Advertisement

Product Attribute Function Deployment for Attribute Identification, Concept Selection, and Target Setting

Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we provide a systematic method for determining the attributes to appear in the customer utility functions such as those used in discrete choice analysis (DCA) and ordered logit (OL) modeling as introduced in Chap.3 for implementing the decision-based design (DBD) approach. The product attribute function deployment (PAFD) method overcomes the limitations of the qualitative matrix principles of popular design tools, such as quality function deployment (QFD), to map qualitative customer needs into quantitative engineering attributes by following the DBD principles. The PAFD is a process tool for implementation of DBD, for design concept selection and setting targets in conceptual design. A case study of the design of an automotive pressure sensor is provided to illustrate the method as well as demonstrate its advantages over the existing method.

Keywords

Design Concept Engineering Attribute Customer Preference Quality Function Deployment Discrete Choice Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Nomenclature

A

Customer-desired product attributes

β

MNL coefficient of customer’s utility function

C

Total product cost

CD

Material and manufacturing cost for a design option

CC

Capital cost for a design option

CF

Fixed overhead corporate costs

εin

Random disturbance of customer choice utility of alternative i by customer n

E

Engineering design attributes

ET

Target levels of engineering design attributes

EA

Engineering design attributes resulting from customer’s desired attributes

EC

Engineering design attributes resulting from corporate requirements

ER

Engineering design attributes resulting from regulatory requirements

EP

Engineering design attributes resulting from physical requirements

E(U)

Expected value of enterprise utility

Fe

Design features

J

Set of competitive alternatives

MAP

Manifold absolute pressure

MNL

Multinomial logit

Mf

Manufacturing process attributes

P

Product price

Q

Product demand

S

Customer demographic attributes

t

Time interval for which demand/market share is to be predicted

U

Enterprise utility, in units of utils

uin

True customer choice utility of alternative i by customer n

V

Selection criterion used by the enterprise (e.g., profit, market share, revenues, etc.)

Win

Observed part of the customer choice utility of alternative i by customer n

X

Design options/High-level options in conceptual design

Y

Exogenous variables (represent sources of uncertainty in the market)

References

  1. 1.
    Altshuller GS, Williams A (1984) Creativity as an exact science: the theory of the solution of inventive problems. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradley SR, Agogino AM (1994) Intelligent real time design methodology for component selection: An approach to managing uncertainty. J Mech Des 116(4):980–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen W, Jin R, Sudjianto A (2005) Analytical variance-based global sensitivity analysisglobal sensitivity analysis in simulation-based design under uncertainty. J Mech Des 127(5):875–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clausing D, Hauser J (1988) The house of quality. Harv Bus Rev 66(3):63–73Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gershenson JK, Stauffer LA (1999) A taxonomy for design requirements from corporate customers. Res Eng Des 11(2):103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg DE (2002) The design of innovation: Lessons from and for competent genetic algorithms. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hauptmann P (1993) Sensors: principles and applications. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hazelrigg GA (1996) The implications of arrow’s impossibility theorem on approaches to optimal engineering design. J Mech Des 118(2):161–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoyle C, Chen W (2009) Product attribute function deployment (PAFD) for decision-based conceptual design. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 56(2):271–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McAdams DA, Stone RB, Wood KL (1999) Functional interdependence and product similarity based on customer needs. Res Eng Des 11(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stone RB, Wood KL (2000) Development of a functional basis for design. J Mech Des 122(4):359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suh NP (1990) The principles of design. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tamhane AC, Dunlop DD (2000) Statistics and data analysis: From elementary to intermediate. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wei Chen
    • 1
  • Christopher Hoyle
    • 2
  • Henk Jan Wassenaar
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Mechanical, Industrial & Manufacturing EngineeringOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Zilliant Inc.AustinUSA

Personalised recommendations