typically a critical component in the early stages of a product development process. Product development has received much attention over the last decade. Classical multi criteria decision making methods are used in product design and development in the literature. Fuzzy sets approaches have a significant place among these works. Intuitionistic fuzzy, hesitant fuzzy, and type-2 fuzzy Quality Function Deployment (QFD) have been already developed in the literature. In this chapter, we employ the very recent extension of ordinary fuzzy sets, spherical fuzzy sets, in the house of quality development. For the comparison of competitive firms, spherical fuzzy TOPSIS (SF-TOPSIS) has been used. An illustrative application has also been given.


  1. 1.
    Aikhuele, D.: Systematic model for lean product development implementation in an automotive related company. Manag. Sci. Lett. 7(7), 337–350 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aikhuele, D.O., Turan, F.M.: A hybrid fuzzy model for lean product development peformance measurement. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 114, no. 1, p. 012048. IOP Publishing (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atanassov, K.: Geometrical interpretation of the elements of the intuitionistic fuzzy objects, Preprint IM-MFAIS (1989) 1–89, Sofia. Reprinted: Int. J. Bioautomation 20(S1):27–42Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atanassov, K.T.: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 20(1), 87–96 (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ayag, Z.: An integrated approach to evaluating conceptual design alternatives in a new product development environment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 43(4), 687–713 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ayağ, Z.: An integrated approach to concept evaluation in a new product development. J. Intell. Manuf. 27(5), 991–1005 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouzon, M., Govindan, K., Rodriguez, C.M.T.: Reducing the extraction of minerals: reverse logistics in the machinery manufacturing industry sector in brazil using ISM approach. Resour. Policy 46, 27–36 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Büyüközkan, G., Görener, A.: Evaluation of product development partners using an integrated AHP-VIKOR model. Kybernetes 44(2), 220–237 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Büyüközkan, G., Güleryüz, S.: A new integrated intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making approach for product development partner selection. Comput. Ind. Eng. 102, 383–395 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang, K.: Combined MCDM approaches for century-old taiwanese food firm new product development project selection. Br. Food J. 115(8), 1197–1210 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chatterjee, P., Athawale, V.M., Chakraborty, S.: Selection of materials using compromise ranking and outranking methods. Mater. Des. 30(10), 4043–4053 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chyu, C.C., Fang, Y.C.: A hybrid fuzzy analytic network process approach to the new product development selection problem. Math. Probl. Eng. (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ciucci, D.: Orthopairs and granular computing. Granul. Comput. 1(3), 159–170 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crawford, M., Di Benedetto, A.: New Products Management, 9th edn. McGraw-Hill International Edition, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dursun, M, Arslan, Ö.: A fuzzy MCDM approach to determine critical evaluation criteria in washing liquid material selection procedure. In: Paper Presented at the Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 2223, pp. 73–77Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Favi, C., Germani, M., Mandolini, M.: A multi-objective design approach to include material, manufacturing and assembly costs in the early design phase. Pap. Present. Procedia CIRP. 52, 251–256 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Favi, C., Germani, M., Mandolini, M.: Multi-objective conceptual design: an approach to make cost-efficient the design for manufacturing and assembly in the development of complex products (2017).
  18. 18.
    Garibaldi, J.M., Ozen, T.: Uncertain fuzzy reasoning: A case study in modelling expert decision making. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 15(1), 16–30 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grattan-Guinness, I.: Fuzzy membership mapped onto intervals and many-valued quantities. Zeitsehr Math. Logik und Grundlagen Math. 22, 149–160 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haines, S.: The Product Manager’s Desk Reference. McGraw-Hill International Edition, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hellebrandt, T., Heine, I., Schmitt, R.H.: Knowledge management framework for complaint knowledge transfer to product development. Pap. Present. Procedia Manuf. 21, 173–180 (2018)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Honkala, S., Hämäläinen, M., Salonen, M.: Comparison of four existing concept selection methods. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of ICED 2007. The 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, DS 42 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hundal, G.P.S., Kant, S.: Product design development by integrating QFD approach with heuristics-AHP, ANN and fuzzy logics-a case study in miniature circuit breaker. Int. J. Prod. Qual. Manag. 20(1), 1–28 (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jahn, K.U.: Intervall-wertige Mengen. Math. Nach. 68, 115–13 (1975)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jeng, D.J.F., Huang, K.: Strategic project portfolio selection for national research institutes. J. Bus. Res. 68(11), 2305–2311 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jou, G.T., Yuan, B.J.C.: The application of DEMATEL and ANP to technology roadmapping in an RandD institute: a case study of anti-static fiber. Taiwan Text. Res. J. 23(1), 1–19 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kang, X., Yang, M., Wu, Y., Ni, B.: Integrating evaluation grid method and fuzzy quality function deployment to new product development. Math. Probl. Eng. (2018)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kuan, M., Hsiang, C., Tzeng, G.: Probing the innovative quality system structure model for NPD process based on combining DANP with MCDM model. Int. J. Innov. Comput. Inf. Control. 8(8), 5745–5762 (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kutlu Gündoğdu, F., Kahraman, C.: Spherical fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 36(1), 337–352 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee, C.K.H.: A knowledge-based product development system in the chemical industry. J. Intell. Manuf. 30(3), 1371–1386 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lo, H., Liou, J.J.H.: A novel multiple-criteria decision-making-based FMEA model for risk assessment. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 73, 684–696 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oliveira, G.A., Tan, K.H., Guedes, B.T.: Lean and green approach: An evaluation tool for new product development focused on small and medium enterprises. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 205, 62–73 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Özdemir, R.G., Çiçek, B., Özenç, D.: Multi objective new product development in bakery production under fuzzy demand parameters. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 21(5), 303–316 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rosli, M.U., Ariffin, M.K.A., Sapuan, S.M., Sulaiman, S.: Integrated AHP-TRIZ innovation method for automotive door panel design. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 5(3), 3158–3167 (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sambuc, R.: Fonctions ɸ-floues. Application l’aide au diagnostic en pathologie thyroidienne. Univ, Marseille, France (1975)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sanyang, M.L., Mansor, M.R., Sapuan, S.M., Ahmed Ali, B.A.: Conceptual design of biocomposites for automotive components. Green Biocomposites 101–126 (2017)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smarandache, F.: Neutrosophic Logic and Set (1995)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smarandache, F.: Neutrosophy: neutrosophic probability, set, and logic: analytic synthesis and synthetic analysis (1998)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Soota, T.: Integrated approach to multi-criteria decision making for sustainable product development. Int. J. Qual. Research. 8(4), 543–555 (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tian, Z.P., Wang, J., Wang, J.Q., Zhang, H.Y.: Simplified neutrosophic linguistic multi-criteria group decision-making approach to green product development. Group Decis. Negot. 26(3), 597–627 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Torra, V.: Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25(6), 529–539 (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Turan, F.M., Johan, K., Nor, N.H.M.: Criteria assessment model for sustainable product development. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 160(1), 012004 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vinodh, S., Kamala, V., Shama, M.S.: Compromise ranking approach for sustainable concept selection in an indian modular switches manufacturing organization. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 64(9–12), 1709–1714 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang, C.C., Yang, C.H., Wang, C.S.: A modular and innovative concept design process in decision making for a new bike development. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering, CIE (2018)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wang, L., Hu, Y., Liu, H., Shi, H.: A linguistic risk prioritization approach for failure mode and effects analysis: a case study of medical product development. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. (2019). Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wang, X., Chan, H.K., Li, D.: A case study of an integrated fuzzy methodology for green product development. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 241(1), 212–223 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yager, R.R.: On the theory of bags. Int. J. Gen. System. 13(1), 23–37 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yager, R.R.: Pythagorean fuzzy subsets. In: Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS), Edmonton, AB, Canada, 24–28 June, pp. 57–61 (2013)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yousefi, N., Mehralian, G., Rasekh, H.R., Yousefi, M.: New product development in the pharmaceutical industry: evidence from a generic market. Iran. J. Pharm. Res. 16(2), 831–843 (2017)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control. 8(3), 338–353 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zadeh, L.A.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Inf. Sci. 8, 199–249 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cengiz Kahraman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fatma Kutlu Gündoğdu
    • 1
  • Ali Karaşan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eda Boltürk
    • 1
  1. 1.Industrial Engineering DepartmentIstanbul Technical UniversityBesiktas, IstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Graduate School of Science and EngineeringYildiz Technical UniversityDavutpasa, IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations