Quality function deployment (QFD) is a customer-oriented tool for developing products. Based on the idea of the best-worst method (BWM), a novel model is developed to determine the relative importance ratings (RIRs) of customer requirements (CRs) with interval grey linguistic (IGL) information, which plays a significant role in QFD. CRs are rated with IGL variables, and the degree of greyness degree function that can be used to handle the IGL variables is defined based on the power utility function. Then, considering customer heterogeneity, a model is constructed to derive the RIRs of CRs by following the logic of the BWM. Finally, a case study of 5 G smartphone development is provided to verify the validity and the feasibility of the proposed method.
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(2) (2019), 623–639.
2.
WangF., LiH. and LiuA., A novel method for determining the key customer requirements and innovation goals in customer collaborative product innovation, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing29(1) (2018), 211–225.
3.
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(1) (2019), 3–16.
4.
LiQ., DiaoY., GongZ. and HuA., Grey language hesitant fuzzy group decision making method based on kernel and grey scale, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health15(3) (2018), 436.
5.
Gonçalves-CoelhoA.M., MouraoA.J., and PereiraZ.L., Improving the use of QFD with Axiomatic Design, Concurrent Engineering13(3) (2005), 233–239.
6.
ChanL.K., KaoH.P. and WuM.L., Rating the importance of customer needs in quality function deployment by fuzzy and entropy methods, International Journal of Production Research37(11) (1999), 2499–2518.
7.
RamanathanR. and YunfengJ., Incorporating cost and environmental factors in quality function deployment using data envelopment analysis, Omega37(3) (2009), 711–723.
8.
NahmY.E., IshikawaH. and InoueM., New rating methods to prioritize customer requirements in QFD with incomplete customer preferences, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology65(9-12) (2013), 1587–1604.
9.
LiY.L., ChinK.S. and LuoX.G., Determining the final priority ratings of customer requirements in product planning by MDBM and BSC, Expert Systems with Applications39(1) (2012), 1243–1255.
10.
GouX., XuZ. and LiaoH., Hesitant fuzzy linguistic possibility degree-based linear assignment method for multiple criteria decision-making, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making18(01) (2019), 35–63.
11.
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.
12.
WangY.M. and ChinK.S., A linear goal programming approach to determining the relative importance weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment, Information Sciences181(24) (2011), 5523–5533.
13.
SongW., MingX., HanY. and WuZ., A rough set approach for evaluating vague customer requirement of industrial product-service system, International Journal of Production Research51(22) (2013), 6681–6701.
14.
JamalniaA., MahdirajiH.A., SadeghiM.R., HajiaghS.H.R. and FeiliA., An integrated fuzzy QFD and fuzzy goal programming approach for global facility location-allocation problem, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making13(02) (2014), 263–290.
15.
JinF., LiuP. and ZhangX., The multi-attribute group decision making method based on the interval grey linguistic variables weighted harmonic aggregation operators, Technological and Economic Development of Economy19(3) (2013), 409–430.
16.
WuQ., ZhouL., ChenY. and ChenH., An integrated approach to green supplier selection based on the interval type-2 fuzzy best-worst and extended VIKOR methods, Information Sciences502 (2019), 394–417.
17.
LiuP., The multi-attribute group decision making method based on the interval grey linguistic variables weighted aggregation operator, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems24(2) (2013), 405–414.
18.
ZhangN., Method for aggregating correlated interval grey linguistic variables and its application to decision making, Technological and Economic Development of Economy19(2) (2013), 189–202.
19.
JinF., LiuP. and ZhangX., The multi-attribute group decision making method based on the interval grey linguistic variables weighted harmonic aggregation operators, Technological and Economic Development of Economy19(3) (2013), 409–430.
RezaeiJ., NispelingT., SarkisJ. and TavasszyL., A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method, Journal of Cleaner Production135 (2016), 577–588.
22.
DwivediR., PrasadK., MandalN., SinghS., VardhanM. and PamucarD., Performance evaluation of an insurance company using an integrated Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and Best-Worst Method (BWM), Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering4(1) (2021), 33–50.
23.
MiX., TangM., LiaoH., ShenW. and LevB., The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what’s next?Omega87 (2019), 205–225.
24.
WuQ., ZhouL., ChenY. and ChenH., An integrated approach to green supplier selection based on the interval type-2 fuzzy best-worst and extended VIKOR methods, Information Sciences502 (2019), 394–417.
25.
PamucarD., ChatterjeeK. and ZavadskasE.K., Assessment of third-party logistics provider using multi-criteria decision-making approach based on interval rough numbers, Computers & Industrial Engineering127 (2019), 383–407.
26.
LiY.L., DuY.F. and ChinK.S., Determining the importance ratings of customer requirements in quality function deployment based on interval linguistic information, International Journal of Production Research56(14) (2018), 4692–4708.
27.
DuY. and LiuD., A novel approach to relative importance ratings of customer requirements in QFD based on probabilistic linguistic preferences, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making (2020), 1–31, doi: 10.1007/s10700-020-09347-4.
28.
NieR., TianZ., SangC.K. and WangJ.Q., Implementing healthcare service quality enhancement using a cloud-support QFD model integrated with TODIM method and linguistic distribution assessments, Journal of the Operational Research Society (2020), 1–23, doi: 10.1080/01605682.2020.1824554.
29.
YangQ., ChanC.Y., ChinK.S. and LiY.L., A three-phase QFD-based framework for identifying key passenger needs to improve satisfaction with the seat of high-speed rail in China, Transportation (2020), 1–36, doi: 10.1007/s11116-020-10142-8.
30.
JafarzadehH., AkbariP. and AbedinB., A methodology for project portfolio selection under criteria prioritisation, uncertainty and projects interdependency–combination of fuzzy QFD and DEA, Expert Systems with Applications110 (2018), 237–249.
31.
PalominosP., QuezadaL.E. and GonzalezM.A., Incorporating the voice of the client in establishing the flexibility requirement in a production system, International Journal of Production Economics211 (2019), 34–43.
32.
HuangJ., YouX.Y., LiuH.C. and SiS.L., New approach for quality function deployment based on proportional hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and prospect theory, International Journal of Production Research57(5) (2019), 1283–1299.
33.
DincerH., YükselS. and MartinezL., Balanced scorecard-based Analysis about European Energy Investment Policies: A hybrid hesitant fuzzy decision-making approach with Quality Function Deployment, Expert Systems with Applications115 (2019), 152–171.
34.
PengJ.G., XiaG., SunB.Q. and WangS.J., Systematical decision-making approach for quality function deployment based on uncertain linguistic term sets, International Journal of Production Research56(18) (2018), 6183–6200.
35.
HaktanırE. and KahramanC., A novel interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy QFD method and its application to solar photovoltaic technology development, Computers & Industrial Engineering132 (2019), 361–372.
36.
KoW.C., Construction of house of quality for new product planning: A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach, Computers in Industry73 (2015), 117–127.
37.
ZadehL.A., Fuzzy sets, Information and Control8(3) (1965), 338–353.
38.
DengJ.L., Control problems of grey systems, Systems & Control Letters1(5) (1982), 288–294.
39.
HaeriS.A.S. and RezaeiJ., A grey-based green supplier selection model for uncertain environments, Journal of Cleaner Production221 (2019), 768–784.
40.
WuL. and ZhangZ., Grey multivariable convolution model with new information priority accumulation, Applied Mathematical Modelling62 (2018), 595–604.
41.
ZengB. and LiC., Improved multi-variable grey forecasting model with a dynamic background-value coefficient and its application, Computers & Industrial Engineering118 (2018), 278–290.
42.
LiuY., DuJ.L. and WangY.H., An improved grey group decision-making approach, Applied Soft Computing76 (2019), 78–88.
43.
DaiY., ZhangN. and MaZ.J., MAGDM method based on interval grey linguistic correlated ordered geometric operators, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems35(3) (2018), 3115–3123.
44.
WangF., DuD.Y. and ZhaoJ., A Novel SIR·Choquet Method for Multiple Attributes Group Decision-Making with Interval Grey Linguistic, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems21(6) (2019), 1771–1785.
45.
LiC. and YuanJ., A new multi-attribute decision-making method with three-parameter interval grey linguistic variable, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems19(2) (2017), 292–300.
46.
LiuS. and ForrestJ.Y.L., Grey systems: theory and applications (Springer Science & Business Media, 2010).
47.
YangY. and JohnR., Grey sets and greyness, Information Sciences185(1) (2012), 249–264.
48.
DohmenT.J., FalkA., HuffmanD., SundeU., SchuppJ. and WagnerG.G., Individual risk attitudes: New evidence from a large, representative, experimentally-validated survey, Experimentally-Validated Survey, Social Science Electronic Publishing (2005) IZA Discussion Paper No. 1730. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=807408.
49.
HarrisonG.W., LauM.I. and RutströmE.E., Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment, Scandinavian Journal of Economics109(2) (2007), 341–368.
50.
GongZ., ZhangN. and ChiclanaF., The optimization ordering model for intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations with utility functions, Knowledge-Based Systems162 (2018), 174–184.
51.
JungE.J. and KimJ.H., Optimal investment strategies for the HARA utility under the constant elasticity of variance model, Insurance: Mathematics and Economics51(3) (2012), 667–673.
52.
MuravevD. and MijicN., A Novel Integrated Provider Selection Multicriteria Model: The BWM-MABAC Model, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering (1) (2020), 60–78.
53.
PintoL., KaynakE., ChowC.S. and ZhangL.L., Ranking of choice cues for smartphones using the Best–Worst scaling method, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics31(1) (2019), 223–245.
54.
HuangH.C., Overview of antenna designs and considerations in 5G cellular phones, In 2018 International Workshop on Antenna Technology (iWAT) (2018 March) pp. 1–4.
55.
MoslehpourM. and Le HuyenN.T., The influence of perceived brand quality and perceived brand prestige on purchase likelihood of iPhone and HTC mobile phone in Taiwan, Research in Business and Management1(1) (2014), 62–77.
56.
BehzadianM., OtaghsaraS.K, YazdaniM. and IgnatiusJ., A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications, Expert Systems with Applications39(17) (2012), 13051–13069.
57.
VelasquezM. and HesterP.T., An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods, International Journal of Operations Research10(2) (2013), 56–66.
58.
LiuC., WuW.Z., XieW. and ZhangJ., Application of a novel fractional grey prediction model with time power term to predict the electricity consumption of India and China, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals141 (2020), 110429.
59.
YinK., WangP. and LiX., The multi-attribute group decision-making method based on interval grey trapezoid fuzzy linguistic variables, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health14(12) (2017), 1561.
60.
LiuP., ChuY. and LiY., The multi-attribute group decision-making method based on the interval grey uncertain linguistic generalized hybrid averaging operator, Neural Computing and Applications26(6) (2015), 1395–1405.
61.
RoyJ., PamučarD. and KarS., Evaluation and selection of third-party logistics provider under sustainability perspectives: an interval valued fuzzy-rough approach, Annals of Operations Research (2019), 1–46.
62.
ZhuG.N., HuJ. and RenH., A fuzzy rough number-based AHP-TOPSIS for design concept evaluation under uncertain environments, Applied Soft Computing91 (2020), 106228.
63.
FazlollahtabarH., SmailbašićA. and StevićŽ., FUCOM method in group decision-making: Selection of forklift in a warehouse, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering2(1) (2019), 49–65.
64.
ŽižovićM. and PamucarD., New model for determining criteria weights: Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering2(2) (2019), 126–137.
