Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Quality Function Deployment for Offshore Renewable Energies
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. The AHP Methodology
2.2. The ELECTRE Methodology
- Normalization of the decision matrix.
- Weighting the normalized decision matrix.
- Determination of the concordance and discordance sets.
- Construction of the concordance and discordance matrices.
- Determination of the concordance and discordance dominance matrices.
- Determination of the aggregate dominance matrix.
- Elimination of the less favorable alternatives [1].
2.3. The TOPSIS Methodology
- Calculate the normalized performance ratings.
- Integrate weight with ratings.
- Identify positive and negative ideal solutions.
- Obtain the separation values of the distance from both positive and negative solutions.
- Calculate the overall preference score by ranking the alternatives.
- Normalize the original decision matrix.
- Identify the ideal solutions—both the positive and negative.
- Obtain the weighted Euclidean distance.
- Obtain the overall performance score [14].
2.4. The VIKOR Methodology
- Determination of the f* (the best) and f- (the worst) indexes.
- Obtaining the S and R indexes for each alternative.
- Calculation of VIKOR index for each alternative.
- Ranking of alternatives [17].
2.5. The DEMATEL Methodology
- Find the average matrix.
- Calculate the normalized initial direct relation matrix.
- Compute the total relation matrix.
- Obtain the threshold value and the interrelationship map [20].
2.6. The PROMETHEE Methodology
- Determination of deviation based on pairwise comparisons.
- Application of the preference function.
- Calculation of the global preference index.
- Calculation of outranking flows.
- Calculation of net outranking flow.
2.7. The ANP Methodology
- Construction of the priority vectors.
- Construction of the super matrix.
- Construction of the cluster matrix.
- Obtainment of the weighted super matrix.
- Calculation of the limit super matrix.
- Calculation of the utility index.
- Determination of the final ranking of the alternatives [27].
3. Systematic Review Methodology
- Which are the most frequently used multicriteria decision-making approaches in quality function deployment methodology today?
- In what part of the house of quality structure of QFD are these MCDM approaches being used?
- In which fields are these approaches most commonly used in QFD?
- What is the most significant advantage of using MCDM approaches in QFD?
3.1. The PRISMA Methodology
3.2. Definition of Keywords
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Publication Sources
4.2. MCDM Methodologies in QFD Identified
4.3. Other Methodologies
4.4. Publications per Year
4.5. MCDM Methodologies Integrated in QFD
4.6. Fields of Application
4.7. MCDM Methodologies for ORE Technologies Development
4.8. A Proposed Framework for Development of ORE Technologies
5. Conclusions and Future Work
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Triantaphyllou, E. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. In Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study; Triantaphyllou, E., Ed.; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 5–21. [Google Scholar]
- Chan, L.-K.; Wu, M.-L. Quality function deployment: A literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2002, 143, 463–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavan, M.; Todeschini, R. 1.19—Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods. In Comprehensive Chemometrics; Brown, S.D., Tauler, R., Walczak, B., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 591–629. [Google Scholar]
- Samsó, R.; Crespin, J.; García-Olivares, A.; Solé, J. Examining the Potential of Marine Renewable Energy: A Net Energy Perspective. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trivedi, A.; Trivedi, V.; Pandey, K.K.; Chichi, O. An interpretive model to assess the barriers to ocean energy toward blue economic development in India. Renew. Energy 2023, 211, 822–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hariri, A.; Domingues, P.; Sampaio, P. Integration of multi-criteria decision-making approaches adapted for quality function deployment: An analytical literature review and future research agenda. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2023. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.; Mao, L.-X.; Liu, H.-C.; Song, M.-s. Quality function deployment improvement: A bibliometric analysis and literature review. Qual. Quant. 2022, 56, 1347–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karasan, A.; Ilbahar, E.; Cebi, S.; Kahraman, C. Customer-oriented product design using an integrated neutrosophic AHP & DEMATEL & QFD methodology. Appl. Soft Comput. 2022, 118, 108445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. How to Make a Decision. In Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., Eds.; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach. Oper. Res. 2013, 61, 1101–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindan, K.; Jepsen, M.B. ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 250, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çelikbilek, Y.; Tüysüz, F. An in-depth review of theory of the TOPSIS method: An experimental analysis. J. Manag. Anal. 2020, 7, 281–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, H.; Yeh, C.-H.; Willis, R.J. Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Comput. Oper. Res. 2000, 27, 963–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chakraborty, S. TOPSIS and Modified TOPSIS: A comparative analysis. Decis. Anal. J. 2022, 2, 100021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gul, M.; Celik, E.; Aydin, N.; Gumus, A.T.; Guneri, A.F. A state of the art literature review of VIKOR and its fuzzy extensions on applications. Appl. Soft Comput. 2016, 46, 60–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaya, T.; Kahraman, C. Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy 2010, 35, 2517–2527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alinezhad, A.; Khalili, J. VIKOR Method. In New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM); Alinezhad, A., Khalili, J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 23–27. [Google Scholar]
- Yazdi, M.; Khan, F.; Abbassi, R.; Rusli, R. Improved DEMATEL methodology for effective safety management decision-making. Saf. Sci. 2020, 127, 104705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alinezhad, A.; Khalili, J. DEMATEL Method. In New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM); Alinezhad, A., Khalili, J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 103–108. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.-S.; Tzeng, G.-H.; Yeih, W.; Wang, Y.-J.; Yang, S.-C. Revised DEMATEL: Resolving the Infeasibility of DEMATEL. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 6746–6757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Si, S.-L.; You, X.-Y.; Liu, H.-C.; Zhang, P. DEMATEL Technique: A Systematic Review of the State-of-the-Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications. Math. Probl. Eng. 2018, 2018, 3696457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behzadian, M.; Kazemzadeh, R.B.; Albadvi, A.; Aghdasi, M. PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 200, 198–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alinezhad, A.; Khalili, J. PROMETHEE I-II-III Methods. In New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM); Alinezhad, A., Khalili, J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 29–39. [Google Scholar]
- Sipahi, S.; Timor, M. The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: An overview of applications. Manag. Decis. 2010, 48, 775–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kheybari, S.; Rezaie, F.M.; Farazmand, H. Analytic network process: An overview of applications. Appl. Math. Comput. 2020, 367, 124780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. Fundamentals of the analytic network process—Dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 2004, 13, 129–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alinezhad, A.; Khalili, J. ANP Method. In New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM); Alinezhad, A., Khalili, J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 115–125. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figueira, J.; Roy, B. Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos’ procedure. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2002, 139, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tadic, D.; Gumus, A.T.; Arsovski, S.; Aleksic, A.; Stefanovic, M. An evaluation of quality goals by using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2013, 25, 547–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mardani, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Govindan, K.; Amat Senin, A.; Jusoh, A. VIKOR Technique: A Systematic Review of the State of the Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications. Sustainability 2016, 8, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, S.-P.; Wang, Q.-Y.; Dong, J.-Y. The extended VIKOR method for multi-attribute group decision making with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Knowl. Based Syst. 2013, 52, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mateo, J.R.S.C. PROMETHEE. In Multi Criteria Analysis in the Renewable Energy Industry; San Cristóbal Mateo, J.R., Ed.; Springer London: London, UK, 2012; pp. 23–32. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Network Process. In Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process: Economic, Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks; Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., Eds.; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 2006; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, F.; Ali, Y. Implementation of the circular supply chain management in the pharmaceutical industry. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 13705–13731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shi, H.; Mao, L.-X.; Li, K.; Wang, X.-H.; Liu, H.-C. Engineering Characteristics Prioritization in Quality Function Deployment Using an Improved ORESTE Method with Double Hierarchy Hesitant Linguistic Information. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.-H.; Yu, R.-Y.; Chang, A.-Y.; Liu, W.-L.; Sun, A.-C. Applying Integrated QFD-MCDM Approach to Strengthen Supply Chain Agility for Mitigating Sustainable Risks. Mathematics 2022, 10, 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.-H.; Li, M.-G.; Zhang, T.-Y.; Chang, A.-Y.; Shangguan, S.-Z.; Liu, W.-L. Deploying Big Data Enablers to Strengthen Supply Chain Resilience to Mitigate Sustainable Risks Based on Integrated HOQ-MCDM Framework. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Su, J.; Herrera-Viedma, E. A decision support model for estimating participation-oriented designs of crowdsourcing platforms based on quality function deployment. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 202, 117308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karuppiah, K.; Sankaranarayanan, B.; Ali, S.M. A Novel Quality Function Deployment Based Integrated Framework for Improving Supply Chain Sustainability. Eng. Manag. J. 2022, 35, 285–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.; Shen, Y.; Pantelous, A.A.; Liu, Y. Quality Function Deployment: A Bibliometric-Based Overview. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2022, 56, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, X.; Zhu, Q. Integrated fuzzy linguistic preference relations approach and fuzzy Quality Function Deployment to the sustainable design of hybrid electric vehicles. Concurr. Eng. 2022, 30, 367–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torkayesh, A.E.; Yazdani, M.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D. Analysis of industry 4.0 implementation in mobility sector: An integrated approach based on QFD, BWM, and stratified combined compromise solution under fuzzy environment. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2022, 30, 100406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Araújo Souza, S.M.O.; de Oliveira Fontes, C.H.; Freires, F.G.M. Use of QFD to Prioritize Requirements Needed for Supplier Selection in an O&G Project. In Proceedings of the Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Istanbul, Turkey, 7 March 2022; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 169–180. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, R.-Y.; Hsu, C.-H.; Sun, A.-C. Improving Supply Chain Agility to Reduce Enterprise Risk Based on QFD-MADM. In Proceedings of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Athens, Greece, 29–31 August 2022; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 15–23. [Google Scholar]
- Zeng, J.-Y.; Hsu, C.-H.; Chen, X. Using Agility to Reduce the Bullwhip Effect of Supply Chains. In Proceedings of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Athens, Greece, 29–31 August 2022; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 43–51. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, X.; Zhang, Z. The Post-pandemic Era Study on the Design of High-speed Railway Seats. In Proceedings of the Design, User Experience, and Usability: Design Thinking and Practice in Contemporary and Emerging Technologies, Virtual Event, 26 June 2022; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 265–278. [Google Scholar]
- Erbay, H.; Yıldırım, N. Combined Technology Selection Model for Digital Transformation in Manufacturing: A Case Study From the Automotive Supplier Industry. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 2022, 19, 2250023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ocak, Z. An integrated approach to identify engineering student requirements. Sigma J. Eng. Nat. Sci. Sigma Mühendislik Ve Fen Bilim. Derg. 2022, 40, 568–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, T.-L.; Li, Y.-J.; Wu, C.-J.; Yue, H.; Zhao, Y.-Q. Research on the Design of Surgical Auxiliary Equipment Based on AHP, QFD, and PUGH Decision Matrix. Math. Probl. Eng. 2022, 2022, 4327390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.; Tan, R.; Lin, H.-C. Development of an integrated conceptual path model for a smart elderly care information system. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2022, 22, 785–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murugan, M.; Marisamynathan, S. Elucidating the Indian customers requirements for electric vehicle adoption: An integrated analytical hierarchy process—Quality function deployment approach. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2022, 10, 1045–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Badaoui, M.; Touzani, A. AHP QFD methodology for a recycled solar collector. Prod. Eng. Arch. 2022, 28, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pusztai, L.P.; Nagy, L.; Budai, I. Selection of Production Reliability Indicators for Project Simulation Model. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lestari, F.; Mawardi, M.; Yola, M.; Muda, Y.; Abdul Hamid, A.B. A model for assessment of Halal Good Manufacturing Practice in meat industry. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2022, 10, 666–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haghshenas Gorgani, H.; Jahazi, A.; Jahantigh Pak, A.; Shabani, S. A hybrid algorithm for adjusting the input parameters of the wirecut EDM machine in order to obtain maximum customer satisfaction. SN Appl. Sci. 2022, 5, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehman, O.u.; Ali, Y. Enhancing healthcare supply chain resilience: Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2022, 33, 520–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omar, M.; Janada, K.; Soltan, H. FAQT: A Precise System for Welding Process Selection. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2022, 24, 1605–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baskir, M.B. A novel belief-based QFD-AHP model in interval type-2 fuzzy environment for lean after-sales service in automotive industry. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2023, 14, 653–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, N.; Shi, C.; Kang, X. Design of a Disinfection and Epidemic Prevention Robot Based on Fuzzy QFD and the ARIZ Algorithm. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jagoda, S.U.M.; Gamage, J.R.; Karunathilake, H.P. Environmentally sustainable plastic food packaging: A holistic life cycle thinking approach for design decisions. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 400, 136680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, J.; Tripathy, B.B. An integrated QFD and fuzzy TOPSIS approach for supplier evaluation and selection. TQM J. 2023. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, H.; Li, J.; Song, W. A New Method for Quality Function Deployment Based on Rough Cloud Model Theory. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2022, 69, 2842–2856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.-J.; Liu, L.-J.; Han, T.-C. Interval-Valued Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making with Dependent Evaluation Criteria for Evaluating Service Performance of International Container Ports. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, J.; Chae, M. Systematic Approach of TOPSIS Decision-Making for Construction Method Based on Risk Reduction Feedback of Extended QFD-FMEA. Math. Probl. Eng. 2022, 2022, 1458599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hameed, A.Z.; Kandasamy, J.; Aravind Raj, S.; Baghdadi, M.A.; Shahzad, M.A. Sustainable Product Development Using FMEA ECQFD TRIZ and Fuzzy TOPSIS. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Yüksel, S.; Dinçer, H. Understanding the financial innovation priorities for renewable energy investors via QFD-based picture fuzzy and rough numbers. Financ. Innov. 2022, 8, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Efe, B.; Efe, Ö.F.; Ishizaka, A. A model proposal to examine the effects of ships to marine pollution in terms of internal and external factors. Soft Comput. 2022, 26, 2121–2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.-G.; Zhang, L.; Mao, L.-X.; Li, K. New Approach for Quality Function Deployment Using an Extended CoCoSo Method with Spherical Fuzzy Sets. Systems 2022, 10, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cinar, U.; Cebi, S. A novel approach to assess occupational risks and prevention of hazards: The house of safety & prevention. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2022, 42, 517–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.-H.; Yue, S.-T.; Zheng, J.; Wang, W. Customer-oriented product design: An integrated decision framework with sentiment analysis and optimisation model. J. Control Decis. 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erol, I.; Murat Ar, I.; Peker, I.; Searcy, C. Alleviating the Impact of the Barriers to Circular Economy Adoption Through Blockchain: An Investigation Using an Integrated MCDM-based QFD With Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 165, 107962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finger, G.S.W.; Lima-Junior, F.R. A hesitant fuzzy linguistic QFD approach for formulating sustainable supplier development programs. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 247, 108428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.H.; Zeng, J.Y.; Chang, A.Y.; Cai, S.Q. Deploying Industry 4.0 Enablers to Strengthen Supply Chain Resilience to Mitigate Ripple Effects: An Empirical Study of Top Relay Manufacturer in China. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 114829–114855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, Z.; He, L.; Xie, Y.; Song, W.; Liu, J.; Ming, X.; Goh, M. A Pythagorean fuzzy ANP-QFD-Grey relational analysis approach to prioritize design requirements of sustainable supply chain. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2022, 42, 3893–3907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haktanir, E.; Kahraman, C. New Product Design Using Chebyshev’s Inequality Based Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Z-Fuzzy QFD Method. Informatica 2022, 33, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yazdani, M.; Pamucar, D.; Erdmann, A.; Toro-Dupouy, L. Resilient sustainable investment in digital education technology: A stakeholder-centric decision support model under uncertainty. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2023, 188, 122282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradhan, P.; Shabbiruddin; Pradhan, S. Selection of electric vehicle using integrated Fuzzy-MCDM approach with analysis on challenges faced in hilly terrain. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2022, 44, 2651–2673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, P.; Zhang, K.; Dong, X.; Wang, P. A Big Data-Kano and SNA-CRP Based QFD Model: Application to Product Design Under Chinese New E-commerce Model. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kou, G.; Dinçer, H.; Yüksel, S.; Alotaibi, F.S. Imputed Expert Decision Recommendation System for QFD-based Omnichannel Strategy Selection for Financial Services. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2023, 2330003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, S.; Zhou, J.; Ren, J. Alleviating Energy Poverty through Renewable Energy Technology: An Investigation Using a Best-Worst Method-Based Quality Function Deployment Approach with Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers. Int. J. Energy Res. 2023, 2023, 8358799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zidi, S.; Ben Soussia, T.; Hamani, N.; Benaissa, M.; Kermad, L. A new approach for business process reconfiguration under uncertainty using Dempster-Shafer Theory. Int. J. Syst. Sci. Oper. Logist. 2023, 10, 2017062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emel, G.G.; Petriçli, G.; Kayguluoğlu, C. Integrating Quality Function Deployment with Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for Resolving Correlation Issues in the Roof Matrix. Ege Akad. Bakis (Ege Acad. Rev.) 2022, 117–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Q.; Chen, Z.-S.; Chan, C.Y.P.; Pedrycz, W.; Martínez, L.; Skibniewski, M.J. Large-scale group decision-making for prioritizing engineering characteristics in quality function deployment under comparative linguistic environment. Appl. Soft Comput. 2022, 127, 109359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehman, O.u.; Ali, Y.; Sabir, M. Risk assessment and mitigation for electric power sectors: A developing country’s perspective. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 2022, 36, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ocampo, L.; Aro, J.L.; Evangelista, S.S.; Maturan, F.; Atibing, N.M.; Yamagishi, K.; Selerio, E. Synthesis of strategies in post-COVID-19 public sector supply chains under an intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2023, 85, 101340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, J.-P.; Chen, Z.-S.; Wang, X.-J.; Martínez, L.; Pedrycz, W.; Skibniewski, M.J. Requirement-driven sustainable supplier selection: Creating an integrated perspective with stakeholders’ interests and the wisdom of expert crowds. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023, 175, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lian, X.; Hou, L.; Zhang, W.; Yan, H.; Liu, Y. Identifying risky components of display products for redesign considering user attention and failure causality. Soft Comput. 2023, 27, 2921–2942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wudhikarn, R.; Pongpatcharatorntep, D. An Improved Intellectual Capital Management Method for Selecting and Prioritizing Intangible-Related Aspects: A Case Study of Small Enterprise in Thailand. Mathematics 2022, 10, 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Efe, Ö.F.; Efe, B. A decision support model based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy number for glove design application. Neural Comput. Appl. 2022, 34, 12695–12708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tandiono, Y.; Rau, H. An Enhanced Model Using the Kano Model, QFDE, and TRIZ with a Component-Based Approach for Sustainable and Innovative Product Design. Sustainability 2022, 15, 527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Gong, C.; Dinçer, H.; Yüksel, S. An integrated hesitant 2-tuple Pythagorean fuzzy analysis of QFD-based innovation cost and duration for renewable energy projects. Energy 2022, 248, 123561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senthil Kannan, N.; Parameshwaran, R.; Saravanakumar, P.T.; Kumar, P.M.; Rinawa, M.L. Performance and Quality Improvement in a Foundry Industry using Fuzzy MCDM and Lean Methods. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2022, 47, 15379–15390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasheed, A.; Ion, W. A Novel Approach towards Sustainability Assessment in Manufacturing and Stakeholder’s Role. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jafarzadeh, H.; Heidary-Dahooie, J.; Akbari, P.; Qorbani, A. A project prioritization approach considering uncertainty, reliability, criteria prioritization, and robustness. Decis. Support Syst. 2022, 156, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mello, V.G.d.; Kovaleski, J.L.; Zola, F.C.; Lima Junior, F.R.; Aragão, F.V.; Chiroli, D.M.D.G. Proposal of a Fuzzy-QFD model for startup selection. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2022, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reis, L.P.; Fernandes, J.M.; Silva, S.E.; Pereira, A.D.S. Application of Quality Function Deployment as an Integrative Method to Knowledge Management Implementation. J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. 2022, 21, 2250022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, J.; Wang, X.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, H. Consensus-driven methodology to managing diversity and complex linguistic ratings in quality function deployment: An optimization-based approach. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2022, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, Z.; Feng, Y.; Wang, Y.; Hu, B.; Zhang, Z.; Qiu, H.; Tan, J. Quality characteristic extraction for complex products with multi-granular fuzzy language based on the triple bottom lines of sustainability. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 167, 107980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.-Q.; Chen, Z.-S.; Garg, H.; Pu, Y.; Chin, K.-S. An integrated quality-function-deployment and stochastic-dominance-based decision-making approach for prioritizing product concept alternatives. Complex Intell. Syst. 2022, 8, 2541–2556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porto de Lima, B.; da Silva, A.F.; Marins, F.A.S. New hybrid AHP-QFD-PROMETHEE decision-making support method in the hesitant fuzzy environment: An application in packaging design selection. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2022, 42, 2881–2897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.-H.; He, X.; Zhang, T.-Y.; Chang, A.-Y.; Liu, W.-L.; Lin, Z.-Q. Enhancing Supply Chain Agility with Industry 4.0 Enablers to Mitigate Ripple Effects Based on Integrated QFD-MCDM: An Empirical Study of New Energy Materials Manufacturers. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khattak, B.K.; Naseem, A.; Ullah, M.; Imran, M.; El Ferik, S. Incorporating management opinion in green supplier selection model using quality function deployment and interactive fuzzy programming. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0268552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdel-Basset, M.; Gamal, A.; Chakrabortty, R.K.; Ryan, M. A new hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for location selection of sustainable offshore wind energy stations: A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosseini Dehshiri, S.S. New hybrid multi criteria decision making method for offshore windfarm site location in Persian Gulf, Iran. Ocean Eng. 2022, 256, 111498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collu, M.; Brennan, F.P.; Patel, M.H. Conceptual design of a floating support structure for an offshore vertical axis wind turbine: The lessons learnt. Ships Offshore Struct. 2014, 9, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campos-Guzmán, V.; García-Cáscales, M.S.; Espinosa, N.; Urbina, A. Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A review of approaches for the sustainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 104, 343–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tunga, I.; Garcia-Teruel, A.; Noble, D.R.; Henderson, J. Addressing European Ocean Energy Challenge: The DTOceanPlus Structured Innovation Tool for Concept Creation and Selection. Energies 2021, 14, 5988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.-N.; Yang, F.-C.; Vo, N.T.M.; Nguyen, V.T. Enhancing Lithium-Ion Battery Manufacturing Efficiency: A Comparative Analysis Using DEA Malmquist and Epsilon-Based Measures. Batteries 2023, 9, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.-N.; Yang, F.-C.; Vo, T.M.; Nguyen, V.T.; Singh, M. Enhancing Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness: A Groundbreaking Bi-Algorithm MCDM Approach. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Methodology | Use | References |
---|---|---|
AHP | Pairwise comparison to generate relative ratio scale of measurement through normalization. | [10,28] |
ELECTRE | To outrank relationships throughout pairwise comparison of the alternatives under the established criteria separately. | [11,29] |
TOPSIS | To choose the best option according to the shortest distance from the ideal solution. | [12,30] |
VIKOR | To evaluate and rank alternatives sets of conflicting criteria. | [31,32] |
DEMATEL | To analyze the cause-and-effect relationships among components of a system. It is also useful to identify interdependence among factors. | [20,21] |
PROMETHEE | To outrank alternatives according to the defined criteria. There is no need of independence among the criteria or attributes. | [22,33] |
ANP | Pairwise comparison to rank alternatives considering all types of dependencies and interdependencies. | [24,34] |
Topic | Subordinate |
---|---|
“Quality Function Deployment and Multicriteria Decision Making” | OR “Quality Function Deployment and Multi-Criteria Decision Making” OR “QFD and Multicriteria Decision Making” OR “QFD and Multi-criteria Decision Making” OR “QFD and MCDM”. |
“Quality Function Deployment and Analytic Hierarchy Process” | OR “Quality Function Deployment and AHP” OR “QFD and Analytic Hierarchy Process” OR “QFD and AHP”. |
“Quality Function Deployment and Elimination and Choice Translating Reality” | OR “Quality Function Deployment and ELECTRE” OR “QFD and Elimination and Choice Translating Reality” OR “QFD and ELECTRE”. |
“Quality Function Deployment and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution” | OR “Quality Function Deployment and TOPSIS” OR “QFD and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution” OR “QFD and TOPSIS”. |
“Quality Function Deployment and VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje” | OR “Quality Function Deployment and VIKOR” OR “QFD and VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje” OR “QFD and VIKOR”. |
“Quality Function Deployment and Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory” | OR “Quality Function Deployment and Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory” OR “QFD and Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory” OR “QFD and Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory” OR “Quality Function Deployment and DEMATEL” OR “QFD and DEMATEL”. |
“Quality Function Deployment and Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment of Evaluations” | OR “Quality Function Deployment and PROMETHEE” OR “QFD and Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment of Evaluations” OR “QFD and PROMETHEE”. |
“Quality Function Deployment and Analytic Network Process” | OR “Quality Function Deployment and ANP” OR “QFD and Analytic”. |
Journal | Publications |
---|---|
APPLIED SCIENCES | 1 |
APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING | 2 |
ARABIAN JOURNAL FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING | 1 |
CASE STUDIES ON TRANSPORT POLICY | 1 |
COMPLEX & INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS | 1 |
COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING | 3 |
CONCURRENT ENGINEERING | 1 |
DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS | 1 |
EGE ACADEMIC REVIEW | 1 |
ENERGIES | 1 |
ENERGY | 1 |
ENERGY SOURCES PART A-RECOVERY UTILIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS | 1 |
ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL | 1 |
ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY | 1 |
EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS | 1 |
FINANCIAL INNOVATION | 1 |
IEEE ACCESS | 2 |
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT | 3 |
INFORMATICA | 1 |
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION | 1 |
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH | 1 |
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FUZZY SYSTEMS | 1 |
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & DECISION MAKING | 1 |
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT | 1 |
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEAN SIX SIGMA | 1 |
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT | 1 |
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS | 1 |
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITY & RELIABILITY MANAGEMENT | 1 |
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE-OPERATIONS & LOGISTICS | 1 |
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION | 1 |
JOURNAL OF CONTROL AND DECISION | 1 |
JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL INFORMATION INTEGRATION | 1 |
JOURNAL OF INFORMATION & KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT | 1 |
JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT & FUZZY SYSTEMS | 3 |
JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING | 1 |
JOURNAL OF THE OPERATIONAL RESEARCH SOCIETY | 1 |
MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS IN ENGINEERING | 2 |
MATHEMATICS | 4 |
NEURAL COMPUTING & APPLICATIONS | 1 |
PLOS ONE | 1 |
PRODUCTION AND MANUFACTURING RESEARCH-AN OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL | 1 |
PRODUCTION ENGINEERING ARCHIVES | 1 |
SIGMA JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND NATURAL SCIENCES | 1 |
SN APPLIED SCIENCES | 1 |
SOCIO-ECONOMIC PLANNING SCIENCES | 1 |
SOFT COMPUTING | 2 |
SUSTAINABILITY | 5 |
SYSTEMS | 1 |
TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE | 1 |
TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT | 1 |
TQM JOURNAL | 1 |
UNIVERSAL ACCESS IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY | 1 |
Field | Studies |
---|---|
Education | [50,79] |
Energy | [54,68,82,85,86,93] |
Environment | [69] |
Manufacturing and materials | [59,84,94,95] |
Planning | [39,43,48,52,53,55,56,60,65,66,70,71,81,83,90,96,97,98,99] |
Design and product development | [8,36,42,51,57,61,62,64,67,72,77,78,80,89,91,92,100,101,102] |
Supplier selection | [35,37,38,40,45,46,47,49,58,63,73,74,75,76,87,88,103,104] |
Field | Indicators |
---|---|
Environmental | NOx emission CO2 emission CO emission SO2 emission |
Social | Social acceptability Job creation Social benefits |
Economic | Net present value Investment cost Equivalent annual cost Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
García-Orozco, S.; Vargas-Gutiérrez, G.; Ordóñez-Sánchez, S.; Silva, R. Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Quality Function Deployment for Offshore Renewable Energies. Energies 2023, 16, 6533. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16186533
García-Orozco S, Vargas-Gutiérrez G, Ordóñez-Sánchez S, Silva R. Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Quality Function Deployment for Offshore Renewable Energies. Energies. 2023; 16(18):6533. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16186533
Chicago/Turabian StyleGarcía-Orozco, Selef, Gregorio Vargas-Gutiérrez, Stephanie Ordóñez-Sánchez, and Rodolfo Silva. 2023. "Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Quality Function Deployment for Offshore Renewable Energies" Energies 16, no. 18: 6533. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16186533