Improvised Concept Development Process in Design Through Product Ingredients

  • Prabhat Kumar
  • Puneet TandonEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 66)


The success of any product depends on the quality of concepts developed, as per the customer requirements (CRs). It involves an information processing activity, where the information is formulated into a feasible concept. However, it is realized that during any design process, information about the problem is missing at the beginning of the design process. This work identifies that a consumable product may have a minimum of thirty-four design ingredients to define CRs precisely and represent domain information for the designers. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is applied to capture the intensity of the requirements by the acquired information. This work presents a systematic method of product design, driven by these thirty-four design ingredients. With product ingredients, a designer can pre-plan intended design space. The primary advantage of the proposed method is to target the required information correctly and quickly, for product design.


Product design Concept generation Product ingredients Information 


  1. 1.
    Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B.: Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. Simon and Schuster (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, D.M., Pine, J.: Agile Product Development for Mass Customization: How to Develop and Deliver Products for Mass Customization, Niche Markets, JIT, Build-to-Order, and Flexible Manufacturing. McGraw-Hill, New York. (1996)
  3. 3.
    Ulrich, K.T.: Product Design and Development. Tata McGraw-Hill (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Griffin, A.: Obtaining customer needs for product development. PDMA Handb. New Prod. Dev. 153–166 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ye, X., Liu, H., Chen, L., Chen, Z., Pan, X., Zhang, S.: Reverse innovative design—an integrated product design methodology. Comput. Aided Des. 40(7), 812–827 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McMahon, C.: Design informatics: supporting engineering design processes with information technology. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 365–378 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nishino, N., Takenaka, T., Koshiba, H., Kodama, K.: Customer preference based optimization in selecting product/service variety. CIRP Ann. Manufact. Technol. 63(1), 421–424 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chan, L.K., Wu, M.L.: Quality function deployment: a literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 143(3), 463–497 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alexouda, G.: A user-friendly marketing decision support system for the product line design using evolutionary algorithms. Decis. Support Syst. 38(4), 495–509 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harding, J.A., Popplewell, K., Fung, R.Y., Omar, A.R.: An intelligent information framework relating customer requirements and product characteristics. Comput. Ind. 44(1), 51–65 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Braunstein, C.: Market-driven product and service design: bridging the gap between customer needs, quality management, and customer satisfaction. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 66(1), 77–96 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khoo, L.P., Chen, C.H., Yan, W.: An investigation on a prototype customer-oriented information system for product concept development. Comput. Ind. 49(2), 157–174 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xu, L., Li, Z., Li, S., Tang, F.: A decision support system for product design in concurrent engineering. Decis. Support Syst. 42(4), 2029–2042 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van De Poel, I.: Methodological problems in QFD and directions for future development. Res. Eng. Design 18(1), 21–36 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., Tsuji, S.: Attractive quality and must-be quality. J. Jpn. Soc. Qual. Control 147–156 (1984)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee, Y.-C., Huang, S.-Y.A.: New fuzzy concept approach for Kano’s model. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(3, Part 1), 4479–4484 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hemati, M., Ghorbanian, F.: A hybrid Kano-fuzzy AHP method for measuring customer satisfaction: a case study of transportation system. Manag. Sci. Lett. 1(3), 263–270 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen, C.C., Lin, Y.C.: Integration of Kano model into TOPSIS method for effective product assessment. Appl. Mech. Mater. 475–479 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lim, J.H., Min, D.K., Kim, K.J.: Fuzzy KANO model: fuzzy set-based classification of customer requirements. J. Korean Soc. Qual. Manage. 31(3), 98–113 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nagamachi, M., Ito, K., Tsuji, T.: Image technology based on knowledge engineering and its application to design consultation. In Proceedings of the 10th Congress of International Ergonomics Association (1988, December)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nagamachi, M.: Kansei engineering: a new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 15(1), 3–11 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liang, R.Y., Chen, D.X., Wang, T.Y., Zhang, X., Wu, K.F., Lin, F.X., Li, Y.C.: The research on the application of kansei engineering in the product design. Adv. Mater. Res. 690, 3453–3456 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McLoone, H., Jacobson, M., Goonetilleke, R.S., Kleiss, J., Liu, Y., Schütte, S.: Product design and emotion: frameworks, methods, and case studies. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 1940–1941 (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chowdhury, A., Reddy, S.M., Chakrabarti, D., Karmakar, S.: Cognitive theories of product emotion and their applications in emotional product design. In ICoRD’15, vol. 1, pp. 329–340. Springer, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lin, Y.C., Lai, H.H., Yeh, C.H.: Consumer-oriented product form design based on fuzzy logic: a case study of mobile phones. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 37(6), 531–543 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang, Y., Tseng, M.M.: Incorporating probabilistic model of customers’ preferences in concurrent engineering. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 57(1), 137–140 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Un, C.A., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Asakawa, K.: R&D collaborations and product innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manage 27(5), 673–689 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., Grote, K.H.: Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, vol. 157. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hubka, V., Eder, W.E.: Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory for Engineering Design, p. 291. Springer, Berlin (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pugh, S.: Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering, pp. 44–45. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham (1991)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roozenburg, N.F., Eekels, J.: Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods, vol. 2. Wiley, Chichester (1995)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yannou, B., Coatanea, E.: Easy and flexible specifications and product evaluations by expert and customer comparisons with existing products. In: International Conference on Engineering Design: ICED’07, Paris 28–31 Aug 2007Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Petiot, J.-F., Yannou, B.: Measuring consumer perceptions for a better comprehension, specification and assessment of product semantics. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 33(6), 507–525 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DisciplinePDPM Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and ManufacturingJabalpurIndia
  2. 2.Mechanical Engineering Discipline & Design DisciplinePDPM Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and ManufacturingJabalpurIndia

Personalised recommendations