1. bookVolumen 45 (2020): Edición 4 (December 2020)
Detalles de la revista
Primera edición
24 Oct 2012
Calendario de la edición
4 veces al año
access type Acceso abierto

Fusing Multi-Attribute Decision Models for Decision Making to Achieve Optimal Product Design

Publicado en línea: 16 Dec 2020
Volumen & Edición: Volumen 45 (2020) - Edición 4 (December 2020)
Páginas: 305 - 337
Recibido: 05 Mar 2020
Aceptado: 28 Sep 2020
Detalles de la revista
Primera edición
24 Oct 2012
Calendario de la edición
4 veces al año

Manufacturers need to select the best design from alternative design concepts in order to meet up with the demand of customers and have a larger share of the competitive market that is flooded with multifarious designs. Evaluation of conceptual design alternatives can be modelled as a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) process because it includes conflicting design features with different sub features. Hybridization of Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) models has been applied in various field of management, science and engineering in order to have a robust decision-making process but the extension of these hybridized MADM models to decision making in engineering design still requires attention. In this article, an integrated MADM model comprising of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP), Fuzzy Pugh Matrix and Fuzzy VIKOR was developed and applied to evaluate conceptual designs of liquid spraying machine. The fuzzy AHP was used to determine weights of the design features and sub features by virtue of its fuzzified comparison matrix and synthetic extent evaluation. The fuzzy Pugh matrix provides a methodical structure for determining performance using all the design alternatives as basis and obtaining aggregates for the designs using the weights of the sub features. The fuzzy VIKOR generates the decision matrix from the aggregates of the fuzzified Pugh matrices and determine the best design concept from the defuzzified performance index. At the end, the optimal design concept is determined for the liquid spraying machine.


[1] Olabanji, O.M., Reconnoitering the suitability of fuzzified weighted decision matrix for design process of a reconfigurable assembly fixture. International Journal of Design Engineering. 8(1): p. 38-56, 2018.10.1504/IJDE.2018.096248Search in Google Scholar

[2] Renzi, C. and F. Leali, A multicriteria decision-making application to the conceptual design of mechanical components. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 23(3-4): p. 87-111, 2016.10.1002/mcda.1569Search in Google Scholar

[3] Renzi, C., F. Leali, M. Pellicciari, A.O. Andrisano, and G. Berselli, Selecting alternatives in the conceptual design phase: an application of Fuzzy-AHP and Pugh’s Controlled Convergence. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM). 9(1): p. 1-17, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Renzi, C., F. Leali, and L. Di Angelo, A review on decision-making methods in engineering design for the automotive industry. Journal of Engineering Design. 28(2): p. 118-143, 2017.10.1080/09544828.2016.1274720Search in Google Scholar

[5] Olabanji, O.M. and K. Mpofu, Comparison of weighted decision matrix, and analytical hierarchy process for CAD design of reconfigurable assembly fixture, in Procedia CIRP. 2014. p. 264-269.10.1016/j.procir.2014.10.088Search in Google Scholar

[6] Yeo, S., M. Mak, and S. Balon, Analysis of decision-making methodologies for desirability score of conceptual design. Journal of Engineering Design. 15(2): p. 195-208, 2004.10.1080/09544820310001642191Search in Google Scholar

[7] Girod, M., A. Elliott, N.D. Burns, and I. Wright, Decision making in conceptual engineering design: an empirical investigation. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture. 217(9): p. 1215-1228, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Derelöv, M., On Evaluation of Design Concepts: Modelling Approaches for Enhancing the Understanding of Design Solutions. 2009, Linköping University Electronic Press.Search in Google Scholar

[9] Nikander, J.B., L.A. Liikkanen, and M. Laakso, The preference effect in design concept evaluation. Design studies. 35(5): p. 473-499, 2014.10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.006Search in Google Scholar

[10] Jugulum, R. and D.D. Frey, Toward a taxonomy of concept designs for improved robustness. Journal of Engineering Design. 18(2): p. 139-156, 2007.10.1080/09544820600731496Search in Google Scholar

[11] Mattson, C.A. and A. Messac, Pareto frontier based concept selection under uncertainty, with visualization. Optimization and Engineering. 6(1): p. 85-115, 2005.10.1023/B:OPTE.0000048538.35456.45Search in Google Scholar

[12] Hambali, A., S. Sapuan, A. Rahim, N. Ismail, and Y. Nukman, Concurrent decisions on design concept and material using analytical hierarchy process at the conceptual design stage. Concurrent Engineering. 19(2): p. 111-121, 2011.10.1177/1063293X11408138Search in Google Scholar

[13] Sa’Ed, M.S. and M.Y. Al-Harris, New product concept selection: an integrated approach using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and conjoint analysis (CA). International Journal of Engineering & Technology. 3(1): p. 44, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Hambali, A., S. Sapuan, N. Ismail, and Y. Nukman, Application of analytical hierarchy process in the design concept selection of automotive composite bumper beam during the conceptual design stage. Scientific Research and Essays. 4(4): p. 198-211, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Radhakrishnan, R. and D.A. McAdams, A methodology for model selection in engineering design. Journal of mechanical design. 127(3): p. 378-387, 2005.10.1115/1.1830048Search in Google Scholar

[16] Green, G. and G. Mamtani, An integrated decision making model for evaluation of concept design. Acta Polytechnica. 44(3) 2004.10.14311/582Search in Google Scholar

[17] Saridakis, K.M. and A.J. Dentsoras, Soft computing in engineering design–A review. Advanced Engineering Informatics. 22(2): p. 202-221, 2008.10.1016/j.aei.2007.10.001Search in Google Scholar

[18] Okudan, G.E. and R.A. Shirwaiker. A multi-stage problem formulation for concept selection for improved product design. in 2006 Technology Management for the Global Future-PICMET 2006 Conference. IEEE 2006.10.1109/PICMET.2006.296850Search in Google Scholar

[19] Akay, D., O. Kulak, and B. Henson, Conceptual design evaluation using interval type-2 fuzzy information axiom. Computers in Industry. 62(2): p. 138-146, 2011.10.1016/j.compind.2010.10.007Search in Google Scholar

[20] Mardani, A., A. Jusoh, K. Nor, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakwan, and A. Valipour, Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications–a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja. 28(1): p. 516-571, 2015.10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139Search in Google Scholar

[21] Xiao, A., S.S. Park, and T. Freiheit. A comparison of concept selection in concept scoring and axiomatic design methods. in Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA). 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Roy, B. and D. Vanderpooten, The European School of MCDA: Emergence, Basic Features and Current Works. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 5(1): p. pp. 22-38, 1996.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Roy, B., Main Sources of Inaccurate Determination, Uncertainty and Imprecision in Decision Models. Mathl. Comput. Modelling12(10-11): pp. 1245-1254, 1989.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Ho, W., X. Xu, and P.K. Dey, Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of operational research. 202(1): p. 16-24, 2010.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Okudan, G.E. and S. Tauhid, Concept selection methods–a literature review from 1980 to 2008. International Journal of Design Engineering. 1(3): pp. 243-277, 2008.10.1504/IJDE.2008.023764Search in Google Scholar

[26] Belton, V. and T. Stewart, MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS: An Integrated Approach. 2002: Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. pp. 13-52; ISBN 978-1-4615-1495-4 (eBook).Search in Google Scholar

[27] Ortiz-Barrios, M.A., B. Kucukaltan, D. Carvajal-Tinoco, D. Neira-Rodado, and G. Jiménez, Strategic hybrid approach for selecting suppliers of high-density polyethylene. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 24(5-6): pp. 296-316, 2017.10.1002/mcda.1617Search in Google Scholar

[28] Alarcin, F., A. Balin, and H. Demirel, Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS integrated hybrid method for auxiliary systems of ship main engines. Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology. 13(1): pp. 3-11, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Nazam, M., J. Xu, Z. Tao, J. Ahmad, and M. Hashim, A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for the risk assessment of green supply chain implementation in the textile industry. International Journal of Supply and Operations Management. 2(1): pp. 548, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[30] Balin, A., H. Demirel, and F. Alarcin, A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for the most affected gas turbine component selection by the failures. Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology. 15(2): pp. 69-78, 2016.10.1080/20464177.2016.1216252Search in Google Scholar

[31] Glaize, A., A. Duenas, C. Di Martinelly, and I. Fagnot, Healthcare decision-making applications using multicriteria decision analysis: A scoping review. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 26(1-2): pp. 62-83. 2019.10.1002/mcda.1659Search in Google Scholar

[32] Zeynali, M., M.H. Aghdaie, N. Rezaeiniya, and S.H. Zolfani, A hybrid fuzzy multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) approach to combination of materials selection. African Journal of Business Management. 6(45): pp. 11171-11178, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

[33] Kundakcı, N., An integrated method using MACBETH and EDAS methods for evaluating steam boiler alternatives. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 26(1-2): p. 27-34, 2019.10.1002/mcda.1656Search in Google Scholar

[34] Olabanji, O. and K. Mpofu, Hybridized fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy weighted average for identifying optimal design concept. Heliyon, Elsevier. 6(1): p. 1-13, 2020.10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03182Search in Google Scholar

[35] Olabanji, O.M. and K. Mpofu, Adopting hybridized multicriteria decision model as a decision tool in engineering design. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology. 18(2): p. 451-479, 2020.10.1108/JEDT-06-2019-0150Search in Google Scholar

[36] Velu, L.G.N., J. Selvaraj, and D. Ponnialagan, A new ranking principle for ordering trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Complexity. 2017 2017.10.1155/2017/3049041Search in Google Scholar

[37] Singh, P., A Novel Method for Ranking Generalized Fuzzy Numbers. J. Inf. Sci. Eng. 31(4): p. 1373-1385, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[38] Nieto-Morote, A. and F. Ruz-Vila, A fuzzy AHP multi-criteria decision-making approach applied to combined cooling, heating, and power production systems. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 10(03): p. 497-517, 2011.10.1142/S0219622011004427Search in Google Scholar

[39] Zamani, S., H. Farughi, and M. Soolaki, Contractor selection using fuzzy hybrid AHPVIKOR. International Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering. 2(4): p. 26-40, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[40] Tian, J. and Z. Yan, Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for risk assessment to general-assembling of satellite. Journal of applied research and technology. 11(4): p. 568-577, 2013.10.1016/S1665-6423(13)71564-5Search in Google Scholar

[41] Somsuk, N. and C. Simcharoen, A fuzzy AHP approach to prioritization of critical success factors for six sigma implementation: Evidence from the electronics industry in thailand. International Journal of Modeling and Optimization. 1(5): p. 432-437, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[42] Muller, G. Concept selection: theory and practice. in White paper of SESG meeting. sl: Buskerud University College. 2009.Search in Google Scholar

[43] Muller, G., D. Klever, H.H. Bjørnsen, and M. Pennotti, Researching the application of Pugh Matrix in the sub-sea equipment industry, in CSER. 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[44] Musani, S. and A.A. Jemain. Ranking schools’ academic performance using a fuzzy VIKOR. in Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing 2015.10.1088/1742-6596/622/1/012036Search in Google Scholar

[45] Shemshadi, A., H. Shirazi, M. Toreihi, and M.J. Tarokh, A fuzzy VIKOR method for supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Expert Systems with Applications. 38(10): p. 12160-12167, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[46] Opricovic, S., Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Systems with Applications. 38(10): p. 12983-12990, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[47] Kim, Y. and E.-S. Chung, Fuzzy VIKOR approach for assessing the vulnerability of the water supply to climate change and variability in South Korea. Applied Mathematical Modelling. 37(22): p. 9419-9430, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

[48] Chang, T.-H., Fuzzy VIKOR method: A case study of the hospital service evaluation in Taiwan. Information Sciences. 271: p. 196-212, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[49] Bag, S., Fuzzy VIKOR approach for selection of big data analyst in procurement management. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management. 10(1): p. 1-6, 2016.10.4102/jtscm.v10i1.230Search in Google Scholar

[50] Afful-Dadzie, E., S. Nabareseh, Z.K. Oplatková, and P. Klímek, Model for assessing quality of online health information: A fuzzy VIKOR based method. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 23(1-2): p. 49-62, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

Artículos recomendados de Trend MD

Planifique su conferencia remota con Sciendo