In the current society where manufacturing industry is growing rapidly, products upgrading is faster in accordance with people’s needs, and therefore enterprises need to be more innovative to cope with this trend. When more researches about product innovative design are conducted around the world, there are more people focusing on the research and development of the service platform for product design. In this paper, we have developed the novel linguistic multi-attribute decision-making evaluation method for product innovation design scheme with demand preferences of customers. In the method, the two-tuple linguistic representation developed in recent years is used to aggregate the linguistic assessment information. According to the traditional ideas of technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), the optimal alternative(s) is determined by calculating the shortest distance from the two-tuple linguistic positive ideal solution (TLPIS) and on the other side the farthest distance of the two-tuple linguistic negative ideal solution (TLNIS). The method has exact characteristic in linguistic information processing. It avoided information distortion and losing which occur formerly in the linguistic information processing. Finally, a numerical example is used to illustrate the use of the proposed method. The result shows the approach is simple, effective and easy to calculate.
LiY.WangJ.LiX. and ZhaoW., Design creativity in product innovation, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology33(3–4) (2007), 213–222.
2.
von HippelE., Lead users: A source of novel product concepts, Management Science32(7) (1986), 791–805.
3.
KoenP.AjamianG.BurkartR. et al., Providing clarity and a common language to the ‘fuzzy front end’, Research Technology Management44(2) (2001), 46–55.
4.
AkaoY., Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements Into Product Design, Productivity Press, 2004.
5.
SuhN.P., Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications, The Oxford Series on Advanced Manufacturing, 2001.
6.
PahlG.BeitzW.WallaceK. and CouncilD., Engineering Design, Springer, 1984.
7.
Al’TshullerG.S., The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation and Technical Creativity, Technical Innovation Center, 1999.
8.
HerrmannA.HuberF. and BraunsteinC., Market-driven product and service design: Bridging the gap between customer needs, quality management, and customer satisfaction, International Journal of Production Economics66(1) (2000), 77–96.
9.
DuY.CaoH.ChenX. and WangB., Reuse-oriented redesign method of used products based on axiomatic design theory and QFD, Journal of Cleaner Production39 (2013), 79–86.
10.
CarnevalliJ.A.MiguelP.A.C. and CalargeF.A., Axiomatic design application for minimising the difficulties of QFD usage, International Journal of Production Economics125(1) (2010), 1–12.
11.
YehC.H.HuangJ.C.Y. and YuC.K., Integration of four-phase QFD and TRIZ in product R&D: A notebook case study, Research in Engineering Design22(3) (2011), 125–141.
12.
TsengC.C.TorngC.C. and LinS.C., Prioritization of product design tasks using QFD, TRIZ and DSM, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IE&EM ’2010), October 2010, pp. 871–875.
13.
XuZ.S., Uncertain Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Tsinghua University Press, Beijing, 2004.
14.
DelgadoM.HerreraF.Herrera-ViedmaE. and MartinezL., Combining numerical and linguistic information in group decision making, Information Sciences107 (1998), 177–194.
15.
DeganiR. and BortolanG., The problem of linguistic approximation in clinical decision making, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning2(2) (1998), 143–162.
16.
HerreraF.Herrera-ViedmaE. and VerdegayJ.L., A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments, Fuzzy Sets and Systems78 (1996), 73–87.
17.
HerreraF.Herrera-ViedmaE. and VerdegayJ.L., Direct approach processes in group decision making using linguistic OWA operators, Fuzzy Sets and Systems79 (1996), 175–190.
18.
HerreraF.Herrera-ViedmaE. and VerdegayJ.L., A rational consensus model in group decision making using linguistic assessments, Fuzzy Sets and Systems88 (1997), 31–49.
19.
HerreraF. and Herrera-ViedmaE., Choice functions and mechanisms for linguistic preference relations, European Journal of Operational Research120 (2000), 144–161.
20.
HerreraF. and Herrera-ViedmaE., Linguistic decision analysis: Steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information, Fuzzy Sets and Systems115 (2000), 67–82.
21.
HerreraF. and MartínezL., A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems8 (2000), 746–752.
22.
Herrera-ViedmaE.MartinezL.MataF. and ChiclanaF., A consensus support system model for group decision-making problems with multigranular linguistic preference relations, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems13 (2005), 644–658.
23.
HuynhV.A. and NakamoriY., A satisfactory-oriented approach to multi-expert decision-making with linguisticassessments, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part B35 (2005), 184–196.
24.
Ben-AriehD. and ChenZ.F., Linguistic-labels aggregation and consensus measure for autocratic decision making using group recommendations, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part A36 (2006), 558–568.
25.
TangY.C. and ZhengJ.C., Linguistic modeling based on semantic similarity relation among linguistic labels, Fuzzy Sets and Systems157 (2006), 1662–1673.
26.
HerreraF.Herrera-ViedmaE. and MartínezL., A fuzzy linguistic methodology to deal with unbalanced linguistic term sets, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems16(2) (2008), 354–37.
27.
WangW.P., Evaluating new product development performance by fuzzy linguistic computing, Expert Systems with Applications36(6) (2009), 9759–9766.
28.
WeiG.W.AlsaadiF.E.HayatT. and AlsaediA., Picture 2-tuple linguistic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, Soft Computing22(3) (2018), 989–1002.
29.
WeiG.W.WeiC. and GaoH., Multiple attribute decision making with interval-valued bipolar fuzzy information and their application to emerging technology commercialization evaluation, IEEE Access6 (2018), 60930–60955.
30.
LiZ.GaoH. and WeiG., Methods for multiple attribute group decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy dombi hamy mean operators, Symmetry10(11) (2018), 574.
31.
DengX.WangJ.WeiG. and LuM., Models for multiple attribute decision making with some 2-tuple linguistic pythagorean fuzzy hamy mean operators, Mathematics6(11) (2018), 236.
32.
LiZ.WeiG. and GaoH., Methods for multiple attribute decision making with interval-valued pythagorean fuzzy information, Mathematics6(11) (2018), 228.
33.
LiZ.WeiG. and LuM., Pythagorean fuzzy hamy mean operators in multiple attribute group decision making and their application to supplier selection, Symmetry10(10) (2018), 505.
34.
WeiG.W., Picture 2-tuple linguistic Bonferroni mean operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making, International Journal of Fuzzy System19(4) (2017), 997–1010.
35.
LuM.WeiG.W.AlsaadiF.E.HayatT. and AlsaediA., Bipolar 2-tuple linguistic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems33(2) (2017), 1197–1207.
36.
JiangY.P. and FanZ.P., Property analysis of the aggregation operators for two-tuple linguistic information, Control and Decision18(6) (2003), 754–757.
37.
LiZ.WeiG. and LuM., Pythagorean fuzzy hamy mean operators in multiple attribute group decision making and their application to supplier selection, Symmetry10(10) (2018), 505.
38.
WangJ.WeiG. and GaoH., Approaches to multiple attribute decision making with interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic pythagorean fuzzy information, Mathematics6(10) (2018), 201.
39.
DengX.M.WeiG.W.GaoH. and WangJ., Models for safety assessment of construction project with some 2-tuple linguistic Pythagorean fuzzy Bonferroni mean operators, IEEE Access6 (2018), 52105–52137.
WangJ.WeiG. and LuM., TODIM method for multiple attribute group decision making under 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic environment, Symmetry10(10) (2018), 486.
42.
GaoH., Pythagorean fuzzy hamacher prioritized aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems35(2) (2018), 2229–2245.
43.
WeiG. and WeiY., Some single-valued neutrosophic dombi prioritized weighted aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems35(2) (2018), 2001–2013.
44.
HuangY.H.WeiG.W., TODIM method for pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute decision making, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems35(1) (2018), 901–915.
45.
DeliI. and CagmanN., Intuitionistic fuzzy parameterized soft set theory and its decision making, Applied Soft Computing28 (2015), 109–113.
46.
WeiG.W.GaoH.WangJ. and HuangY.H., Research on risk evaluation of enterprise human capital investment with interval-valued bipolar 2-tuple linguistic information, IEEE Access6 (2018), 35697–35712.
47.
LaiY.J.LiuT.Y. and HwangC.L., TOPSIS for MODM, European Journal of Operational Research76(3) (1994), 486–500.
48.
HwangC.L. and YoonK., Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1981.
49.
WeiW., Extension of TOPSIS method for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete weight information, Knowledge and Information Systems25 (2010), 623–634.
50.
WeiG.W.LinR.ZhaoX.F. and WangH.J., Models for multiple attribute group decision making with 2-tuple linguistic assessment information, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems3(3) (2010), 315–324.
51.
PenningsE. and SerenoL., Evaluating pharmaceutical R&D under technical and economic uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research212(2) (2011), 374–385.
52.
WeiG.W.GaoH. and WeiY., Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy heronian mean operators in multiple attribute decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems33(7) (2018), 1426–1458.
53.
JiangC.HanX.LiuG.R. and LiuG.P., A nonlinear interval number programming method for uncertain optimization problems, European Journal of Operational Research188(1) (2008), 1–13.
54.
LukasE.MöllsS. and WellingA., Venture capital, staged financing and optimal funding policies under uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research250(1) (2016), 305–313.
55.
WeiG.W.LuM.TangX.Y. and WeiY., Pythagorean hesitant fuzzy hamacher aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems33(6) (2018), 1197–1233.
56.
WuS.WangJ.WeiG. and WeiY., Research on construction engineering project risk assessment with some 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic hamy mean operators, Sustainability10(5) (2018), 1536.
57.
LiD.F., Multiattribute decision making method based on generalized OWA operators with intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Expert Systems with Applications37 (2010), 8673–8678.
58.
SzmidtE. and KacprzykJ., An application of intuitionistic fuzzy set similarity measures to a multi-criteria decision making problem, in: Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing – Icaisc 2006, ProceedingsRutkowskiL.TadeusiewiczR.ZadehL.A. and ZuradaJ., eds, 2006, pp. 314–323.
59.
WangJ.WeiG.W. and WeiY., Models for green supplier selection with some 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic number bonferroni mean operators, Symmetry10(5) (2018), 131.
60.
ParkJ.H.ParkI.Y.KwunY.C. and TanX.G., Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision making problems under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment, Applied Mathematical Modelling35 (2011), 2544–2556.
61.
SuZ.X.ChenM.Y.XiaG.P. and WangL., An interactive method for dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making, Expert Systems with Applications38 (2011), 15286–15295.
62.
TangX.Y. and WeiG.W., Models for green supplier selection in green supply chain management with Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic information, IEEE Access6 (2018), 18042–18060.
63.
WangX.F., Fuzzy number intuitionistic fuzzy geometric aggregation operators and their application to decision making, Control and Decision23(6) (2008), 607–612.
64.
DongY.XuY. and YuS., Computing the numerical scale of the linguistic term set for the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model, IEEE Trans Fuzzy Systems17(6) (2009), 1366–1378.
65.
WeiG.W. and WangJ.M., A comparative study of robust efficiency analysis and data envelopment analysis with imprecise data, Expert Systems with Applications81 (2017), 28–38.
66.
Herrera-ViedmaE.López-HerreraA.G.LuqueM. and PorcelC., A fuzzy linguistic IRS model based on a 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems15(2) (2007), 225–250.
67.
HerreraF. and Martínez-LópezL., The 2-tuple linguistic computational model. Advantages of its linguistic description, accuracy and consistency, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems9(Supplement) (2001), 33–48.
68.
WeiG.W. and LuM., Pythagorean fuzzy maclaurin symmetric mean operators in multiple attribute decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems33(5) (2018), 1043–1070.
69.
XiaM. and XuZ.S., Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning52(3) (2011), 395–407.
70.
LiuF. and YuanX.H., Fuzzy number intuitionistic fuzzy set, Fuzzy Systems and Mathematics21(1) (2007), 88–91.
71.
WangX.F., Fuzzy number intuitionistic fuzzy arithmetic aggregation operators, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems10(2) (2008), 104–111.
72.
GaoH.WeiG.W. and HuangY.H., Dual hesitant bipolar fuzzy Hamacher prioritized aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, IEEE Access6(1) (2018), 11508–11522.
73.
LiD.F., Multiattribute decision making method based on generalized OWA operators with intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Expert Systems with Applications37 (2010), 8673–8678.
74.
WangX.F., Fuzzy number intuitionistic fuzzy geometric aggregation operators and their application to decision making, Control and Decision23(6) (2008), 607–612.
75.
WeiG.W.AlsaadiF.E.HayatT. and AlsaediA., Projection models for multiple attribute decision making with picture fuzzy information, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics9(4) (2018), 713–719.
76.
LiD.F., Mathematical-programming approach to matrix games with payoffs represented by Atanassov’s interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems18 (2010), 1112–1128.
77.
DuW.S. and HuB.Q., Aggregation distance measure and its induced similarity measure between intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Pattern Recognition Letters60–61 (2015), 65–71.
78.
DuttaB. and GuhaD., Preference programming approach for solving intuitionistic fuzzy AHP, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems8 (2015), 977–991.
79.
WeiG.W. and GaoH., The generalized Dice similarity measures for picture fuzzy sets and their applications, Informatica29(1) (2018), 1–18.
80.
GaoH.LuM.WeiG.W. and WeiY., Some novel Pythagorean fuzzy interaction aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, Fundamenta Informaticae159(4) (2018), 385–428.
81.
GuptaA.MehraA. and AppadooS.S., Mixed solution strategy for MCGDM problems using entropy/cross entropy in interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment, International Game Theory Review17 (2015).
82.
HeY.D.HeZ. and ChenH.Y., Intuitionistic fuzzy interaction bonferroni means and its application to multiple attribute decision making, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics45 (2015), 116–128.
83.
WeiG.W.AlsaadiF.E.HayatT. and AlsaediA., Bipolar fuzzy Hamacher aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, International Journal of Fuzzy System20(1) (2018), 1–12.
84.
HuangF.H.YeY.J. and KaoC.H., Developing a novel Intuitionistic Fuzzy Importance-performance Analysis for evaluating corporate social responsibility in sport tourism event, Expert Systems with Applications42 (2015), 6530–6538.
85.
KesornB.MaimunK.RatbandanW. and IampanA., Intuitionistic fuzzy sets in up-algebras, Italian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics (2015), 339–364.
86.
WeiG.W., Some similarity measures for picture fuzzy sets and their applications, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems15(1) (2018), 77–89.
87.
WeiG.W. and WeiY., Similarity measures of Pythagorean fuzzy sets based on cosine function and their applications, International Journal of Intelligent Systems33(3) (2018), 634–652.
88.
MorenoJ.M.del CastilloJ.M.M.,PorcelC. andHerrera-ViedmaE., A quality evaluation methodology for health-related websites based on a 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach, Soft Computing14 (2010), 887–897.
89.
MiC.M.LiuS.F. and YuanX.M., Study on 2-tuple linguistic assessment method based on grey clustering, Journal of Grey System19 (2007), 257–268.
90.
WeiG.W., Picture fuzzy Hamacher aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making, Fundamenta Informaticae157(3) (2018), 271–320. DOI: 10.3233/FI-2018-1628.
91.
WeiG.W. and LuM., Pythagorean fuzzy power aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems33(1) (2018), 169–186.
92.
WanS.P., Some hybrid geometric aggregation operators with 2-tuple linguistic information and their applications to multi-attribute group decision making, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems6 (2013), 750–763.
93.
WanS.P., 2-Tuple linguistic hybrid arithmetic aggregation operators and application to multi-attribute group decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems45 (2013), 31–40.
94.
DongY.C. and Herrera-ViedmaE., Consistency-driven automatic methodology to set interval numerical scales of 2-tuple linguistic term sets and its use in the linguistic GDM With preference relation, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics45 (2015), 780–792.
95.
DongY.C.LiC.C.XuY.F. and GuX., Consensus-based group decision making under multi-granular unbalanced 2-tuple linguistic preference relations, Group Decision and Negotiation24 (2015), 217–242.
