The emotional value of products, especially aesthetic qualities are conducive to increasing the market competitiveness along with the improvement of living standards. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to combine the rough set theory and fuzzy quality function deployment design matrix to construct an innovative model, thus developing an aesthetic product design for customer satisfaction. Taking Blender as an example, the author divides this paper into three phases. Firstly, the author summarizes seven aesthetic qualities through the literature discussions and determines the core aesthetic qualities of Blender by making rough set theory attribute reduction and importance calculation. Secondly, the results are imported into the fuzzy quality function deployment needs facet, and the correlation matrix is established by consulting the expert’s opinions to obtain the optimal combination of design features. Finally, the combination of the features produces a bio-conceptual shape via a bionics step. The results show that four out of seven aesthetic attributes (ie, concise, original, elegant, and comfortable) are found to be more significant. The optimal combination of product features are integrated with the bio-inspired method to generate three design solutions, in which the styling of butterfly concept effectively enhances the products’ emotional value and customers’ aesthetic satisfaction degree.
SarasotaF.L., Blenders and Juicers Market for Bakery, Dairy, Beverage, Confectionery, and Other Applications. Zion Market Research, India. 2016.
2.
SebastiánL.M., ÁlvaroG.G., RubioO. and EderW.E., Modular redesign methodology for improving plant layout, Journal of Engineering Design27(1-3) (2016), 50–74.
3.
DesmetP. and HekkertP., Framework of Product Experience, International Journal of Design1(1) (2007), 57–66.
4.
BereketliI. and GenevoisM.E., An integrated QFDE approach for identifying improvement strategies in sustainable product development, Journal of Cleaner Production54 (2013), 188–198.
5.
HwangJ.H., Hand Blenders Handle Design Evaluation Studies-Ergo Design Principles Applied “HGPP” Centered Assessment, Journal of Digital Design14(3) (2014), 473–482.
6.
YuH. and ChoiM., A study on design evaluation factors and criteria of stationary vacuum blender design through user experience analysis, Industrial Design12(2) (2018), 95–104.
7.
HwangJ.H., A Study on Korea model Blender for Usability Enhancement, Journal of Digital Design14(1) (2014), 129–139.
8.
NagamachiM., Kansei Engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics15 (1995), 3–11.
9.
NagamachiM., Perspectives and the new trend of Kansei/affective engineering, The TQM Journal20(4) (2008), 290–298.
10.
KangX., YangM., YangW. and WuY., Research on the form design of mini car in perceptual consumption times, Lecture Notes in Computer Science10288 LNCS (2017), 258–271.
11.
KangX., PorterC.S. and BohemiaE., Using the fuzzy weighted association rule mining approach to develop a customer satisfaction product form, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. (In press) (2020).
12.
HauserJ.R. and ClausingD., The House of Quality, Harvard Business Review66(3) (1988), 63–73.
13.
KowalskaM., PazdziorM. and MaziopaA.K., Implementation of QFD method in quality analysis of confectionery products, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing29 (2018), 439–447.
14.
JinJ., JiP. and LiuY., Prioritising engineering characteristics based on customer online reviews for quality function deployment, Journal of Engineering Design25(7-9) (2014), 303–324.
15.
HartonoM., Incorporating service quality tools into Kansei Engineering in services: A case study of Indonesian tourists, Procedia Economics and Finance4 (2012), 201–212.
16.
NoahW., Webster’s New International Dictionary. G. & C. Merriam company, Massachusetts. (2002).
17.
YadavH.C., JainR., ShuklaS., AvikalS. and MishraP.K., Prioritization of aesthetic attributes of car profile, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics43(4) (2013), 296–303.
18.
ChienC-F., KerhR., LinK-Y. and YuA., Data-driven innovation to capture user-experience product design: An empirical study for notebook visual aesthetics design, Computers & Industrial Engineering99 (2016), 162–173.
19.
TjalveE., A Short Course in Industrial Design, Butterworth & Co Ltd, London. (1979).
ChenC.C. and ChuangM.C., Integrating the Kano model into a robust design approach to enhance customer satisfaction with product design, International Journal of Production Economics114(2) (2008), 667–681.
22.
AvikalS., SinghR. and RashmiR., QFD and Fuzzy Kano model based approach for classification of aesthetic attributes of SUV car profile, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2018), 1–14.
23.
PawlakZ., Rough sets, International Journal of Information & Computer Sciences11(5) (1982), 341–356.
24.
NagamachiM., OkazakiY. and IshikawaM., Kansei engineering and application of the rough sets model, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part I Journal of Systems & Control Engineering220(8) (2006), 763–768.
25.
NishinoT., NagamachiM. and TanakaH., Variable Precision Bayesian Rough Set Model and Its Application to Kansei, Engineering, Transactions on Rough Sets V4100 (2006), 190–206.
26.
LiZ., ShiK., DeyN., AshourA.S., WangD., BalasV.E., McCauleyP. and ShiF., Rule-based back propagation neural networks for various precision rough set presented KANSEI knowledge prediction a case study on shoe product form features extraction, Neural Computing & Applications28(3) (2017), 613–630.
27.
ParkM.-J., ParkJ. and YooH., Application of affective engineering to service industries: feelings from airlines’ in-flight service elements, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence29(9-10) (2018), 1025–1042.
28.
ShiF., SunS. and XuJ., Employing rough sets and association rule mining in kansei knowledge extraction, Information Sciences196(2) (2012), 118–128.
29.
KobayashiM. and NiwaK., Method for grouping of customers and aesthetic design based on rough set theory, Computer-Aided Design and Applications15(4) (2018), 565–574.
30.
ShiehM.D., YehY.E. and HuangC.L., Eliciting design knowledge from affective responses using rough sets and Kansei engineering system, Journal of Ambient Intelligence & Humanized Computing7(1) (2016), 107–120.
31.
ZhaiL.Y., KhooL.P. and ZhongZ.W., A rough set based decision support approach to improving consumer affective satisfaction in product design, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics39(2) (2009), 295–302.
32.
ZhaiL.Y., KhooL.P. and ZhongZ.W., A dominance-based rough set approach to Kansei Engineering in product development, Expert Systems with Applications36 (2009), 393–402.
33.
TiwariV., JainP.K. and TandonP., Product design concept evaluation using rough sets and VIKOR method, Advanced Engineering Informatics30(1) (2016), 16–25.
34.
LiY., TangJ., LuoX., YaoJ. and XuJ., A quantitative methodology for acquiring engineering characteristics in PPHOQ, Expert Systems with Applications37(1) (2010), 187–193.
35.
LiY., TangJ., LuoX. and XuJ., An integrated method of rough set, Kano’s model and AHP for rating customer requirements’ final importance, Expert Systems with Applications36(3) (2009), 7045–7053.
36.
LiaoS-H. and ChangH-K., A rough set-based association rule approach for a recommendation system for online consumers, Information Processing & Management52 (6) (2016), 1142–1160.
37.
WuH-Y. and LinH-Y., A hybrid approach to develop an analytical model for enhancing the service quality of e-learning, Computers & Education58(4) (2012), 1318–1338.
38.
SullivanL.P., Quality Function Deployment, Quality Progress19 (1986), 39–50.
39.
MaH., ChuX., XueD. and ChenD., A systematic decision making approach for product conceptual design based on fuzzy morphological matrix, Expert Systems with Applications81 (2017), 444–456.
40.
LiuA., HuH., ZhangX. and LeiD., Novel Two-Phase Approach for Process Optimization of Customer Collaborative Design Based on Fuzzy-QFD and DSM, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management64(2) (2017), 193–207.
41.
YanH-B., MaT. and LiY., A novel fuzzy linguistic model for prioritising engineering design requirements in quality function deployment under uncertainties, International Journal of Production Research51(21) (2013), 6336–6355.
42.
GengX., ChuX. and XueD., A systematic decision-making approach for the optimal product-service system planning, Expert Systems with Applications38(9) (2011), 11849–11858.
43.
AbbasianjahromiH., SepehriM. and AbbasiO., A Decision-Making Framework for Subcontractor Selection in Construction Projects, Engineering Management Journal30(2) (2018), 141–152.
44.
YazdaniM., KahramanC., ZarateP. and OnarS., A fuzzy multi attribute decision framework with integration of QFD and grey relational analysis, Expert Systems with Applications115 (2019), 474–485.
45.
KangX., YangM., WuY. and NiB., Integrating Evaluation Grid Method and Fuzzy Quality Function Deployment to New Product Development, Mathematical Problems in Engineering2018 (2018), 1–15.
46.
KeshteliR.N. and DavoodvandiE., Using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS in fuzzy QFD: a case study in ceramic and tile industry of Iran, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management20(2) (2017), 197–216.
47.
CohenI.L., Quality function deployment: how to make QFD work for you. Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts. (1995).
48.
ShenH-C. and WangK-C., Affective product form design using fuzzy Kansei engineering and creativity, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing7 (2016), 875–888.
49.
GuoF., LiF., NagamachiM., HuM. and LiM., Research on color optimization of tricolor product considering color harmony and users’ emotion, Color Research and Application45(1) (2020), 156–171.
