Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-11-18
Engineering characteristics prioritization for quality function deployment by using CRITIC and cumulative prospect theory with extended hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a powerful approach for improving product quality that can transform customer requirements (CRs) into engineering characteristics (ECs) during product manufacturing. The limitations of traditional QFD methods lead to imprecise quantification of CRs and difficulty in accurately mapping customer needs. To address these issues, this paper introduces an innovative QFD approach that integrates extended hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets (EHFLTSs), CRITIC, and cumulative prospect theory. The method expresses the subjectivity and hesitancy of decision makers when evaluating the relationship between ECs and CRs using EHFLTSs, considering the conflicts among CRs. The CRITIC is used to comprehensively evaluate the comparison strength and conflict between indicators, and the cumulative prospect theory is utilized to derive the prioritization of ECs. A case study is presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
CristianoJ.J., et al., Key factors in the successful application of quality function deployment (QFD), IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management48(1) (2001), 81–95.
2.
HongZ.X., et al., Quality characteristic extraction for complex products with multi-granular fuzzy language based on the triple bottom lines of sustainability, Computers & Industrial Engineering167 (2022).
3.
AvikalS., et al., QFD and Fuzzy Kano model based approach for classification of aesthetic attributes of SUV car profile, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing31(2) (2020), 271–284.
4.
WuT., et al., An interval type-2 fuzzy Kano-prospect-TOPSIS based QFD model: Application to Chinese e-commerce service design, Applied Soft Computing111 (2021).
5.
HsuC.H., et al., Deploying Industry 4.0 Enablers to Strengthen Supply Chain Resilience to Mitigate Ripple Effects: An Empirical Study of Top Relay Manufacturer in China, IEEE Access10 (2022), 114829–114855.
6.
YazdaniM., et al., Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection, Journal of Cleaner Production142 (2017), 3728–3740.
7.
ChanL.K. and WuM.L., A systematic approach to quality function deployment with a full illustrative example, Omega-International Journal of Management Science33(2) (2005), 119–139.
8.
JinC.X., et al., Prioritization of key quality characteristics with the three-dimensional HoQ model-based interval-valued spherical fuzzy-ORESTE method, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence104 (2021).
9.
KongM.M., et al., New Operations on Generalized Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets for Linguistic Decision Making, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems21(1) (2019), 243–262.
10.
AkbasH. and BilgenB., An integrated fuzzy QFD and TOPSIS methodology for choosing the ideal gas fuel at WWTPs, Energy125 (2017), 484–497.
11.
YangQ., et al., Large-scale group decision-making for prioritizing engineering characteristics in quality function deployment under comparative linguistic environment, Applied Soft Computing127 (2022).
12.
FangH., et al., A New Method for Quality Function Deployment Based on Rough Cloud Model Theory, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management69(6) (2022), 2842–2856.
13.
WangX., et al., Technical attribute prioritization in QFD based on cloud model and grey relational analysis, International Journal of Production Research58(19) (2020), 5751–5768.
14.
YangY.X., et al., Multi-attribute decision making method based on probabilistic linguistic term sets and its application in the evaluation of emergency logistics capacity, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems42(3) (2022), 2157–2168.
15.
LiS.P., et al., Rating engineering characteristics in open design using a probabilistic language method based on fuzzy QFD, Computers & Industrial Engineering135 (2019), 348–358.
16.
LiX.B. and HeZ., Determining importance ratings of patients’ requirements with multi-granular linguistic evaluation information, International Journal of Production Research55(14) (2017), 4110–4122.
17.
WangZ.Q., et al., A group multi-granularity linguistic-based methodology for prioritizing engineering characteristics under uncertainties, Computers & Industrial Engineering91 (2016), 178–187.
18.
RodriguezR.M., LuisM. and HerreraF., Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets for Decision Making, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems20(1) (2012), 109–119.
19.
WeiC.P., et al., A Novel Linguistic Group Decision-Making Model Based on Extended Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets, International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems23(3) (2015), 379–98.
20.
ChenY.F., et al., A new integrated MCDM approach for improving QFD based on DEMATEL and extended MULTIMOORA under uncertainty environment, Applied Soft Computing105 (2021).
21.
HeL.N., et al., A novel Kano-QFD-DEMATEL approach to optimise the risk resilience solution for sustainable supply chain, International Journal of Production Research59(6) (2021), 1714–1735.
22.
ZengW.Y., et al., Weighted hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and its application in group decision making, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems37(1) (2019), 1099–1112.
23.
ZhangZ.M. and WuC., Hesitant fuzzy linguistic aggregation operators and their applications to multiple attribute group decision making, Ibid26(5) (2014), 2185–2202.
24.
PingY.J., et al., A new integrated approach for engineering characteristic prioritization in quality function deployment, Advanced Engineering Informatics45 (2020).
25.
deB.P., Lima, et al., New hybrid AHP-QFD-PROMETHEE decision-making support method in the hesitant fuzzy environment: An application in packaging design selection, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems42(4) (2022), 2881–2897.
26.
WangH., Extended hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their aggregation in group decision making, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems8(1) (2015), 14–33.
27.
Abdel-BassetM. and MohamedR., A novel lithogenic TOPSIS- CRITIC model for sustainable supply chain risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production247 (2020).
28.
RostamzadehR., et al., Evaluation of sustainable supply chain risk management using an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS- CRITIC approach, Journal of Cleaner Production175 (2018), 651–669.
29.
LiuH.C., et al., An integrated behavior decision-making approach for large group quality function deployment, Information Sciences582 (2022), 334–348.
30.
ShiH., et al., Engineering Characteristics Prioritization in Quality Function Deployment Using an Improved ORESTE Method with Double Hierarchy Hesitant Linguistic Information, Sustainability14(15) (2022).
31.
SongC.Y., et al., Environmental quality evaluation based on the TODIM method with normal wiggly hesitant fuzzy set, Soft Computing27(12) (2023), 8161–8173.
32.
TverskyA., KahnemanD., Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (1992), 297–323.
33.
XuZ.S., An overview of methods for determining OWA weights, International Journal of Intelligent Systems20(8) (2005), 843–865.
