4.7 Article

Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process

期刊

COMPUTERS IN INDUSTRY
卷 59, 期 1, 页码 17-31

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.013

关键词

product design; AHP; TOPSIS; competitive benchmarking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Customer-driven product design process is critically an important part of concurrent engineering (CE). Many new principles and approaches, such as quality function deployment (QFD) and axiomatic design, have been introduced to help designers identify the relationship between customer requirements and design characteristics. However, identification of customer requirements and evaluation of design alternatives are still heavily reliant on designer's experience and knowledge. This will affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the customer-driven design process and even make the development of design automation become more difficult. This paper presents a framework that integrates the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) to assist designers in identifying customer requirements and design characteristics, and help achieve an effective evaluation of the final design solution. The proposed approach starts with applying the AHP method to evaluate the relative overall importance of customer requirements and design characteristics. The TOPSIS method is then used to per-form competitive benchmarking. Finally, a search strategy is employed to set target values for design characteristics of the recommended design alternative. The performance of the proposed approach is illustrated and validated using a personal digital assistant (PDA) design example. The results show that the proposed approach is capable of helping designers to systematically consider relevant design information and effectively determine the key design objectives and optimal conceptual alternatives. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据