It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Design concept evaluation plays a significant role in new product development. Rough set based methods are regarded as effective evaluation techniques when facing a vague and uncertain environment and are widely used in product research and development. This paper proposed an improved rough-TOPSIS method, which aims to reduce the imprecision of design concept evaluation in two ways. First, the expert group for design concept evaluation is classified into three clusters: designers, manufacturers, and customers. The cluster weight is determined by roles in the assessment using a Multiplicative Analytic Hierarchy Process method. Second, the raw information collection method is improved with a 3-step process, and both design values and expert linguistic preferences are integrated into the rough decision matrix. The alternatives are then ranked with a rough-TOPSIS method with entropy criteria weight. A practical example is shown to demonstrate the method’s viability. The findings suggest that the proposed decision-making process is effective in product concept design evaluation.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Shandong University of Science and Technology, Advanced Manufacturing Technology Centre, Qingdao, China (GRID:grid.412508.a) (ISNI:0000 0004 1799 3811); Shandong Jiaotong University, Jinan, China (GRID:grid.460017.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 1761 5941)
2 Shandong University of Science and Technology, Advanced Manufacturing Technology Centre, Qingdao, China (GRID:grid.412508.a) (ISNI:0000 0004 1799 3811)
3 Shandong University of Science and Technology, College of Mechanical and Electronic Engineering, Qingdao, China (GRID:grid.412508.a) (ISNI:0000 0004 1799 3811)
4 Shandong Jiaotong University, Jinan, China (GRID:grid.460017.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 1761 5941); Yantai Research Institute and Graduate School of Harbin Engineering University, Yantai, China (GRID:grid.460017.4)
5 University of New South Wales, School of Minerals and Energy Resources Engineering, Sydney, Australia (GRID:grid.1005.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 4902 0432)