Service-oriented design is used in product development to accommodate diverse customer requirements and provide a profit-making strategy. Existing designs encounter difficulties in assessing design alternatives systematically during conceptual design involving customer heterogeneity and cognition vagueness. To evaluate these alternatives, a new systematic service-oriented design is proposed. The fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is used to handle the subjectivity and uncertainty of expert judgments and customer desires. In addition, the structure of service-oriented design within a mapping information flow is illustrated and then associated with technical characteristics via the results of the House of Quality. A consideration of influential design factors is developed to identify optimal alternative on the basis of the PageRank algorithm. Based on the integrated methods, a priority index is proposed to evaluate these alternatives, which can flexibly handle customer heterogeneity under limited technical conditions. At the same time, a design calculation program of a front axle suspension system was developed based on MATLAB GUI, which shows the design extensibility and robustness of the proposed approach. Overall, the results of the priority index-based method clearly demonstrate the superiority and appropriateness of the technique in selecting the optimal alternative. It also standardizes the design process from the case study of the front axle suspension system, provides rapid reasonable selection of the design scheme, and thereby improving intelligent design capacity from the perspective of product and its services.
ZhangZ., XuD., OstrosiE., YuL. and FanB., A systematic decision-making method for evaluating design alternatives of product service system based on variable precision rough set, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing30 (2019), 1895–1909. doi: 10.1007/s10845-017-1359-6.
2.
CavalieriS. and PezzottaG., Product-service systems engineering: State of the art and research challenges, Computers in Industry63 (2012), 278–288. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2012.02.006.
3.
Sousa-zomerT.T. and MiguelP.A.C., A QFD-based approach to support sustainable product-service systems conceptual design, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2017), 701–717. doi: 10.1007/s00170-016-8809-8.
4.
AnnarelliA., BattistellaC. and NoninoF., Product service system: A conceptual framework from a systematic review, Journal of Cleaner Production139 (2016), 1011–1032. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.061.
5.
BainesT.S., LightfootH.W., EvansS., NeelyA., GreenoughR., PeppardJ., RoyR., ShehabE., BraganzaA., TiwariA., AlcockJ.R., AngusJ.P., BastiM., CousensA., IrvingP., JohnsonM., KingstonJ., LockettH., MartinezV., MicheleP., TranfieldD., WaltonI.M. and WilsonH., State-of-the-art in product-service systems, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture221 (2007), 1543–1552. doi: 10.1243/09544054JEM858.
6.
LimC., KimK.H., KimM.J. and KimK.J., Multi-factor service design: Identification and consideration of multiple factors of the service in its design process, Service Business13 (2019), 51–74. doi: 10.1007/s11628-018-0363-z.
7.
GiretA., GarciaE. and BottiV., An engineering framework for Service-Oriented Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, Computers in Industry81 (2016), 116–127. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2016.02.002.
8.
ShinJ.H., KiritsisD. and XirouchakisP., Design modification supporting method based on product usage data in closed-loop PLM, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing28 (2015), 551–568. doi: 10.1080/0951192X.2014.900866.
9.
MaH., ChuX., XueD. and ChenD., Identification of to-be-improved components for redesign of complex products and systems based on fuzzy QFD and FMEA, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing30 (2019), 623–639. doi: 10.1007/s10845-016-1269-z.
10.
YuG.F., LiD.F. and FeiW., A novel method for heterogeneous multi-attribute group decision making with preference deviation, Computers and Industrial Engineering124 (2018), 58–64. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2018.07.013.
11.
YuG.F., FeiW. and LiD.F., A Compromise-Typed Variable Weight Decision Method for Hybrid Multiattribute Decision Making, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems27 (2019), 861–872. doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2880705.
12.
PengS., LiT., DongM., ShiJ. and ZhangH., Life cycle assessment of a large-scale centrifugal compressor: A case study in China, Journal of Cleaner Production139 (2016), 810–820. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.105.
13.
MontO.K., Clarifying the concept of product–service system, Journal of Cleaner Production10 (2002), 237–245. doi: 10.1109/ACIIDS.2009.18.
14.
FiorenzoF., MaurizioG., DomenicoM. and LucaM., Ordinal aggregation operators to support the engineering characteristic prioritization in QFD, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2017), 4069–4080. doi: 10.1007/s00170-017-0040-8.
15.
HaaseR.P., PigossoD.C.A. and McAlooneT.C., Product/Service-System Origins and Trajectories: A Systematic Literature Review of PSS Definitions and their Characteristics, Procedia CIRP64 (2017), 157–162. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.053.
16.
BüyüközkanG., ArsenyanJ. and RuanD., Logistics tool selection with two-phase fuzzy multi criteria decision making: A case study for personal digital assistant selection, Expert Systems with Applications39 (2012), 142–153. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.017.
17.
ZadehL.A., ZadehPaper65.pdf, Information and Control8 (1965), 338–353.
18.
ChenL.H., KoW.C. and YehF.T., Approach based on fuzzy goal programing and quality function deployment for new product planning, European Journal of Operational Research259 (2017), 654–663. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.10.028.
19.
WanS.P. and LiD.F., Fuzzy LINMAP approach to heterogeneous MADM considering comparisons of alternatives with hesitation degrees, Omega (United Kingdom), 41 (2013), 925–940. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2012.12.002.
20.
AzadeganA., PorobicL., GhazinooryS., SamoueiP. and SamanA., Kheirkhah, Fuzzy logic in manufacturing: A review of literature and a specialized application, International Journal of Production Economics132 (2011), 258–270. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.018.
21.
WongB.K. and LaiV.S., A survey of the application of fuzzy set theory in production and operations management: –, International Journal of Production Economics129 (2011), 157–168. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.09.013.
22.
LiD.F., ChenG.H. and HuangZ.G., Linear programming method for multiattribute group decision making using IF sets, Information Sciences180 (2010), 1591–1609. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2010.01.017.
23.
ZhengP., XuX. and XieS.Q., A weighted interval rough number based method to determine relative importance ratings of customer requirements in QFD product planning, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing30 (2019), 3–16. doi: 10.1007/s10845-016-1224-z.
24.
ChenC.T., A fuzzy approach to select the location of the distribution center, Fuzzy Sets and Systems118 (2001), 65–73. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(98)00459-X.
25.
Lima-JuniorF.R. and CarpinettiL.C.R., A multicriteria approach based on fuzzy QFD for choosing criteria for supplier selection, Computers and Industrial Engineering101 (2016), 269–285. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2016.09.014.
26.
ZhuK.J., JingY. and ChangD.Y., Discussion on extent analysis method and applications of fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research116 (1999), 450–456. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00331-2.
27.
AkbaşH. and BilgenB., An integrated fuzzy QFD and TOPSIS methodology for choosing the ideal gas fuel at WWTPs, Energy125 (2017), 484–497. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.153.
DevadasanK.S.C.A.S.R., Advanced models of quality function deployment: A literature review, Quality & Quantity50 (2016), 1399–1414. doi: 10.1007/s11135-015-0212-2.
30.
BrinS. and PageL., The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine The Anatomy of a Search Engine, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems30 (1998), 107–117. doi: 10.1016/S0169-7552(98)00110-X.
31.
ChenP., XieH., MaslovS. and RednerS., Finding scientific gems with Google’s PageRank algorithm, Journal of Informetrics1 (2007), 8–15. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2006.06.001.
32.
YanZ., XingM., ZhangD. and MaB., EXPRS: An extended pagerank method for product feature extraction from online consumer reviews, Information & Management52 (2015), 850–858. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2015.02.002.
33.
ChouW.C. and ChengY.P., A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating website quality of professional accounting firms, Expert Systems with Applications39 (2012), 2783–2793. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.138.
34.
UbertiS., GadolaM., ChindamoD., RomanoM. and GalliF., Design of a double wishbone front suspension for an orchard-vineyard tractor: Kinematic analysis, Journal of Terramechanics57 (2015), 23–39. doi: 10.1016/j.jterra.2014.11.001.
35.
GobbiM., MastinuG. and PreviatiG., Farm tractors with suspended front axle: Anti-dive and anti-lift characteristics, Journal of Terramechanics56 (2014), 157–172. doi: 10.1016/j.jterra.2014.10.003.
36.
CuongD.M., ZhuS. and NgocN.T., Study on the variation characteristics of vertical equivalent damping ratio of tire–soil system using semi-empirical model, 51 (2014), 67–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jterra.2013.10.002.
37.
ServadioP., MarsiliA. and BelfioreN.P., Analysis of driving seat vibrations in high forward speed tractors, Biosystems Engineering97 (2007), 171–180. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.03.004.
38.
ZhongL. and YaoL., An ELECTRE I-based multi-criteria group decision making method with interval type-2 fuzzy numbers and its application to supplier selection, Applied Soft Computing Journal57 (2017), 556–576. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.04.001.
39.
GengX., ChuX. and ZhangZ., A new integrated design concept evaluation approach based on vague sets, Expert Systems with Applications37 (2010), 6629–6638. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.03.058.
