Modification and development of product concept design based on the product customers life environmental and social habits backgrounds’ diversity requirements

Abstract

Product customers often have varying preferences because they have different environmental and social habits backgrounds’ requirements “customer diversity requirements.” Even for a particular product used in specific place, the requirements of product stakeholders are often differed. It is a challenge to adapt diversity requirements to concepts design of products to satisfying different customers. To address the customer diversity requirements issue, after the analysis of customers information is completed, customers are classified according to their diversity. Then, customer requirements (CRs) and engineering specifications (ESs) that satisfy the CRs are determined. The priorities of CRs are calculated with analytical hierarchy process (AHP) involving a pairwise comparison matrix in the first step and fix-sum method in the second step. Quality function deployment (QFD) relation matrix is utilized to form the relationships intensities of CRs and ESs. ESs satisfaction degree values obtained concerning computation of CRs priorities calculated via AHP, while ESs target degree values obtained concerning computation of CRs priorities calculated via fix-sum method into QFD relation matrix. ESs satisfaction degree compared with ESs targets degree to measure the satisfaction for each customer target individually. The decision on whether the concept design needs further development or modification is made based on the comparison results. A case study of the application of this approach is presented to illustrate the possibilities of the technique in developing or modifying concept design according to customers’ life environmental and social habits background “diversity requirements.” The case proved that technique can adapt products to different environments and that products used by existing customers can be used for new customers or markets (product globalization) instead of being confined to one location. Moreover, the approach is very useful in clarifying the objectives expected by customers for specifying the development or modification of a product concept.

Keywords

Customer diversity customer requirements life environmental and habits requirements concept design modification and development quality function deployment analytical hierarchy process

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Griffin

Hauser

. The voice of the customer. Mark Sci 1993; 12: 1–27.

Green

Srinivasan

. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res 1978; 5(2): 103–123.

Burchill

Fine

. Time versus market orientation in product concept development: empirically-based theory generation. Manage Sci 1997; 43(4): 465–478.

Furukawa

Ikeshoji

Ohmori

. A methodology for quality goal-seeking and coordination, and the practical application. Syst Res 1984; 1(1): 71–82.

Reichheld

Sasser

. Zero defections: quality comes to services. Harv Bus Rev 1990; 68(5): 105–111.

Huang

Chen

. An integrated computational intelligence approach to product concept generation and evaluation. Mech Mach Theory 2006; 41(5): 567–583.

Green

Krieger

. A consumer-based approach to designing product line extensions. J Prod Innov Manag 1987; 4(1): 21–32.

Bloch

. Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. J Mark 1995; 59(3): 16–29.

Krippendorff

. The semantic turn: a new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Taylor Francis, 2005.

10.

Maklan

Klaus

. Customer experience: are we measuring the right things? Int J Mark Res 2011; 53(6): 771–772.

11.

Krishnaswamy

Elshennawy

. Concurrent engineering deployment: an enhanced “customer product” approach. Comput Ind Eng 1992; 23: 503–506.

12.

McAdams

Stone

Wood

. Functional interdependence and product similarity based on customer needs. Res Eng Des 1999; 11(1): 1–19.

13.

Churchill

Surprenant

. An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. J Mark Res 1982; 19(4): 491–504.

14.

Gurbuz

. Theory of new product development and its applications. In: Oflazoglu

(ed.) Theory of new product development and its applications. Croatia: IntechOpen, 2018, pp.57–75.

15.

Zygiaris

Hameed

Ayidh Alsubaie

, et al. Service quality and customer satisfaction in the post pandemic world: a study of Saudi auto care industry. Front Psychol 2022; 13: 842141.

16.

Huang

Liu

, et al. New evaluation methods for conceptual design selection using computational intelligence techniques. J Mech Sci Technol 2013; 27(3): 733–746.

17.

Hancock

Pepe

Murphy

. Hedonomics: the power of positive and pleasurable ergonomics. Ergon Des 2005; 13(1): 8–14.

18.

Lehmann

. Evaluating marketing strategy in a multiple brand market. J Bus Adm 1971; 3: 15–26.

19.

Ming Tan

. Customer-focused build-in reliability: a case study. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 2003; 20(3): 378–397.

20.

Tang

Kang

Zhu

. Functional reverse design for secondary innovation. Int J Prod Lifecycle Manag 2011; 5(2/3/4): 183–201.

21.

Chuang

. Combining the analytic hierarchy process and quality function deployment for a location decision from a requirement perspective. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2001; 18(11): 842–849.

22.

Hoyer

MacInnis

Pieters

. Consumer behavior. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2012.

23.

Solomon

. The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic interactionism perspective. J Consum Res 1983; 10(3): 319–329.

24.

Schneider

. Review of uniqueness: the human pursuit of difference. Canadian Psychol/Psychol Canadienne. 1980; 21(4): 197–199.

25.

Papanek

Fuller

. Design for the real world. 1972.

26.

Saaty

. AHP: the analytic hierarchy process. 1980.

27.

Scott

. Quantifying certainty in design decisions: examining AHP. In: International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, 29 September–2 October 2002, pp.219–229. New York: ASME.

28.

Doukas

Pollock

Jeyaratnam

. A spreadsheet implementation of QFD and systems engineering approaches to support concurrent engineering. INCOSE Int Symp 1997; 7(1): 520–527.

29.

Lin

M-C

Wang

C-C

Chen

M-S

, et al. Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Comput Ind 2008; 59(1): 17–31.

30.

Ben-Arieh

Chen

. Linguistic-labels aggregation and consensus measure for autocratic decision making using group recommendations. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 2006; 36(3): 558–568.

31.

Bailetti

Litva

. Integrating customer requirements into product designs. J Prod Innov Manag 1995; 12(1): 3–15.

32.

Doukas

Parkins

Jeyaratnam

. Integrating quality factors into system design. In: IEEE international engineering management conference, Singapore, 28–30 June 1995.

33.

Armacost

Componation

Mullens

, et al. An AHP framework for prioritizing customer requirements in QFD: an industrialized housing application. IIE Trans 1994; 26(4): 72–79.

34.

Xie

Goh

Xie

. Prioritizing processes for better implementation of statistical process control techniques. In: IEEE international engineering management conference, Singapore, 28–30 June 1995.

35.

Behara

Chase

. Service quality deployment: quality service by design. In: Sarin

(ed.) Perspectives in operations management. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993, pp.87–100.

36.

Liu

. A fuzzy group decision-making approach in quality function deployment. Qual Quant 2008; 42(4): 527–540.

37.

Abraham

Vasant

Bhattacharya

. Neuro-fuzzy approximation of multi-criteria decision-making QFD methodology. In: Kahraman

(ed.) Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making. Boston, MA: Springer, 2008, pp.301–321.

38.

Cristiano

Liker

White

CCI

. Key factors in the successful application of quality function deployment (QFD). IEEE Trans Eng Manag 2001; 48(1): 81–95.

39.

Saaty

Vargas

. The logic of priorities: applications of business, energy, health and transportation. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.

40.

Hauser

Clausing

. The house of quality. Harv Bus Rev 1988; 63: 73.

41.

Fomin

Sarkani

Mazzuchi

. Growing the house of quality. Syst Res Forum 2010; 4(2): 137–149.

42.

Fox

Xiang

Lee

. Industrial applications of the ant colony optimization algorithm. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2007; 31(7–8): 805–814.

43.

Wang

Xie

Goh

. A comparative study of the prioritization matrix method and the analytic hierarchy process technique in quality function deployment. Total Qual Manag 1998; 9(6): 421–430.

44.

Cohen

. Quality function deployment: how to make QFD work for you. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publ Co, 1995.

45.

Chan

L-K

. Quality function deployment: a comprehensive review of its concepts and methods. Qual Eng 2002; 15(1): 23–35.

46.

Saaty

. Exploring the interface between hierarchies, multiple objectives and fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1978; 1(1): 57–68.