Integrating a prospect theory-based consensus-reaching process into large-scale quality function deployment and its application in the evaluation of contingency plan

Abstract

Quality function deployment (QFD) is a quality management tool that aims to improve customer satisfaction by transforming customer requirements into technical characteristics. It is a crucial procedure to obtain the prioritization of technical characteristics for the products or services in QFD. Traditional QFDs are often implemented by a small number of QFD members. However, with the increasing complexity of product and service design, QFD requires the participation of more QFD members from dispersed departments or institutions. Additionally, the evaluation information given by QFD members may widely differ due to their different knowledge and background. Furthermore, the psychological behaviours of QFD members also greatly influence the final prioritization of technical characteristics. Hence, this paper proposes a novel QFD framework to prioritize technical characteristics using a consensus-reaching process and prospect theory when large numbers of QFD members are involved. In the large-scale QFD framework, prospect theory is generally utilized to depict the psychological behaviours of QFD members. Then, QFD members are divided into several clusters. Eventually, a consensus-reaching process is established to assist QFD members in reaching a consensus. To verify the practicability of the presented framework, this paper applies it to the evaluation of contingency plan to determine the critical measures.

Keywords

Quality function deployment consensus-reaching process prospect theory large-scale group decision making contingency plan

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akao

, QFD: Integrating customer requirements into product design, Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press, 1990.

Chen

Y.Z.

, Fung

Richard Y.K.

and Tang

J.F.

, Rating technical attributes in fuzzy QFD by integrating fuzzy weighted average method and fuzzy expected value operator, European Journal of Operational Research 174 (2006), 1553–1566.

Liu

H.T.

and Tsai

Y.L.

, A fuzzy risk assessment approach for occupational hazards in the construction industry, Safety Science 50(4) (2012), 1067–1078.

Wang

Z.Q.

, Selection in product plan alternatives based on quality function deployment and prospect theory, Journal of Mechanical Engineering 49(04) (2013), 174–183.

Asadabadi

M.R.

, A customer based supplier selection process that combines quality function deployment, the analytic network process and a Markov chain, European Journal of Operational Research 263(3) (2017), 1049–1062.

Tian

Z.P.

, Wang

J.Q.

, Wang

and Zhang

H.Y.

, A multi-phase QFD-based hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for performance evaluation: A case of smart bike-sharing programs in Changsha, Journal of Cleaner Production 171 (2018), 1068–1083.

Huang

, You

X.Y.

, Liu

H.C.

and Si

S.L.

, New approach for quality function deployment based on proportional hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and prospect theory, International journal of production research 57 (2019), 1283–1299.

Tian

Z.P.

, Nie

R.X.

, Wang

J.Q.

and Li

, Group multigranularlinguistic QFD for prioritizing service designs with combinedweighting method, Expert Systems 36(4) (2019), e12419.

Kang

X.H.

, Aesthetic product design combining with rough set theory and fuzzy quality function deployment, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 39(1) (2020), 1131–1146.

10.

Chan

L.H.

and Wu

M.L

, A systematic approach to quality function deployment with a full illustrative example, Omega-International Journal of Management Science 33(2) (2005), 119–139.

11.

Liu

C.H.

and Wu

H.H.

, A fuzzy group decision-making approach in quality function deployment, Quality and Quantity 42(4) (2008), 527–540.

12.

Yan

H.B.

, Meng

X.S.

, Ma

T,J

and Huynh

V.N.

, An uncertain target-oriented QFD approach to service design based on service standardization with an application to bank window service, IISE Transactions 51(11) (2019), 1167–1189.

13.

Chen

L.H.

, Ko

W.C.

and Yeh

F.T.

, Approach based on fuzzy goal programming and quality function deployment for new product planning, European Journal of Operational Research 259 (2017), 654–663.

14.

Cristiano

J.J.

, Liker

J.K.

and White

C.C.

, Key factors in the successful application of quality function deployment (QFD), IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48 (2001), 81–94.

15.

Yan

H.B.

and Ma

T.J.

, Coping with group behaviors in uncertain quality function deployment, Decision Sciences 45(6) (2014), 1025–1052.

16.

Wang

Z.Q.

, Fung

Richard Y.K.

, Li

Y.L.

and Pu

, An integrated decision-making approach for designing and selecting product concepts based on QFD and cumulative prospect theory, International Journal of Production Research 56(5) (2017), 2003–2018.

17.

Yan

H.B.

and Ma

, A group decision making approach to uncertain quality function deployment based on fuzzy preference relation and fuzzy majority, European journal of operational research 241 (2015), 815–829.

18.

Chen

L.H.

, Ko

W.C.

and Tseng

C.Y.

, Fuzzy approaches for constructing house of quality in QFD and its applications: A group decision-making method, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 60(1) (2013), 77–87.

19.

Wang

Z.Q.

, Fung

Richard Y.K.

, Li

Y.L.

and Pu

, A groupmulti-granularity linguistic-based methodology for prioritizingengineering characteristics under uncertainties, Computers andIndustrial Engineering 91 (2016), 178–187.

20.

A.M.

, Liu

H.C.

and Wang

L.E.

, Hesitant fuzzy integrated MCDM approach for quality function deployment: a case study in electric vehicle, International Journal of Production Research 55(15) (2017), 4436–4449.

21.

Akbaş

and Bilgen

, An integrated fuzzy QFD and TOPSISmethodology for choosing the ideal gas fuel at WWTPs, Energy 125(15) (2017), 484–497.

22.

S.M.

, You

X.Y.

, Liu

H.C.

and Wang

L.E.

, Improving quality function deployment analysis with the cloud MULTIMOORA method, International Transactions in Operational Research 27(3) (2020), 1600–1621.

23.

Chen

Z.S.

, Liu

X.L.

, Rodriguez

R.M.

, Wang

X.J.

, Chin

K.S.

, et al., Identifying and prioritizing factors affecting in-cabin passenger comfort on high-speed rail in China: A fuzzy-based linguistic approach, Applied soft computing 95 (2020), 106558.

24.

Haber

, Fargnoli

and Sakao

, Integrating QFD for product-service systems with the Kano model and fuzzy AHP, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 31(9–10) (2020), 929–954.

25.

X.L.

and Liao

H.C.

, An approach to quality function deployment based on probabilistic linguistic term sets and ORESTE method for multi-expert multi-criteria decision making, Information Fusion 43 (2018), 13–26.

26.

Yazdani

, Kahraman

, Zarate

and Onar

S.C.

, A fuzzy multi attribute decision framework with integration of QFD and grey relational analysis, Expert Systems with Applications 115 (2019), 474–485.

27.

Zheng

, Xu

and Xie

S.Q.

, A weighted interval rough number based method to determine relative importance ratings of customer requirements in QFD product planning, Journal of intelligent manufacturing 30 (2019), 3–16.

28.

Song

, Wang

J.Q.

and Li

J.B.

, New Framework for Quality Function Deployment Using Linguistic Z-Numbers, Mathematics 8(2) (2020), 224.

29.

Yazdani

, Chatterjee

, Zavadskas

E.K.

and Zolfani

S.H.

, Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection, Journal of Cleaner Production 142(4) (2017), 3728–3740.

30.

, Nie

and Xu

, Robust fuzzy quality function deployment based on the mean-end-chain concept: Service station evaluation problem for rail catering services, European Journal of Operational Research 263 (2017), 974–995.

31.

Yang

, Li

Y.L.

and Chin

K.S.

, An ordinal scale-based GDM approach to prioritize customer requirements in QFD product planning, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 37(3) (2019), 4349–4367.

32.

Yan

H.B.

, Ma

T.J.

and Li

Y.S.

, A novel fuzzy linguistic model for prioritising engineering design requirements in quality function deployment under uncertainties, International Journal of Production Research 51(21) (2013), 6336–6355.

33.

Lin

L.Z.

, Yeh

H.R.

and Wang

M.C.

, Integration of Kano’s model into FQFD for Taiwanese Ban-Doh banquet culture, Tourism Management 46 (2015), 245–262.

34.

Miao

, Liu

, Chen

, Zhou

and Ji

, Two uncertain chance-constrained programming models to setting target levels of design attributes in quality function deployment, Information Sciences 415 (2017), 156–170.

35.

Sener

and Karsak

E.E.

, A decision model for setting target levelsin quality function deployment using nonlinear programming-basedfuzzy regression and optimization, Journalof Advanced Manufacturing Technology 48 (2010), 1173–1184.

36.

Susskind

L.E.

, Mckearnen

and Thomas-Lamar

, The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement, Sage Publications, 1999.

37.

Dong

Y.C.

, Luo

and Liang

H.M.

, Consensus building in multiperson decision making with heterogeneous preference representation structures: A perspective based on prospect theory, Applied Soft Computing 35 (2015), 898–910.

38.

W.J.

, Huang

S.Y.

and Li

, A novel consensus reaching framework for heterogeneous group decision making based on cumulative prospect theory, Computers & Industrial Engineering 128 (2019), 325–335.

39.

Fan

C.H.

, Zhu

, Li

and Zhang

H.J.

, Consensus building in linguistic failure mode and effect analysis: A perspective based on prospect theory, Quality and Reliability Engineering International 36(7) (2020), 2521–2546.

40.

Herrera

and Martínez

, A 2-tuple fuzzy linguisticrepresentation model for computing with words, IEEETransactions on Fuzzy Systems 8(6) (2000), 746–752.

41.

Dong

Y.C.

, Zhang

G.Q.

, Hong

W.C.

and Yu

, Linguistic computational model based on 2-tuples and intervals, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 21(6) (2013), 1006–1018.

42.

Zhang

, Dong

and Xu

, Consistency and consensus measures for linguistic preference relations based on distribution assessments, Information Fusion 17 (2014), 46–55.

43.

Kahneman

and Tversky

, Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica 47(2) (1979), 263–292.

44.

Zhang

Z.X.

, Wang

, Rodríguez

R.M.

, Wang

Y.M.

and Martínez

, A hesitant group emergency decision making methodbased on prospect theory, Complex and Intelligent Systems 3(3) (2017), 177–187.

45.

X.H.

, Du

Z.J.

and Chen

X.H.

, Consensus model for multi-criteria large group emergency decision making considering non-cooperative behaviors and minority opinions, Decision Support Systems 79 (2015), 150–160.

46.

Zhang

H.J.

, Dong

Y.C.

and Herrera-Viedma

, Consensus building for the heterogeneous large-scale GDM with the individual concerns and satisfactions, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 26(2) (2018), 884–898.

47.

Z.B.

and Xu

J.P.

, A consensus model for large-scale group decision making with hesitant fuzzy information and changeable clusters, Information Fusion 41 (2018), 217–231.

48.

Kamis

N.H.

, Chiclana

and Levesley

, An Influence-Driven Feedback System for Preference Similarity Network Clustering Based Consensus Group Decision Making Model, Information Fusion 52 (2019), 257–267.

49.

Zhang

H.J.

, Li

C.C.

, Liu

Y.T.

and Dong

Y.C.

, Modelling personalized individual semantics and consensus in comparative linguistic expression preference relations with self-confidence: An optimization-based approach, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 29 (2021), 627–640.

50.

Zhang

H.J.

, Dong

Y.C.

, Chiclana

and Yu

, Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design, European Journal of Operational Research 275 (2019), 580–598.

51.

Zhang

B.W.

, Dong

Y.C.

, Zhang

H.J.

and Pedrycz

, Consensus mechanism with maximum-return modifications and minimum-cost feedback: A perspective of Game Theory, European Journal of Operational Research 287 (2020), 546–559.

52.

Zhang

H.J.

, Zhao

S.H.

, Kou

, Li

C.C.

, Dong

Y.C.

and Herrera

, An overview on feedback mechanisms with minimum adjustment or cost in consensus reaching in group decision making: Research paradigms and challenges, Information Fusion 60 (2020), 65–79.

53.

W.J.

, Chen

, Dong

Y.C.

and Chiclana

, Impact of decision rules and non-cooperative behaviors on minimum consensus cost in group decision making, Group Decision and Negotiation (2020). in press, DOI: 10.1007/s10726-020-09653-7.

54.

E.S.S.A.

, Lai

Y.J.

and Chang

S.I.

, An integrated group decision-making approach to quality function deployment, IIE Transactions 31(6) (1999), 553–567.

55.

Abeler

, Falk

, Götte

and Huffman

, Reference Points and Effort Provision, American Economic Review 101(2) (2009), 470–92.

56.

Avineri

, Incorporating Fuzzy Reference Points into Applications of Travel Choice Modeling, Application of soft computing, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, 221–229.

57.

Chu

Y.C.

, Research on settings of reference point in route choice behavior based prospect theory, Southwest Jiaotong University, 2017.

58.

Tversky

and Kahneman

, Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty, Risk Uncertainty 5(4) (1992), 297–323.

59.

Palomares

, Martínez

and Herrera

, A consensus model todetect and manage non-cooperative behaviours in large-scale groupdecision making, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 22(3) (2014), 516–530.

60.

Qian

J.B.

and Dong

Y.S.

, A clustering algorithm based on broad firstsearching neighbors, Journal of Southeast University 34 (2004), 109–112.

61.

Zheng

, Wang

, Jiang

and Liu

, Image retrieval algorithm based on vector transferring and clustering, Journal of computational information systems 5(2) (2009), 1009–1016.

62.

Mok

P.Y.

, Huang

H.Q.

, Kwok

Y.L.

and Au

J.S.

, A robust adaptive clustering analysis method for automatic identification of clusters, Pattern Recognition 45 (2012), 3017–3033.

63.

Wang

and Bai

, The global Minmax k-means algorithm, Springer Plus, 5 (2016), 1665.

64.

Dong

Y.C.

and Zhang

H.J.

, Multiperson decision making with different preference representation structures: a direct consensus framework and its properties, Knowledge-Based Systems 58 (2014), 45–57.

65.

X.H.

, Zhong

X.Y.

, Chen

X.H.

and Zhou

Y.J.

, A dynamical consensus method based on exit–delegation mechanism for large group emergency decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems 86 (2015), 237–249.

66.

Herrera-Viedma

, Martínez

, Mata

and Chiclana

, Aconsensus support systems model for group decision making problemswith multigranular linguistic preference relations, IEEETransactionson Fuzzy Systems 13(5) (2005), 644–658.

67.

J.P.

and Wu

Z.B.

, A maximizing consensus approach for alternatives election based on uncertain linguistic preference relations, Computers & Industrial Engineering 64(4) (2013), 999–1008.

68.

Dong

Y.C.

, Zha

Q.B.

, Zhang

H.J.

, Kou

, Fujita

, Chiclana

and Herrera-Viedma

, Consensus reaching in social network group decision making: Research paradigms and challenges, Knowledge-Based Systems 162 (2018), 3–13.

69.

Urena

, Chiclana

, Melançon

and Herrera-Viedma

, Asocial network based approach for consensus achievement inmultiperson decision making, Information Fusion 47(2019), 72–87.

70.

Zhang

, Kou

X.Y.

, Yu

W.Y.

and Guo

C.H.

, On priority weights and consistency for incomplete hesitant fuzzy preference relations, Knowledge-Based Systems 143 (2017), 115–126.

71.

Liu

Y.T.

, Zhang

H.J.

, Wu

Y.Z.

and Dong

Y.C.

, Ranking range based approach to MADM under incomplete context and its application in venture investment evaluation, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 25 (2019), 877–899.