Karafan Journal

Karafan Journal

An Integrated Model to Evaluate the Design Concept Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and TOPSIS Technique Based on Rough Numbers

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Navid Rafiei 1
Farzad Amiri 2
Hanieh Mortazavi 3
1 Assistant Professor, Industrial Engineering Department, Bandar Abbas Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bandar Abbas, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Industrial Engineering Department, Kermanshah University of Technology, Kermanshah, Iran.
3 MSc. Student, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran, Iran.
10.48301/kssa.2023.375446.2367
Abstract
Evaluation of the design concept is known as one of the main phases in the development of product production because it determines the course of activities in the first stage of product design. However, usually at this stage the information is subjective and depends on the judgment of experts. How to control and manage these individual uncertainties is considered an important issue. Therefore, this research presents a systematic evaluation method based on integrating the analytic hierarchy process and the Technique of Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, which is known as the TOPSIS method, and in this article, rough numbers is used to evaluate the concept of design in a subjective environment. Rough numbers are used with the purpose of introducing the preferences and subjective judgments of people in the analytic hierarchy process. Then, an improved rough number is also provided by TOPSIS method to rank the options. To demonstrate the validity and effectiveness of the proposed method, this method is being implemented at the Unilever Cosmetics and Hygiene Company and designed to design the above-mentioned OMO concentrate washing powder to indicate that the proposed method can effectively increase the uncertainty in the assessment of the design concept under uncertainty conditions.
Keywords
Evaluation
Design Concept
Uncertainty
Rough Numbers
Analytic Hierarchy Process
TOPSIS
Subjects
[1] Zhu, G-N., Hu, J., Qi, J., Gu, C-C., & Peng, Y-H. (2015). An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough number. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 29(3), 408-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.01.010
[2] Qi, J., Hu, J., & Peng, Y. (2021). A customer-involved design concept evaluation based on multi-criteria decision-making fusing with preference and design values. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 50, 101373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101373
[3] Ayağ, Z. (2005). A fuzzy AHP-based simulation approach to concept evaluation in a NPD environment. Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers Transactions, 37(9), 827-842. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170590969852
[4] Zhai, L-Y., Khoo, L-P., & Zhong, Z-W. (2009). Design concept evaluation in product development using rough sets and grey relation analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 7072-7079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.08.068
[5] Ayağ, Z. (2016). An integrated approach to concept evaluation in a new product development. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 27(5), 991-1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-014-0930-7
[6] Liu, W., Tan, R., Cao, G., Zhang, Z., Huang, S., & Liu, L. (2019). A proposed radicality evaluation method for design ideas at conceptual design stage. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 132, 141-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.04.027
[7] Fazeli, H. R., & Peng, Q. (2022). Generation and evaluation of product concepts by integrating extended axiomatic design, quality function deployment and design structure matrix. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 54, 101716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2022. 101716
[8] Ayağ, Z., & Özdemir, R. G. (2009). A hybrid approach to concept selection through fuzzy analytic network process. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56(1), 368-379. http s://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2008.06.011
[9] Malekly, H., Meysam Mousavi, S., & Hashemi, H. (2010). A fuzzy integrated methodology for evaluating conceptual bridge design. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(7), 4910-4920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.024
[10] Liu, Y., Huang, H-Z., & Ling, D. (2013). Reliability prediction for evolutionary product in the conceptual design phase using neural network-based fuzzy synthetic assessment. International Journal of Systems Science, 44(3), 545-555. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 0207721.2011.617887
[11] Vinodh, S., Sai Balagi, T. S., & Patil, A. (2016). A hybrid MCDM approach for agile concept selection using fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 83(9), 1979-1987. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00170-015-7718-6
[12] Olabanji, O. M., & Mpofu, K. (2020). Hybridized fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy weighted average for identifying optimal design concept. Heliyon, 6(1), e03182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03182
[13] Zhou, T., Chen, Z., & Ming, X. (2022). Multi-criteria evaluation of smart product-service design concept under hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment: A novel cloud envelopment analysis approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 115, 105228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105228
[14] Zhu, G-N., Ma, J., & Hu, J. (2022). A fuzzy rough number extended AHP and VIKOR for failure mode and effects analysis under uncertainty. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 51, 101454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101454
[15] Xie, G., Zhang, J., Lai, K. K., & Yu, L. (2008). Variable precision rough set for group decision-making: An application. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 49(2), 331-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2007.04.005
[16] Li, G-D., Yamaguchi, D., & Nagai, M. (2008). A grey-based rough decision-making approach to supplier selection. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 36(9), 1032-1040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-006-0910-y
[17] Tiwari, V., Jain, P. K., & Tandon, P. (2016). Product design concept evaluation using rough sets and VIKOR method. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 30(1), 16-25. https://d oi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.11.005
[18] Shidpour, H., Da Cunha, C., & Bernard, A. (2016). Group multi-criteria design concept evaluation using combined rough set theory and fuzzy set theory. Expert Systems with Applications, 64, 633-644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.022
[19] Pamučar, D., Mihajlović, M., Obradović, R., & Atanasković, P. (2017). Novel approach to group multi-criteria decision making based on interval rough numbers: Hybrid DEMATEL-ANP-MAIRCA model. Expert Systems with Applications, 88, 58-80. h ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.06.037
[20] Elsisy, M. A., & El Sayed, M. A. (2019). Fuzzy rough bi-level multi-objective nonlinear programming problems. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 58(4), 1471-1482. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.12.002
[21] Mei, M., & Chen, Z. (2021). Evaluation and selection of sustainable hydrogen production technology with hybrid uncertain sustainability indicators based on rough-fuzzy BWM-DEA. Renewable Energy, 165(10211), 716-730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.20 20.11.051
[22] Ecer, F., Pamucar, D., Mardani, A., & Alrasheedi, M. (2021). Assessment of renewable energy resources using new interval rough number extension of the level based weight assessment and combinative distance-based assessment. Renewable Energy, 170(2), 1156-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.02.004
[23] Amini, T., Nasiri, M., Saeedi, P., & Abbasi, E. (2020). Strategic entrepreneurship model based on financial development with a fuzzy AHP approach. Karafan Quarterly Scientific Journal, 17(3), 127-141. https://doi.org/10.48301/kssa.2020.124674
Karafan Journal
Volume 20, Issue 1 - Serial Number 61
Technical & Engineering
Spring 2023
Pages 409-431

  • Receive Date 17 December 2022
  • Revise Date 14 April 2023
  • Accept Date 23 May 2023