IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i15p9771-d883059.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Engineering Characteristics Prioritization in Quality Function Deployment Using an Improved ORESTE Method with Double Hierarchy Hesitant Linguistic Information

Author

Listed:
  • Hua Shi

    (School of Materials, Shanghai Dianji University, Shanghai 201306, China)

  • Ling-Xiang Mao

    (School of Economics and Management, Anhui Normal University, Wuhu 241002, China)

  • Ke Li

    (School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

  • Xiang-Hu Wang

    (School of Materials, Shanghai Dianji University, Shanghai 201306, China)

  • Hu-Chen Liu

    (School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

Abstract

Quality function deployment (QFD) is a customer-driven product development technique widely utilized to translating customer requirements into engineering characteristics for maximum customer satisfaction. Nonetheless, when used in real situations, the traditional QFD method has been criticized to have many deficiencies, e.g., in expressing experts’ uncertain assessments and prioritizing engineering characteristics. In this study, we propose a new engineering characteristics prioritization approach based on double hierarchy hesitant linguistic term sets (DHHLTSs) and the ORESTE (organísation, rangement et Synthèse de données relarionnelles, in French) method to overcome the shortcomings of the traditional QFD. Specifically, the main contributions of this study to the literature are that the DHHLTSs are utilized to describe the hesitant relationship assessments between customer requirements and engineering characteristics provided by experts, and the ORESTE method is modified and used to determine the importance ranking orders of engineering characteristics. Finally, a case study and a comparison analysis are presented to illustrate the feasibility and practicability of the proposed QFD approach. The advantages of the new approach being proposed are higher flexibility in handling experts’ intricate and hesitant relationship evaluation information and effective in providing a reasonable prioritization of engineering characteristics in the practical QFD analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Hua Shi & Ling-Xiang Mao & Ke Li & Xiang-Hu Wang & Hu-Chen Liu, 2022. "Engineering Characteristics Prioritization in Quality Function Deployment Using an Improved ORESTE Method with Double Hierarchy Hesitant Linguistic Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9771-:d:883059
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9771/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9771/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jia Huang & Xiao-Yue You & Hu-Chen Liu & Sheng-Li Si, 2019. "New approach for quality function deployment based on proportional hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and prospect theory," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(5), pages 1283-1299, March.
    2. Jia Huang & Ling-Xiang Mao & Hu-Chen Liu & Min-shun Song, 2022. "Quality function deployment improvement: A bibliometric analysis and literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1347-1366, June.
    3. Keyou Shi & Yong Liu & Weizhang Liang, 2022. "An Extended ORESTE Approach for Evaluating Rockburst Risk under Uncertain Environments," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Ye-Jia Ping & Ran Liu & Ze-Ling Wang & Hu-Chen Liu, 2022. "New approach for quality function deployment with an extended alternative queuing method under linguistic Pythagorean fuzzy environment," European Journal of Industrial Engineering, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 16(3), pages 349-370.
    5. Roubens, Marc, 1982. "Preference relations on actions and criteria in multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 51-55, May.
    6. Xu Wang & Hong Fang & Wenyan Song, 2020. "Technical attribute prioritisation in QFD based on cloud model and grey relational analysis," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(19), pages 5751-5768, October.
    7. Ru-xin Nie & Zhang-peng Tian & Chin Kwai Sang & Jian-qiang Wang, 2022. "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, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(2), pages 207-229, March.
    8. Carnevalli, Jose A. & Miguel, Paulo Cauchick, 2008. "Review, analysis and classification of the literature on QFD--Types of research, difficulties and benefits," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 737-754, August.
    9. Song-Man Wu & Hu-Chen Liu & Li-En Wang, 2017. "Hesitant fuzzy integrated MCDM approach for quality function deployment: a case study in electric vehicle," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(15), pages 4436-4449, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Çiğdem Sıcakyüz & Babek Erdebilli, 2023. "Is E-Trust a Driver of Sustainability? An Assessment of Turkish E-Commerce Sector with an Extended Intuitionistic Fuzzy ORESTE Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-26, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jia Huang & Ling-Xiang Mao & Hu-Chen Liu & Min-shun Song, 2022. "Quality function deployment improvement: A bibliometric analysis and literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1347-1366, June.
    2. Meinel, Martin & Eismann, Tobias T. & Baccarella, Christian V. & Fixson, Sebastian K. & Voigt, Kai-Ingo, 2020. "Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 661-671.
    3. Thomas L. Saaty, 2013. "The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1101-1118, October.
    4. Saliha Karadayi-Usta & Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, 2023. "Evaluating the Sustainability of Fashion Brands Using a Neutrosophical ORESTE Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Liu, Xiao & Li, Ming-Yang, 2024. "Sustainable service product design method: Focus on customer demands and triple bottom line," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. Laura Montalbán-Domingo & Madeleine Aguilar-Morocho & Tatiana García-Segura & Eugenio Pellicer, 2020. "Study of Social and Environmental Needs for the Selection of Sustainable Criteria in the Procurement of Public Works," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-21, September.
    7. Paweł Ziemba & Mateusz Piwowarski & Kesra Nermend, 2023. "Remote Work in Post-Pandemic Reality—Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Teleconferencing Software," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.
    8. Burcu Yılmaz Kaya & Aylin Adem & Metin Dağdeviren, 2020. "A DSS-Based Novel Approach Proposition Employing Decision Techniques for System Design," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(02), pages 413-445, March.
    9. Prem Kumar Singh, 2023. "Research impact analysis of an institute using Scopus data and its hierarchical order visualization," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 2859-2892, June.
    10. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    11. Rodrigo F. Herrera & Claudio Mourgues & Luis Fernando Alarcón & Eugenio Pellicer, 2019. "An Assessment of Lean Design Management Practices in Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.
    12. Wade D. Cook & Tal Raviv & Alan J. Richardson, 2010. "Aggregating Incomplete Lists of Journal Rankings: An Application to Academic Accounting Journals," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 217-235, September.
    13. Sharma, Varun & Vijayaraghavan, T.A.S. & Raghu Ram, Tata L., 2023. "Resolving operational paradox of sustainable supply chain: A decision framework approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PB).
    14. Chowdhury, Md. Maruf Hossan & Quaddus, Mohammed A., 2015. "A multiple objective optimization based QFD approach for efficient resilient strategies to mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities: The case of garment industry of Bangladesh☆,☆☆☆This manuscript was pro," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 57(PA), pages 5-21.
    15. Chao Song & Jian-Qiang Wang & Jun-Bo Li, 2020. "New Framework for Quality Function Deployment Using Linguistic Z-Numbers," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-20, February.
    16. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2023. "A compensatory value function for modeling risk tolerance and criteria interactions in preference disaggregation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    17. A. Noorul Haq & Varma Boddu, 2017. "Analysis of enablers for the implementation of leagile supply chain management using an integrated fuzzy QFD approach," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-12, January.
    18. Katarzyna Nosal Hoy & Katarzyna Solecka & Andrzej Szarata, 2019. "The Application of the Multiple Criteria Decision Aid to Assess Transport Policy Measures Focusing on Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-23, March.
    19. Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Pratibha Rani & Raghunathan Krishankumar & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Kattur S. Ravichandran, 2021. "A Hesitant Fuzzy Combined Compromise Solution Framework-Based on Discrimination Measure for Ranking Sustainable Third-Party Reverse Logistic Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    20. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Zhou, Ligang & Qin, Jindong & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "An analytical framework for the best–worst method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9771-:d:883059. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.