Quality & Quantity

, Volume 44, Issue 6, pp 1175–1189 | Cite as

A group decision-making method with fuzzy set theory and genetic algorithms in quality function deployment

  • Chin-Hung Liu


Quality function deployment (QFD) has been developed by Toyota Motor Corporation in order to reduce time and shorten design times. QFD is composed of a set of matrices referred to as the house of quality (HOQ). A HOQ matrix can help the cross-functional team to translate customer requirements (CRs) into engineering goals. The importance of CRs and the relationships between CRs and technical characteristics (TCs) are obtained by a group of people with vague and fuzzy decision-making processes in the HOQ. In the conditions, a group decision-making method by using the combination of fuzzy set theory and genetic algorithms (GAs) can be used in QFD to determine the importance of each TC. Besides, a numerical example is illustrated to show that this group decision-making method by using the combination of fuzzy set theory and GAs can be reliably and precisely applied in QFD including TCs at the two-level hierarchy with the consideration of some constraints regarding budget and time limits of TCs for prioritizing TCs to effectively make decisions with fuzziness and ambiguousness.


House of quality Customer requirements Technical characteristics Group decision-making Fuzzy set theory Genetic algorithms 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bai H., Kwong C.K.: Inexact genetic algorithm approach to target values setting of engineering requirements in QFD. Int. J. Prod. Res. 41(16), 3861–3881 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bottani E., Rizzi A.: Strategic management of logistic service: a fuzzy QFD approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 103, 585–599 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chan L.K., Wu M.L.: Quality function deployment: a comprehensive review of its concepts and methods. Qual. Eng. 15(1), 23–35 (2002–2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chan L.K., Wu M.L.: A systematic approach to quality function deployment with a full illustrative example. Omega 33, 119–139 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan L.K., Kao H.P., Ng A., Wu M.L.: Rating the importance of customer needs in quality function deployment by fuzzy and entropy methods. Int. J. Prod. Res. 37(11), 2499–2518 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chase R.B., Jacobs F.R., Aquilano N.J.: Operation Management for Competitive Advantage with Global Cases, 11th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  7. Chau K.W.: A review on the integration of artificial intelligence into coastal modeling. J. Environ. Manag. 80, 47–57 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng T.M., Feng C.W., Hsu M.Y.: An integrated modeling mechanism for optimizing the simulation model of the construction operation. Autom. Constr. 15, 327–340 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dzeng R.J., Lee H.Y.: Optimizing the development schedule of resort projects by integrating simulation and genetic algorithm. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25, 506–516 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finch B.J.: Processes, Value, and Profitability, International Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  11. Fitzsimmons J.A., Fitzsimmons M.J.: Service Management (Operation, Strategy, and Information Technology), 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  12. Gen M., Cheng R.: Genetic Algorithms and Engineering Optimization. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  13. Goldberg D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1989)Google Scholar
  14. Gryna F.M.: Quality Planning and Analysis: From Product Development Through Use. McGraw-Hill International Edition, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  15. Han C.H., Kim J.K., Choi S.H.: Prioritizing engineering characteristics in quality function deployment with incomplete information: a linear partial ordering approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 91, 235–249 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hauser J.R., Clausing D.: The house of quality. Harv. Bus. Rev. 66(3), 63–73 (1988)Google Scholar
  17. Holland J.: Adaptation in Natural and Artificial System. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI (1975)Google Scholar
  18. Huang G.Q., Zhang X.Y., Liang L.: Towards integrated optimal configuration of platform products, manufacturing processes, and supply chains. J. Oper. Manag. 23, 267–290 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalargeros N., Gao J.X.: QFD: focusing on its simplification and easy computerization using fuzzy logic principles. Int. J. Veh. Des. 19(3), 315–325 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. Karsak E.E.: Fuzzy multiple objective programming framework to prioritize design requirements in quality function deployment. Comput. Ind. Eng. 47, 149–163 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Khoo L.P., Ho N.C.: Framework of a fuzzy quality function deployment system. Int. J. Prod. Res. 34(2), 299–311 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim K., Moskowitz H., Dhingra A., Evans G.: Fuzzy multi-criteria models for quality function deployment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 121, 504–518 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim D.H., Abraham A., Cho J.H.: A hybrid genetic algorithm and bacterial foraging approach for global optimization. Inform. Sci. 177, 3918–3937 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ko H.J., Evans G.W.: A genetic algorithm-based heuristic for the dynamic integrated forward/reverse logistics network for 3PLs. Comput. Oper. Res. 34, 346–366 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krajewski L.J., Ritzman L.P., Malhotra M.K.: Operation Management: Processes and Value Chains, 8th edn. Pearson Education. Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ (2007)Google Scholar
  26. Leu S.S., Chen A.T., Yang C.H.: A GA-based fuzzy optimal model for construction time-cost trade-off. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 19, 47–58 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li R.J.: Fuzzy method in group decision making. Comput. Math. Appl. 38, 91–101 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu C.H., Wu H.H.: A Fuzzy group decision-making method in the relationship between customer requirements and technical measures of quality function deployment. Int. J. Ind. Eng. 15(2), 211–219 (2008)Google Scholar
  29. Masud, A.S.M., Dean, E.B.: Using fuzzy sets in quality function deployment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Los Angeles, CA, 26–27 May 1993Google Scholar
  30. Nakamura K.: Preference relations on a set of fuzzy utilities as a basis for decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 20, 147–162 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pendharkar P.C., Koehler G.J.: A general steady state distribution based stopping criteria for finite length genetic algorithms. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 176, 1436–1451 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stevenson W.J.: Operations Management, 9th edn. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., New York (2007)Google Scholar
  33. Tan K.C., Shen X.X.: Integrating Kano’s model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment. Total Qual. Manag. 11(8), 1141–1151 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Toroslu I.H., Arslanoglu Y.: Genetic algorithm for the personnel assignment problem with multiple objectives. Inform. Sci. 177, 787–803 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vanegas L.V., Labib A.W.: A fuzzy quality function deployment (FQFD) model for deriving optimum targets. Int. J. Prod. Res. 39(1), 99–120 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yuan Y.: Criteria for evaluating fuzzy ranking methods. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 44, 139–157 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xu J., Liu Q., Wang R.: A class of multi-objective supply chain networks optimal model under random fuzzy environment and its application to the industry of Chinese liquor. Inform. Sci. 178(8), 2022–2043 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationNational Chin-Yi University of Technology 35Taiping CityTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations