ICoRD'13 pp 1381-1389 | Cite as

Hybrid ANP: QFD—ZOGP Approach for Styling Aspects Determination of an Automotive Component

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

Styling of automotive products is a vital issue and it need to be imbibed with increased customer expectations during every stage of product design. In order to achieve effective styling, it is necessary to apply quality function deployment (QFD) approach which is an effective product and system development tool. This study presents a decision framework where analytic network process (ANP) integrated with QFD and zero–one goal programming (ZOGP) models are used in order to resolve the design requirements which are more efficient in achieving aesthetic design. The first phase of the QFD is the house of quality (HOQ) which transforms customer requirements into product design prerequisites. In this study, after determining the sustainable requirements named voice of the customers (VOCs) and Engineering metrics (EMs) of an automotive component, ANP has been employed to determine the importance levels in the HOQ considering the interrelationships among EMs and VOCs. Additionally ZOGP approach is used to take into account different goals of the problem. A case study was presented to exemplify the approach.

Keywords

Analytic network process Quality function deployment House of quality Zero–one goal programming 

Nomenclature

QFD

Quality Function Deployment

ANP

Analytic Network Process

ZOGP

Zero-One Goal Programming

HOQ

House of Quality

VOCs

Voice of the customers

EMs

Engineering Metrics

CRs

Customer Requirements

ECs

Engineering Characteristics

EPE

Environmental Performance Evaluation

DEMATEL

Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory

MCDM

Multiple Criteria Decision-Making

TOPSIS

Technique for Order Preference by Resemblance to Ideal Solution

LOC

Location of the component

U

Uniqueness

R

Reliability

EF

Enhanced functionalities

E

Ergonomics

I

Illumination

A

Aesthetics

D

Durability

W

Super matrix representation of the QFD model

W2

Matrix that denotes the influence of the VOCs on each EMs

W3

Matrix that represents the inner dependence of the VOCs

W4

Matrix that represents the inner dependence of EMs

WVOCs

Interdependent priorities of the VOCs

WEMs

Interdependent priorities of the EMs

WANP

Matrix that represents the overall priorities of EMs

wES

Weight vector of environmental sustainability

wM

Weight vector of manufacturability

wE’

Adjusted weight vector of environmental sustainability

wM’

Adjusted weight vector of manufacturability

ω

Matrix that represents the relative importance weights of the goals

C

Unit cost of EMs

UC

Adjusted unit cost vector

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Department of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi, India for sanctioning the fund towards the execution of project titled “Development of a model for ensuring sustainable product design in automotive organizations” (Ref. No.SR/S3/MERC-0102/2009). This research study forms a part of this major research project.

References

  1. 1.
    Hauser JR, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Bus Rev 66:63–73Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cristiano JJ, Liker JK, White CC (2000) Customer-driven product development through quality function deployment in the US and Japan. J Prod Innov Manage 17:286–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akao Y (1990) An introduction to quality function deployment. Quality function deployment (QFD): integrating customer requirements into product designGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen L. (1995) Quality function deployment: how to make QFD work for you. Addison-Wesley, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andersson R (1991) QFD—ett system for effektivare produktframtagning. Studentlineratur, Lund, Sverige. (In Swedish.)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Imada AS, Noro K (1991) Participatory ergonomics. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lochner RH, Matar JE (1990) Design for quality. Quality resources, New York and ASQC Quality Press, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bergman B, Klevsj B (1994) Quality from customer needs to customer satisfaction. McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yang YN, Parsaei HR, Leep HR, Chuengsatiansup K (2000) Evaluating robotic safety using quality function deployment. Int J Manuf Technol Manag 1(2/3):241–256Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim CH, Lee H, Seol C (2011) Identifying core technologies based on technological cross-impacts: an association rule mining (ARM) and analytic network process (ANP) approach. Expert Syst Appl. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.042 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ayag Z, Ozdemir RG (2009) A hybrid approach to concept selection through fuzzy analytic network process. Comput Ind Eng 56:368–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Badri MA, Davis D, Davis D (2001) A comprehensive 0–1 goal programming model for project selection. Int J Project Manage 19:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee W, Kim SH (2000) Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection. Comput Oper Res 27:367–382MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saaty TL, Takizawa M (1986) Dependence and independence: from linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. Eur J Oper Res 26:229–237MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    El-Gayar OF, Leung PS (2001) A multiple criteria decision making framework for regional aquaculture development. Eur J Oper Res 133:462–482MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Production EngineeringNational Institute of TechnologyTiruchirappalliIndia

Personalised recommendations