Selecting alternatives in the conceptual design phase: an application of Fuzzy-AHP and Pugh’s Controlled Convergence

International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 1-17

  Renzi, C ^a   Leali, F ^a   Pellicciari, M ^a   Andrisano, A O ^a   Berselli, G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Concept selection; Engineering design methods; Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process; Pugh s controlled convergence

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; CONCEPTUAL DESIGN; COSTS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; ITERATIVE METHODS; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

ALTERNATIVE SELECTIONS; CONCEPT SELECTION; CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVE; CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASE; DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS; ENGINEERING DESIGN METHODS; FUZZY ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; GROUP DECISION MAKING;

PRODUCT DESIGN;

EID: 84922337608     PISSN: 19552513     EISSN: 19552505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12008-013-0187-y     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Lotter, B.: Manufacturing Assembly Handbook. Butterworths, Boston (1986)
2. Duffy, A.H.B., Andreasen, M.M., MacCallum, K.J., Reijers, L.N.: Design coordination for concurrent engineering. J. Eng. Des. 4, 251–261 (1993)
3. Hsu, W., Woon, I.M.Y.: Current research in the conceptual design of mechanical products. Comput. Aided Des. 30(5), pp. 377–389 (1998). ISSN: 0010-4485. doi:10.1016/S0010-4485(97)00101-2
4. Andrisano, A.O., Leali, F., Pellicciari, M., Pini, F., Vergnano, A.: Hybrid Reconfigurable System design and optimization through virtual prototyping and digital manufacturing tools. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 6(1), 17–27 (2012)
5. Pellicciari, M., Andrisano, A.O., Leali, F., Vergnano, A.: Engineering method for adaptive manufacturing systems design. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 3(2), 81–91 (2009)
6. Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D.: Product Design and Development, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, Boston (2000)
7. Sébastian, P., Ledoux, Y.: Decision support systems in preliminary design. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 3(4), 223–226 (2009)
8. Vincke, P.: Multi-Criteria Decision-Aid. Wiley, Chichester (1992)
9. Montagna, F.: Decision-aiding tools in innovative product development contexts. Res. Eng. Des. 22(2), 63–86 (2011)
10. Kuppuraju, N., Ittimakin, P., Mistree, F.: Design through selection: a method that works. Des. Stud. 6(2), 91–106 (1985)
11. Salonen, M., Perttula, M.: Utilization of concept selection methods—a survey of Finnish industry. In: Proceeding of Engineering. Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 24–28 September 2005. Long Beach, California, USA (2005)
12. Yang, M.C.: Design methods, tools, and outcome measures: a survey of practitioners. In: ASME Conference Proceedings, vol. 217 (2007). doi:10.1115/DETC2007-35123
13. Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill, New York (1980)
14. Buyukozkan, G., Kahraman, C., Ruan, D.: A fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach for software development strategy selection. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 33, 259–280 (2004)
15. Ayag, Z., Ozdemir, R.G.: A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool alternatives. J. Intell. Manuf. 17, 179–790 (2006)
16. Frey, D.D., et al.: An evaluation of the pugh controlled convergence method. In: ASME Conference Proceedings, vol. 193 (2007). doi:10.1115/DETC2007-34758
17. Ayag, Z.: A fuzzy AHP-based simulation approach to concept evaluation in a NPD environment. IIE Trans. 37, 827–842 (2005)
18. Liu, C., Ramirez-Serrano, A., Yin, G.: An optimum design selection approach for product customization development. J. Intell. Manuf. 23(4), 1433–1443 (2012)
19. Kapoor, V., Tak, S.S.: Fuzzy application to the analytic hierarchy process for Robot selection. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak. 4(3), 209–234 (2005)
20. Liang, G.S., Wang, M.J.J.: A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach for robot selection. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 10(4), 267–274 (1993)
21. Saari, D.G., Sieberg, K.K.: Are partwise comparisons reliable? Res. Eng. Des. 15, 62–71 (2006)
22. Takai, S., Ishii, K.: Modifying Pugh’s design concept evaluation methods, DETC2004-57512. In: ASME Design. Engineering Technical Conferences, Salt Lake City, UT (2004)
23. Frey, D.D., et al.: The Pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory. Res. Eng. Des. 20, 41–58 (2009)
24. Thakker, A.: 3DCAD conceptual design of the next-generation impulse turbine using the Pugh decision-matrix. Mater. Des. 30(7), 2676–2684 (2009)
25. Iqbal, L.U., Sullivan, J.P.: Preliminary design of MALE UAV utilizing high fidelity CAD/CAE tools and design methods. In: AIAA Infotech at Aerospace Conference and Exhibit and AIAA Unmanned$$\ldots $$Unlimited Conference. Article No. 2009–1971 (2009)
26. Wang, J.: Improved engineering design concept selection using fuzzy sets. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 15(1), 18–27 (2002)
27. Khan, M., Smith, D.G.: Overcoming conceptual barriers—by systematic design. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, International Conference on Engineering Design. (ICED ’89), Harrogate 1989, WDK 18, vol. 1, pp. 605–619. IMechE (1989)
28. Reich, Y.: Editorial, My method is better!. Res. Eng. Des. 21(3), 137–142 (2010)
29. Franssen, M.: Arrow’s theorem, multi-criteria decision problems and multi-attribute preferences in engineering design. Res. Eng. Des. 16, 42–56 (2005)
30. Yang, M.C.: Design methods, tools, and outcome measures: a survey of practitioners. In: DETC2007-35123 Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Las Vegas, NV (2007)
31. Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S., Omrani, H., Panahi, A.: A hybrid approach based on SERVQUAL and fuzzy TOPSIS for evaluating transportation service quality. Comput. Ind. Eng. 61(3), pp. 637–646 (2011), ISSN: 0360-8352. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2011.04.019
32. Cabannes, G., Troussier, N., Gidel, T., Cherfi, Z.: An uncertainty-based approach to drive product preliminary design. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 5(1), 55–65 (2011)
33. Ji, H., Honda, T., Yang, M.C.: Granularity enhancement of extracted preferential probabilities from design team discussion. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, 5 (PARTS A AND B), pp. 231–240 (2011)
34. Eckert, C., Clarkson, P.J., Zanker, W.: Change and customisation in complex engineering domains. Res. Eng. Des. 15(1), 1–21 (2004)
35. Eder, W.E.: Design modeling: a design science approach (and why does industry not use it?). J. Eng. Des. 9(4), 355–371 (1998)
36. Otto, K.N., Antonsson, E.K.: Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Res. Eng. Des. 3(2), 87–103 (1991)
37. Scott, M.J., Antonsson, E.K.: Aggregation functions for engineering design trade-offs. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 99, 253–264 (1998)
38. Dubois, D., Prade, H.: A review of fuzzy set aggregation connectives. Inf. Sci. 36, 85–121 (1985)