Integrated QFDE, DfE and AHP to Selecting Products at ... · “Green” products and Analytic...

18

วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกลาพระนครเหนือ ปที่ 17 ฉบับที ่1 ม.ค. - เม.ย. 2550 The Journal of KMITNB., Vol. 17, No. 1, Jan. - Apr. 2007

* Student, Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut's Institute of TechnologyNorth Bangkok. Corresponding author's e-mail: [email protected]

** Associate- Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut's Institute

of Technology North Bangkok.*** Eco Design Consultant Co., Ltd.

บทคัดยองานวิจัยนี้ ไดนําเสนอกระบวนการในการเลื อก

ผลิตภัณฑที่ระดับแนวคิด เพื่อใหสามารถทําการประเมินแนวคิดการออกแบบผลิตภัณฑไดทั้งทางดานเชงิปริมาณและเชิงคุณภาพ ดวยการประยุกตใชเทคนิคการแปลงหนาที่ทางคุณภาพเพื่อสิ่งแวดลอม (Quality Function

Deployment for Environment, QFDE) และการวิเคราะหกระบวนการเชิงลําดับชั้น (Analytic Hierarchy Process,AHP) โดยกระบวนการดําเนินการเริ่มตนจากการศึกษารวบรวมขอมลูเชงิคุณภาพจากเสยีงจากผูบรโิภค (Voice ofCustomer, VOC) เพือ่มาทําการแปลงไปยงัประเด็นทางดานสิ่งแวดลอมของผลิตภัณฑ หลังจากนั้นในขั้นตอนที่สองจึงนําเทคโนโลยีการออกแบบผลิตภัณฑเพื่อสิ่งแวดลอม(Design for Environment, DfE) มาใชในการวิเคราะหประสทิธิภาพการออกแบบผลติภัณฑเดิมที่มอียู ตามดวยขั้นตอนที่สามคือ การออกแบบทางเลือกในการปรับปรุงผลิตภัณฑใหมบนพื้นฐานเสียงจากผูบริโภคและเทคนิคการออกแบบเพื่อสิ่งแวดลอม และขั้นตอนสุดทายจะเปนการนําทกุคาทีท่ําการพจิารณาทัง้ทางดานเชงิปรมิาณและเชงิคุณภาพ เชน ความสามารถในการผลติ ความสามารถทางดานหนาที่การทํางาน ความเปนมิตรกับสิ่งแวดลอมความสวยงาม และตนทุน มาทําการประเมินโดยรวมอีก

ครั้ งหนึ่ ง ดวยโมเดลของการวิ เคราะหกระบวนการลําดับชั้น โดยกระบวนการที่ไดนําเสนอนี้ ผลลัพธจากการวิจัยแสดงใหเห็นไดวากระบวนการนี้ สามารถชวยใหผูออกแบบเขาถึงความตองการอยางแทจริงของลกูคาไดมากขึน้ นอกจากนีวิ้ธกีารนีย้งัชวยเพิม่ศักยภาพผลิตภัณฑทางดานสิ่งแวดลอมในการแขงขันไดอีกดวย

คําหลัก : การแปลงหนาที่ทางคุณภาพเพื่อสิ่งแวดลอม,การออกแบบเพื่อสิ่งแวดลอม, การวิเคราะหกระบวนการเชิงลําดับชั้น

AbstractThe methodology for selecting products at

conceptual design phase is addressed in this article.

This method evaluates both qualitative and quantita-tive variables based upon Product Design Concept(PDC), which uses the Quality Function Deployment for

Environment (QFDE) and Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP) methods. The qualitative variable design pa-rameters and design criterion from Voice of Customer

(VOC) were first deployed. Secondly, Design forEnvironment (DfE) Technology was also used to

Integrated QFDE, DfE and AHP to Selecting Productsat Conceptual Design Phase

Prin Boonkanit*, Athakorn Kengpol**, Akajate Apikajornsin***

mailto:[email protected]

19


(or at the patent disclosure stage), and 1 in 125 at thesmall project stage (or after a patent is granted). Afterstage 4 of 7 stages, when a detailed analysis has been

completed and an early stage development effort isunderway, the “universal success curve” shows thaton average just one in nine projects are commercially

successful. Even when a project reaches the stage ofmajor development, the odds of success are typicallystill no greater than 1 in 4, or 25%.

Conceptual design is a simplified design processintended to “flesh out” multiple design concepts tothe point where they can be evaluated objectively. The

concept that survives the evaluation process issubjected to a detailed engineering design inpreparation for production and other factors. In

general viewpoint of methodology for selectingproduct at conceptual design were briefly describesthe characteristics of another popular decision matrix

based method called Pugh method [5]. Stuart Pughdeveloped a design concept evaluation table formultiple design concepts that formalizes the qualitative

approach to the decision-making process for selectingone or more design concepts to pursue in detail. ThePugh method avoids the first drawback associated with

analyze the design performance. Thirdly, alternativeproducts based on the VOC and DfE were designed.

Lastly, all of qualitative and quantitative criteria such as,“Manufacturability,” “Functionality,” “EnvironmentalFriendliness,” “Aesthetics” and “Cost” were used to

evaluate the use of AHP to meet design requirementswith which the detailed design was implemented. Inthis manner a product that more closely fits consumer

needs and is thus more competitive can be designedincorporating the green perspective.Keywords : Quality Function Deployment for

Environment, Design for Environment,Analytic Hierarchy Process

1. IntroductionThe development of high quality, low cost and

environmentally friendly products is an important

priority of any enterprise in today's highly competitivemarket. Development of new products is rewarding andnecessary to maintain a healthy organization. For

example Booz et al. [1] found that over a 5 year periodnew products accounted for 28% of company growth.Duerr [2] found that 35% of current revenue was

derived from products that were not on the market 10years previously. Wind et al. [3] found that 25% ofcurrent sales were derived from new products

introduced in the last 3 years. Stevens and Burley [4]found that about 3000 raw ideas are required toproduce one substantially new commercially

successful industrial product.However, product innovation has not

necessarily resulted in commercial success. The

resulting “universal success curve”[4] that shown infigure 1 is a benchmark which shows for example, thatthe odds of commercial success for substantially new

products averages 1 in 300 at the idea submission stage

Figure 1 Universal success curve [4].

20


the typical decision matrix construction by eliminatingthe use of weights, which Pugh argues are misleading

in nature we note that the Pugh method still does notovercome the second drawback. Based on thethree-point rating structure of the Pugh method (better

than, equal to, or worse than), it is less descriptivethan the more common view point rating scale (muchbetter than, better than, equal to, worse than, much

worse than). In industrial practice, numerous methodsare used to perform concept selection. These methodsinclude decision matrices, feasibility judgment,

intuition, multi-voting, numeric and non-numericselection charts, pairwise comparisons, and prototypetesting. Decision matrix methods are perhaps the most

commonly used approach to concept selection inengineering design practice. [6-7]

In keeping with the need of the 21st century the

product design perspective focuses on not onlymanufacturing and customer needs but also on GreenProduct Design or the environmental perspective

Organizations which can design “Green” products, orecologically friendly products can increase the marketshare due to environmental awareness of consumers.

What is the “Green Product”? We could describe“Green Product” as the strategy to emphasize thegreening of products or design product based on

Design for Environment (DfE). Such productsrepresent sustainable development which will minimizeimpact on the environment and also take into account

the expectations of the customer and the economicreality of the company. A product is identified as“green” according to the criterion below. [8]

• The product design requires low consumptionof natural resources.

• The chosen material is a plentiful natural

resource.

• The product design avoids or minimizesemission of hazardous waste in the production process.

• When in use the product is relativelyenvironmentally sound.

• The product enables environmentally sound,

design remanufacturing or recycling processes.• When finally discarded, the environmental

impact of incineration and disposal are minimal.

The criterion for determining whether a productis “green” or environmentally friendly are abstract andare not very helpful for development of Green Products.

In order to consider an environmental criteria, productdesigners need more concrete instruments such asdesign tools or methodology, to aid integration of

environmental aspects in their design work, especiallyin the design phase. The most effective way to produceenvironmentally friendly products is to consider the

environmentally requirements in conjunction withcustomer demands during conceptual design phase.Thus in the last 10 years many researchers have

attempted to develop the tools and methodology forhelping designers select the best conceptual designand make the right decision in the design process, Not

only in the traditional perspective of manufacturingand customer needs (same as we described above) butalso in integrating the environmental perspective.

Various studies on design methodology havebeen conducted. For example Ulrich [9] presented amethodology for the development of cleaner products.

Julie et al. [10] found that the method for approximatedlife-cycle assessment in conceptual product design canuse artificial neural networks but the process is very

difficult to implement without a good data inventoryfrom LCA [8]. Shin-Wen [11] presented design methodwith which developed a new product in concurrent

engineering environment by using QFD AHP FMEA

21


and DFA. Other procedure included a hierarchicalframework for environmentally conscious design [12].

Analysis of the characteristics of QFDE and LCA forEco design suggests that combined use of the twomethods provides optimum results.

According to the papers above, the best decisionsupport methodology is needed to selecting a productat conceptual design in order to include quantitative

and qualitative decision factors together. The decisionsupport methodology presented in the next sectionaims to contribute to the requirement mentioned above.

The techniques we will integrate are QFD for findingVOC, DfE for supported environmental criteria of“Green” products and Analytic Hierarchy Process

(AHP) for integrating other criteria for the best design.Each design alternative is evaluated. This methodologycan also help the designer to evaluate design concept

and enable the industry to save time and cost inmanufacturing a new product.

2. Methodology2.1. Quality Function Deployment for Environment

QFD was developed in Japan in 1972 and

introduced to the United States in late 1983 [13].QFD isa methodology used at product planning stage toanalyze functions required for a product or the product

structure to realize these functions. When extended toenvironmental analysis, it is known as QFDE. TheQFDE is an innovative design tool for developing

environmentally friendly products. This tool isapplicable during the concept design stage of productdevelopment by translating customer requirements into

product development and production. The QFDprocedure is divided into 6 stages are as follow,

1. Identifying the customers.

2. Determining the customer requirements or Voice

of Customer (VOC) with the environment perspective.3. Determining the relative importance of the

requirements.4. Competition benchmarking.5. Translating customer requirements into

measurable engineering requirements.6. Setting engineering targets for the design.

The benefits of using QFDE are:

1. Lead time to develop new products is shortened2. The number of design changes is reduced3. The uncertainty of the design is reduced

4. The design product more fits customer need

2.2 Green Product Concept AnalysisGreen product concept consists of evaluated each

design alternative from the customer, includingenvironmental perspective from QFDE. The DfE

technologies are related to green design describedabove in part 1

There is a considerable amount of literature

prescribing design methodologies for environmentalimprovement. These methodologies refer to differentstages of the product's physical life cycle, ranging from

sourcing materials to reuse, recycling, or safe disposal(also known as a “cradle to grave policy”). Theyinclude design for manufacture and assembly (DFMA),

concurrent engineering (CE), and design for disassembly(DFD). However, DfE is considered the most prevalentand promising initiative aiming to reverse decades of

environment neglect by manufacturers, designers, andengineers. In general, DfE is a design process in whicha product’s environmentally preferable attributes-

including recyclability, disassembly, maintainability,refurbish ability and reusability-are treated as designobjectives rather than as constraints. The traditional

product analysis is expanded to include DfE consider-

22


ations of materials elimination or substitution, processoptimization, energy reduction, and product reuse. DfE

gives guidelines for the design engineer to examineenvironmental soundness of a product over its entirelife cycle by introducing modifications early in the

product design process. A recent study on an assess-ment of DfE practices in leading U.S. electronics firmshas found that a growing number of managers believe

that addressing environmental impact in product-design decisions has tangible advantages to firms [14].For those reasons, DfE is a very important factor in

achieving best design and supported business success.

2.3 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)AHP was developed in the 1970’s by Dr. Thomas

Saaty [15]. The AHP provides a fundamental scale ofrelative magnitudes expressed in dominance units to

represent judgments in the form of paired comparisons.A ratio scale of relative magnitudes expressed inpriority units is then synthesized to obtain a ranking of

the alternatives.The first step of AHP begins by decomposing a

complex multiple criteria decision making (MCDM)

problem into a graphical hierarchy to represent goal,criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives. After the con-struction of a hierarchy, priorities should be determined

for the elements in every level of the hierarchy. Theprioritization is based upon a set of axioms which are

described below. The full mathematical formula can befurther clarified in Saaty [16] and a brief description is

given in Korpela and Tuominen [17].

3. Example of Green Product Design Selection andthe Result of Research3.1 A Case Study-Design A Inkjet Printer

After we analyzed the marketplace for a case study,

we found one type of products requiring improvement.This was the Inkjet Printer Model xxx .We illustrated infigure 2. These printers have gained a high ratio of the

market share but are not good in environmentallyfriendly.

To guarantee the customer orientation of the green

perspective in printer design it is necessary to knowcustomer needs and base the evaluation upon thesedata. The first interview delivers the basis of far-reaching

criteria catalog that is use for rating. It has to beassumed that the customer view of printer productsarises from assessment of different performance

components with DfE perspective. The more extensiveand the more detailed the customer requirements canbe worked out in the interviews the more precisely they

can be carried out. The participation of the customer isnecessary to ensure that the customer satisfaction ismeasured by features of actual relevance. The

interviewed participants were asked to mentionprinters and comment on them. The questionnaire wasadministered 50 times in a period of 1 month and 40

respondents could be included in the analysis. Byusing these 40 questionnaires altogether 21 specificrequirements on printers could be found out. In the

first questionnaire the customers have been asked abouttheir printers in which an assessment of available printershall be carried out. Objective of the interview is the

determination of comparable (numerical) indicators with

Figure 2 Inkjet Printer Model xxx.

23


an assessment of the strength and weak points of theproducts from VOC. The extensive list of requirementsmakes a very subtly differentiated judgment possible.

The second questionnaire covers 3 complexes of thequestions. At first the interviews were asked for theprinter they would like to have. In question 2 the inter-

view was asked for a printer in environment aspect. Inquestionnaire 3 we asked the customers about the fea-tures by ranking the importance for supported AHP. The

results VOC of this examination were illustrate in Table 1.After the VOC of printer requirements were

identified, they were structured and summarized. We

used an affinity diagram to help group the requirements

for constructed HOQ of VOC. The procedures areexplained in the following section.

3.2 Affinity Diagram and Tree DiagramAn affinity diagram is used to gather large amounts

of qualitative data and organize into subgroups based

on similarities between data items. The QFD processcollects or generates a large set of customer needs fora product, in an unstructured form. The development

team can pair up needs based on similar attributes usingintuition or gut feelings. The pairs can be further aggre-gated into larger common themes. After grouping the

needs, a tree diagram can be constructed, the branches

Easy for change ink High printing quality

Fast printing Low price printer

Low price cartridge Less vibration

Less packaging material Less maintenance

Less ink Less power Less noise

Modular construction Good serviceability Good appearances Small and Light

Easy to assembly

Easy to disassembly Easy to installation

Spare parts available Easy to carried Finance support

Table 1 VOC of printer products

Figure 3 Tree diagram of VOC Inkjet Printers.

24


Table 2 Phase 1 of HOQ printer products

of which can be examined for any gaps omissions orerrors in the affinity diagram in which can then be added

to the QFD matrix. In this case study the tree diagram isillustrated in Figure 3. After that we constructed HOQand translated into technical requirement which are

omitted here.

Planning MatrixThis section helps the development team priority

customer needs, recognizing that resources aren’tunlimited. The matrix consists of a series of columns

representing key product planning information for eachcustomer need. The process involves asking the

following for each need; how important is it? How wellare we meeting it today? How well is the competitor

meeting it? What is our goal in meeting this need? Ifthe need is met, will it help sell the product?

Judgments are made by the development team

about the strength of the relationship between eachwant/need and each technical response. The score inHouse of Quality (HOQ) is illustrated in table 2 and the

score in table 2 are ranking from 1 to 9 points. (1 =minimum important relation ship - 9 maximum impor-tant relationship between customer requirement and

engineering design)3.3 Design Alternative

25


Under the technical criteria we received from HOQof QFD, QFD in this paper consist 4 phase: Phase1VOCfrom customer (Shown in Table 2) and engineering

matrices (EM) phase 2 EM and product characteristics(PC) output from phases 1and 2 are used to identifyand focus on product improvement factors to form

traditional pattern by development product team. Afteridentifying the important characteristics in phases 1and2 phase 3 and 4 are to examine design improvements such

as reducing weight of product, improving packaging,reducing product power consumption by changingpower supply, reducing ink usage by improving cartridge

program and etc. The designers developed four designideas based on design criteria and customer require-ment VOC in Table 1, 2 and Fig. 3, and method for

product development using the design for function,design for assembly and design for environmentmethodology. The design ideas are show in figure 4. In

these design ideas only the configurations are differentbut the target of product improvement for supportedcustomer need and Environment expect are the same

Thus, an overall perspective evaluation for these ideas

is needed to select the best design alternative.

3.4 The Assessment in the AHP AnalysisAfter we received many alternatives re-design

from designer. We used AHP to select the bestalternative. Because AHP is a powerful and flexible de-

cision making process to help people set prioritiesand make the best decision when both qualitative andquantitative aspects of a decision need to be considered.

By reducing complex decisions to a series of one-on-onecomparisons, then synthesizing the results, AHP notonly helps decision makers arrive at the best decision,

but also provides a clear rationale that it is the best. Itis designed to reflect the way people actually think.The AHP engages decision makers in structuring a

decision into smaller parts, proceeding from the goalto objectives to sub-objectives down to the alternativecourses of action. Decision makers then make simple

pairwise comparison judgments throughout thehierarchy to arrive at overall priorities for the alter-natives. The decision problem may involve social,

political, technical, and economic factors. The AHP

Table 3 An example questionnaire for pair wise comparison of cost criteria

Design idea 1 Design idea 2 Design idea 3 Design idea 4Figure 4 Alternatives Inkjet Printers ideas design.

Criteria 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Criteria Low price printer x Low Price cartridge Low price printer x Finance support Low Price cartridge x Finance support

26


helps people cope with the intuitive, the rational andthe irrational, and with risk and uncertainty in complex

settings. It can be used to predict likely outcomes, planprojected and desired futures, facilitate group decisionmaking, exercise control over changes in the decision

making system, allocate resources, select alternatives,do cost/benefit comparisons, evaluate employees andallocate wage increases. According to the criterion

suggested in Liberatore [18] and information fromQuestionnaire (QFDE) the criterions used in this modelhave been illustrated in figure 5. The main criteria used

in this model are aesthetics, convenience, efficiency,cost and environmental impact.

3.5 Measurement of the Degrees of Satisfaction forDesign Ideas

To get the degree of satisfaction that people

experience on design alternatives, another questionnaire,shown in table 2, was designed. The subjects werethen asked to express their mental images for the given

design alternatives. Table 3 shows an example for

evaluating the values of design idea 1-4. In the samemanner, the values for calculated best target from the

other design alternatives were obtained.

Pair Wise Comparison MatricesTo obtain the weights for the various objectives,

we begin by forming a matrix A, known as the pairwisecomparison matrix. The entry in row i and column j of

A, labeled aij indicates how much more or lessimportance objective i is than objective j "Importance"is measured on an integer-valued scale from 1 to 9

(Table 4), with each number having the interpretationshown in table 5. [19], [20].

Matrix A

Figure 5 The hierarchy structure of the evaluation parameters for printers design.

=

iji3i2i1

2j232221

1j131211

aaaa

aaaa

aaaa

A

27


Table 4 Interpretation of values in pair wise comparisonmatrix

Table 5 Show an example for evaluating the values ofdesign under cost criteria

For example, if a13 = 3 then objective low priceprinter is slightly more important than objective financesupport then a31 = 1/3 (Table 5)

Then the corresponding normalized matrix isExample a11=1/ (1+2+3) =0.166,

=

0.600.660.50

0.200.220.33

0.200.110.16

ANormalized

Eigenvector = (0.16+0.11+0.2)/3=0.156,(0.33+0.22+0.20)/3=0.25, (0.50+0.66+0.60)/3=0.58

After that we compute Consistency Index (C.I.)by calculated λmax , where λmax is the largest or

principal eigenvalue of Matrix A'= (a'ij), the perturbedvalue of A = (aij) with a'ji=1/ a'ij forced. (Saaty, 1996) It is

interesting to note that )1/()max( −− ηηλ is thevariance of the error incurred in estimating ija .Thiscan be shown by writing 0,)/( >= ijijjiij wwa εε and

1,1 −>+= ijijij δδε and substituting in the expressionfor λmax. It is ijδ that concerns us as the errorcomponent and its value 1<ijδ for an unbiased

estimator. The measure of inconsistency can be usedto successively improve the consistency of judgments.

=×

1.780.740.47

0.580.250.15

1331/3121/31/21

λmax = ((0.47/0.156)+( 0.74/0.25)+( 1.78/0.58))/3= 3.09

C.I. = (λmax - n) / (n-1)

C.I. = (3.09-3)/ (3-1) = 0.045C.R. = C.I. /R.I. = 0.045/0.58 = 0.077 < 0.1

The consistency ratio (C.R.) is obtained by

comparing the C.I. with the appropriate one of the setof RI numbers shown in Table 6. (R.I. in Table 6 N=3,RI=0.58) each of which is an average random

consistency index derived from a large sample ofrandomly generated reciprocal matrices using the scale1/9, 1/8, …, 1, …, 8, 9. The resulting vector is accepted

if C.R. is about 0.10 or less (0.20 may be tolerated,but not more). For n = 3, it is 0.05, and for n = 4 , it is0.08. If it is not less than 0.10, study the problem and

revise the judgments. In this decision we accepted thisdecision making because CI/RI ratio is less than 0.10.

Value of aij Interpretation 1 3 5 7

9

Objective i and j are equally importance Objective i is slightly more important than j Objective i is strongly more importance than j Objective i is very strongly more importance than j Objective i is absolutely more importance than j

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 R.I. 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.56 1.57 1.59

Table 6 Table of Random Inconsistency for Different Size Matrix

Cost criteria

Finance support

Low Price

cartridge

Low price

printer

Eigenvector

Finance support

1 1/2 1/3 0.15

Low Price cartridge

2 1 1/3 0.25

Low price printer

3 3 1 0.58

28


3.7 Selecting the Best Design AlternativeWe used group decision making technique and

spreadsheet Microsoft Excel for calculation AHP model.After the evaluation all values for all design alternativesare obtained. The overall priority vector can be obtained

by multiplying the evaluation point for the designalternatives by the vector of priority as follows: inviewpoint of environmental or green product the

result printer design idea ranking were idea 1: 0.23,idea 2 : 0.32, idea 3: 0.25 and idea 4 : 20 the result showsthat the column vector of priorities suggested that the

priorities of idea design alternatives are idea 2 > idea3> idea1> idea 4 in environment perspective but fromoverall ranking idea priorities is (0.668, 0.386, 0.656,

0.680) idea 4 >idea 1 >idea 3 > idea 2 suggest thatdesigner must selected product design idea 4.

4. Discussion and ConclusionThis study develops the methodology for

selecting green product at conceptual design. It can

be used to help designers evaluate and select the bestdesign based on consumer requirement and otherimportant design criteria such as environment friendly.

The companies can adopt this philosophy importantfor the production of small to complicated productswith high quality and reduced development cost. This

method guarantees that the designed product willmatch market demands. Some conclusions drawn are:

1. The quality and cost product can be evaluated

during the design process.2. The quality of the product is deployed based

on customer need.

3. This method can evaluate the priority vectorfor design alternative and increase decision makingefficiency by using AHP.

4. The design uncertainties can be reduced and

many alternatives can be developed.

5. AcknowledgementThe authors are grateful to thanks the team

designers of the case study and their staff whose

names unfortunately cannot be revealed because ofthe confidentiality agreement.

References[1] Booz, et al., New Product Management for the

1980s, New York, 1982.

[2] Duerr, M.G., “The Commercial Development of thenew products,” Conference Board, New York,1986.

[3] Wind et al., The rule of new product models insupporting and improving the new productdevelopment process: Some Preliminary Results,Cambridge, USA. : The Marketing Science

Institute, 1990.[4] Stevens, G.A and Burley, J., “3000 Raw ideas = 1

commercial success,” Research TechnologyManagement, vol.40, no.3, pp.16-27, 1997.

[5] Ulrich, K. T.and Eppinger, S. D., Product Designand Development, 2nd ed. Boston : McGraw-Hill,

2000.[6] Pahl, G. and Beitz, W., Engineering Design: A

Systematic Approach, 2nd ed. London : Springer-

Verlag, 1996.[7] Ullman, D. G., The Mechanical Design Process,

McGraw- Hill, 1992.

[8] Christian, N.M. et al., “A hierarchic metricapproach for integration of green issue in manu-facturing: a paper recycling application,” Journalof Environmental Management, pp. 261-272, 2002.

[9] Ulrich N., “A methodology for the developmentof cleaner products,” J. Cleaner Prod, vol.3,

no.1-2, pp.83-87, 1995.

29


[10] Julie, L.E., et al., “Approximate life-cycleassessment in conceptual product design,”

in Proc. of DETC, Maryland, September, 2000.[11] Shin-Wen, H., “Concurrent design method for

developing a new product,” InternationalJournal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol.29, pp.41-55, 2002.

[12] Tomohiko, S., et al., “Analysis of the Cha-

racteristics of QFDE and LCA for Eco designsupport,” Electronic Goes Green 2004, 2004.

[13] Akao, Y., Quality Function Deployment:Integrating Customer Requirements into ProductDesign, Productivity Press, Cambridge, 1990.

[14] Lenox, M., King, A. and Ehrenfeld, J. ,

“Incorporating Environmental Considerationsinto Product Design Decisions,” vol.30, no.3, pp.83-94, 2000.

[15] Saaty, T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, NewYork : McGraw-Hill, 1970.

[16] Saaty, T.L., Decision Making with DependenceAnd Feedback; The Analytic Network Process,Pittsburgh, USA. : RWS Publications, 1996.

[17] Korpela, J. and Tuominen, M., “A decision aidedin warehouse site selection. International,”

Journal of Production Economies, vol.45, pp.169-188, 1996.

[18] Liberatore, M.J., “A decision support system

linking research and development projectselection with business strategy,” ProjectManagement Journal, vol.19, no.5, pp.14-21, 1998.

[19] Winston, W. L., et al., Practical ManagementScience, 2nd ed. CA, USA. : Duxbury, Pacific Grove,2001.

[20] Phonphoon, W., Kengpol, A. and Kerdsuwan, S.,“A Study of Optimal Hospital Waste Destruction:Case Study in a Hospital,” The Journal of KingMongkut’s Institute of Technology North Bangkok,vol.16, No.2, pp. 49-56, April - June, 2002.

Integrated QFDE, DfE and AHP to Selecting Products at ... · “Green” products and Analytic...

Documents

Transcript of Integrated QFDE, DfE and AHP to Selecting Products at ... · “Green” products and Analytic...