Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A decision support method for product conceptual design considering product lifecycle factors and resource constraints

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In general, it is difficult to select a satisfactory product concept because the information in the early stage of design process is subjective, qualitative, and even uncertain to design engineers. The correlations among engineering characteristics for a product concept also increase the complexity of conceptual design. Moreover, it becomes important to consider not only customer requirements but also product lifecycle requirements. In spite of these problems, the resources that can be allocated in the product development are limited so that a company should select the most satisfactory product concept within its available resources. Therefore, it is useful to develop a new method for efficiently supporting conceptual design under this complex design environment. To this end, this study proposes a decision support method with extended house of quality (HOQ). With the proposed method, the best product concept and the associated investment allocation can be decided concurrently under consideration of product lifecycle factors and resource constraints. As a mathematical model combined with the extended HOQ, a mixed integer nonlinear programming model is defined and three heuristic search algorithms are developed. To show the usefulness of the proposed algorithms, a case study and computational experiments are introduced.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jiao J (2006) Customer requirement management in product development: a review of research issues. Concurr Eng 14:173–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akao Y (2003) The leading edge in QFD: past, present, and future. Int J Qual Reliab Manage 20(1):20–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chan LK, Wu ML (2002) Quality function deployment: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 143:463–497

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhang Y, Wang HP, Zhang C (1999) Green QFD-II: a life cycle approach for environmentally conscious manufacturing by integrating LCA and LCC into QFD matrices. Int J Prod Res 37(5):1075–1091

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Sullivan L (1986) Quality function deployment. Qual Prog 19(6):36–50

    Google Scholar 

  6. Martin MV, Kmenta S, Ishii K (1998) QFD and the designer: lessons from 200+ houses of quality. In: Proceedings of the World Innovation and Strategy Conference (WISE 98)

  7. Wasserman GS (1993) On how to prioritize design requirements during the QFD planning process. IIE Trans 25(3):59–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Park T, Kim KJ (1998) Determination of an optimal set of design requirements using house of quality. J Oper Manage 16(5):46–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bode J, Fung RYK (1998) Cost engineering with quality function deployment. Comput Ind Eng 35:587–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fung RYK, Tang J, Tu Y, Wang D (2002) Product design resources optimization using a non-linear fuzzy quality function deployment model. Int J Prod Res 40(3):585–599

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Fung RYK, Tang J, Tu PY, Chen Y (2003) Modelling of quality function deployment planning with resource allocation. Res Eng Des 14:247–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Reich Y, Levy E (2004) Managing product design quality under resource constraints. Int J Prod Res 42(13):2555–2572

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Lai X, Xie M, Tan KC (2005) Dynamic programming for QFD optimization. Qual Reliab Eng Int 21:769–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yung KL, Ko SM, Kwan FY, Tam HK, Lam CW, Ng HP, Lau KS (2006) Application of function deployment model in decision making for new product development. Concurr Eng Res Appl 14(3):257–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Störnebel K, Tammler U (1995) Quality function deployment als werzeug des umweltmanagement. In: UmweltWirtschafts Forum. pp 4–8

  16. Cristofari M, Deshmukh A, Wang B (1996) Green quality function deployment. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Environmentally Conscious Design and Manufacturing. pp 297–304

  17. Rahimi M, Weidner M (2002) Integrating design for environment (DfE) impact matrix into quality function deployment (QFD) process. J Sustain Prod Des 2:29–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuo TC (2003) Green product development in quality function deployment by using fuzzy logic analysis. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. pp 88–93

  19. Cagno E, Trucco P (2007) Integrated green & quality function deployment. International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management 2(1):64–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kobayashi H (2005) Strategic evolution of eco-products: a product life cycle planning methodology. Res Eng Des 16:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lei M, Yao L, Zhu Z (2007) The extended quality function deployment in product lifecycle design. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4402:401–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Borg JC, Yan XT, Juster NP (2000) Exploring decisions' influence on life-cycle performance to aid ‘design for Multi-X’. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 14:91–113

    Google Scholar 

  23. Yu S, Kato S, Kimura F (2001) EcoDesign for product variety: a multi-objective optimization framework. In: Proceedings of EcoDesign2001: 2nd International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo. pp 293–298

  24. Brezet H, van Hemel C (1997) Ecodesign: a promising approach to sustainable production and consumption. TU Delft, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wimmer W, Züst R, Lee KM (2004) Ecodesign implementation: a systematic guidance on integrating environmental considerations into product development. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wanyama W, Ertas A, Zhang HC, Ekwaro-osire S (2003) Life-cycle engineering: issues, tools and research. Int J Computer Integr Manuf 16(4–5):307–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Umeda Y, Life Cycle Design Committee (LCDC) (2001) Toward a life cycle design guideline for inverse manufacturing. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing (EcoDesign2001). pp 143–148

  28. Stark J (2004) Product lifecycle management: paradigm for 21st century product realization. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kiritsis D, Bufardi A, Xirouchakis P (2003) Research issues on product lifecycle management and information tracking using smart embedded systems. Adv Eng Inform 17(3–4):189–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. CIMdata (2002) Product lifecycle management—empowering the future of business. White paper, CIMdata Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

  31. Jun HB, Kiritsis D, Xirouchakis P (2007) Research issues in closed-loop PLM. Comput Ind 58(8–9):855–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Alting L, Legarth JB (1995) Life cycle engineering and design. Ann CIRP 44(2):569–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jovane F, Alting L, Armillotta A, Eversheim W, Feldmann K, Seliger G, Roth N (1993) A key issue in product life cycle: disassembly. Ann CIRP 42(2):651–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kato S, Hata T, Kimura F (2001) Decision factors of product life cycle strategies. In: Proceedings of the supplement Ecodesign 2001: 2nd International symposium on environmentally conscious design and inverse manufacturing. pp 31–34

  35. Kimura F, Suzuki H (1995) Product life cycle modeling for inverse manufacturing. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG5.3 International conference on life-cycle modeling for innovative products and processes. pp 80–89

  36. Takata S, Kimura F, van Houten FJAM, Westkämper E, Shpitalni M, Ceglarek D, Lee J (2004) Maintenance: changing role in life cycle management. Ann CIRP 53(2):643–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Yoshimura M (1996) Design for X-Concurrent engineering imperatives. Design optimization for product life cycle. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 424–440

    Google Scholar 

  38. Erdos G, Kis T, Xirouchakis P (2001) Modeling and evaluating product end-of-life options. Int J Prod Res 39(6):1203–1220

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Chan LK, Wu MK (2005) A systematic approach to quality function deployment with a full illustrative example. OMEGA Int J Manag Sci 33(2):119–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Khoo LP, Ho NC (1996) Framework of a fuzzy quality function deployment system. Int J Prod Res 34(2):299–311

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu ST (2005) Rating design requirements in fuzzy quality function deployment via a mathematical programming approach. Int J Prod Res 43(3):497–513

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Bussieck MR, Pruessner A (2003) Mixed-integer nonlinear programming. Technical report. Available at: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/596677.html

  43. Gray P, Hart W, Painton L, Philips C, Trahan M, Wagner J (1997) A survey of global optimization methods. Technical report, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA

  44. Kreysziq E (2006) Advanced engineering mathematics, 9th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mizuno S, Akao Y (1994) QFD: the customer-driven approach to quality planning and deployment. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan

  46. Fung RYK, Law DST, Ip WH (1999) Design targets determination for inter-dependent product attribute in QFD using fuzzy inference. Integr Manuf Syst 10(6):376–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sobek DK II, Ward AC, Liker JK (1999) Toyota's principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Manage Rev 40(2):67–83

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, EPFL (STI-IGM-LICP), Station 9, ME B1, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Jong-Ho Shin, Dimitris Kiritsis & Paul Xirouchakis

  2. Department of Industrial and Information Engineering, Hongik University, 72-1 Sangsu-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul, 121-791, Republic of Korea

    Hong-Bae Jun

Authors
  1. Jong-Ho Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hong-Bae Jun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dimitris Kiritsis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul Xirouchakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hong-Bae Jun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shin, JH., Jun, HB., Kiritsis, D. et al. A decision support method for product conceptual design considering product lifecycle factors and resource constraints. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 52, 865–886 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2798-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2798-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation