Analytic Hierarchy Process for Prioritization of Design Requirements for Domestic Plumbing Services

  • Sachin Shivaji JadhavEmail author
  • Pratul Ch. Kalita
  • Amarendra Kumar Das
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


Sustainable trends of servitization have progressively increased over the last couple of decades. So developing product–service–system design is important for academic researchers and leading manufacturers. Design principles and customer needs typically cast the requirements at the early stages of design development. The prime objective of this study is to prioritize design requirements for domestic plumbing services. Design requirements of domestic plumbing are taken as an example to demonstrate the application of the analytic hierarchy process and rough group. We conducted in-depth interviews including exploratory surveys. We applied the analytic hierarchy process and rough group method to prioritize the design requirements and product–service components of plumbing. Altogether 34 design requirements were identified from previous studies and interactions with stakeholders for domestic plumbing. These design requirements are categorized into a hierarchical structure of product, service, and system. The results show that the most important product-related design requirements are efficiency and flexibility. Service-related design requirements are response/delivery and availability. System-related design requirements are skills and communication of plumber. The study provides a design management insight for PSS implementation in plumbing services in the domestic sector. This study includes ranking and prioritization of design requirements, which may help design managers and designers to make effective and efficient decisions on the design of product–service systems.


Product–service–system Analytic hierarchy process Rough group Design management Design methods Domestic plumbing 


  1. 1.
    Wiegers KE (1999) First things first: prioritizing requirements 1, no. September, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Song W (2017) Computers in industry requirement management for product-service systems: Status review and future trends. Comput Ind 85:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berkovich M, Esch S, Leimeister JM, Krcmar H (2009) Requirements engineering for hybrid products as bundles of hardware, software and service elements—a literature review product as bundles of hardware, software and service elements—a literature reviewGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Müller P, Schulz F, Stark R (2010) Guideline to elicit requirements on industrial product-service systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd CIRP IPS2 conference, pp 109–116Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berkovich M, Marco J, Hoffmann A, Krcmar H (2014) A requirements data model for product service systems, pp 161–186Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindström J (2015) Through-lifecycle aspects for functional products to consider during development and operation: a literature review. In: Redding L, Roy R (eds) Through-life engineering services: motivation, theory, and practice. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 187–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Priya Datta P, Roy R (2011) Operations strategy for the effective delivery of integrated industrial product-service offerings. Int J Oper Prod Manag 31(5):579–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Qu M, Yu S, Chen D, Chu J, Tian B (2016) State-of-the-art of design, evaluation, and operation methodologies in product service systems. Comput Ind 77(127):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mont O (2002) Clarifying the concept of product–service system. J Clean Prod 10(3):237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baines TS et al (2007) State-of-the-art in product-service systems. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 221(10):1543–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beuren FH, Gomes Ferreira MG, Cauchick Miguel PA (2013) Product-service systems: a literature review on integrated products and services. J Clean Prod 47:222–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prasad L, Kim Y (2018) An analysis on barriers to renewable energy development in the context of Nepal using AHP. Renew Energy 129:446–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saaty TL, The analytic network processGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang Q, Du PA, Wang Y, Liang B (2017) A rough set approach for determining weights of decision makers in group decision making. PLoS ONE 12(2):1–16Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Song W, Ming X, Han Y, Wu Z (2013) A rough set approach for evaluating vague customer requirement of industrial product-service system, 7543Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sachin Shivaji Jadhav
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pratul Ch. Kalita
    • 1
  • Amarendra Kumar Das
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of DesignIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations