Abstract

Concept evaluation is the core stage of new product development and has a significant impact on the downstream process of product development. Because of the uncertainty and ambiguity of early design information, the concept evaluation process not only relies on the semantic terms of decision makers (DMs) but also includes uncertain criteria values (such as crisp numbers and interval numbers). In addition, DMs will have psychological preference errors when evaluating concepts owing to the risks taken in the evaluation. To address these drawbacks, a fuzzy concept evaluation approach based on prospect theory and heterogeneous evaluation information is proposed. Initially, based on the definition of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFNs), a numerical model is developed to unify the representation of crisp numbers, interval numbers, and fuzzy numbers, and a normalized decision matrix is constructed. Second, a weight distribution method of DMs is proposed, which introduces hesitation and similarity, and the weighted intuitionistic fuzzy evaluation information is transformed into interval IFNs. Third, the weight of the evaluation criteria is determined using the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory model (DEMATEL), and an evaluation information correction model based on the prospect theory is established to select the optimal concepts. Finally, the feasibility of the proposed approach is demonstrated using a bar-peeling machine, and a comparison and sensitivity analysis is conducted to verify the robustness of the decision results.

References

1.
Pahl
,
G.
, and
Beitz
,
W.
,
2013
,
Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach
,
Springer Science & Business Media
,
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany
.
2.
Shidpour
,
H.
,
Da Cunha
,
C.
, and
Bernard
,
A.
,
2016
, “
Group Multi-Criteria Design Concept Evaluation Using Combined Rough Set Theory and Fuzzy Set Theory
,”
Expert Syst. Appl.
,
64
(
1
), pp.
633
644
.
3.
Chunhua
,
F.
,
Shi
,
H.
, and
Guozhen
,
B.
,
2020
, “
A Group Decision Making Method for Sustainable Design Using Intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relations in the Conceptual Design Stage
,”
J. Cleaner Prod.
,
243
(
10
), p.
118640
.
4.
Vinodh
,
S.
,
Sai Balagi
,
T. S.
, and
Patil
,
A.
,
2015
, “
A Hybrid MCDM Approach for Agile Concept Selection Using Fuzzy DEMATEL, Fuzzy ANP and Fuzzy TOPSIS
,”
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
,
83
(
9–12
), pp.
1979
1987
.
5.
Qi
,
J.
,
Hu
,
J.
, and
Peng
,
Y.-H.
,
2020
, “
Integrated Rough VIKOR for Customer-Involved Design Concept Evaluation Combining With Customers’ Preferences and Designers’ Perceptions
,”
Adv. Eng. Inform.
,
46
, p.
101138
.
6.
Zhu
,
G.-N.
,
Hu
,
J.
,
Qi
,
J.
,
Gu
,
C.-C.
, and
Peng
,
Y.-H.
,
2015
, “
An Integrated AHP and VIKOR for Design Concept Evaluation Based on Rough Number
,”
Adv. Eng. Inform.
,
29
(
3
), pp.
408
418
.
7.
Hayat
,
K.
,
Ali
,
M. I.
,
Karaaslan
,
F.
,
Cao
,
B.-Y.
, and
Shah
,
M. H.
,
2019
, “
Design Concept Evaluation Using Soft Sets Based on Acceptable and Satisfactory Levels: An Integrated TOPSIS and Shannon Entropy
,”
Soft Comput.
,
24
(
3
), pp.
2229
2263
.
8.
Chen
,
D.
,
Chu
,
X.
,
Sun
,
X.
, and
Li
,
Y.
,
2015
, “
A New Product Service System Concept Evaluation Approach Based on Information Axiom in a Fuzzy-Stochastic Environment
,”
Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf.
,
28
(
11
), pp.
1123
1141
.
9.
Olabanji
,
O. M.
, and
Mpofu
,
K.
,
2020
, “
Hybridized Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Fuzzy Weighted Average for Identifying Optimal Design Concept
,”
Heliyon
,
6
(
1
), p.
e03182
.
10.
Zhang
,
Z.
, and
Chu
,
X.
,
2009
, “
A New Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Design Alternative Selection for Supporting Complex Product Development
,”
Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf.
,
22
(
3
), pp.
179
198
.
11.
Wu
,
Y.
,
Zhou
,
F.
, and
Kong
,
J.
,
2020
, “
Innovative Design Approach for Product Design Based on TRIZ, AD, Fuzzy and Grey Relational Analysis
,”
Comput. Ind. Eng.
,
140
, p.
106276
.
12.
Jing
,
L.
,
Xu
,
Q.
,
Sun
,
T.
,
Peng
,
X.
,
Li
,
J.
,
Gao
,
F.
, and
Jiang
,
S.
,
2020
, “
Conceptual Scheme Decision Model for Mechatronic Products Driven by Risk of Function Failure Propagation
,”
Sustainability
,
12
(
17
), p.
7134
.
13.
Tversky
,
A.
, and
Kahneman
,
D.
,
1992
, “
Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty
,”
J. Risk Uncertain.
,
5
(
4
), pp.
297
323
.
14.
Yan-Ling
,
C.
,
Shu-Xin
,
Y.
,
Jian-Jun
,
H.
, and
Zhen-Yu
,
C.
,
2017
, “
Robust Concept Set Selection for Risk Control in Product Development Project
,”
Procedia Eng.
,
174
, pp.
973
981
.
15.
Ma
,
H.
,
Chu
,
X.
,
Xue
,
D.
, and
Chen
,
D.
,
2017
, “
A Systematic Decision Making Approach for Product Conceptual Design Based on Fuzzy Morphological Matrix
,”
Expert Syst. Appl.
,
81
(
15
), pp.
444
456
.
16.
Couturier
,
P.
, and
Imoussaten
,
A.
,
2015
, “
A Qualitative Method for Evaluation in Conceptual Design
,”
IFAC-PapersOnLine
,
48
(
3
), pp.
721
726
.
17.
Yazdankhah
,
A.
, and
Fathalipourbonab
,
M.
,
2014
, “
Optimizing New Product Concept Selection Decisions Considering Life Cycle Design Attributes
,”
Int. J. Model. Optim.
,
4
(
2
), pp.
146
151
.
18.
Aydoğan
,
S.
,
Günay
,
E. E.
,
Akay
,
D.
, and
Okudan Kremer
,
G. E.
,
2020
, “
Concept Design Evaluation by Using Z-Axiomatic Design
,”
Comput. Ind.
,
122
, p.
103278
.
19.
Geng
,
X.
,
Chu
,
X.
, and
Zhang
,
Z.
,
2010
, “
A New Integrated Design Concept Evaluation Approach Based on Vague Sets
,”
Expert Syst. Appl.
,
37
(
9
), pp.
6629
6638
.
20.
Tiwari
,
V.
,
Jain
,
P. K.
, and
Tandon
,
P.
,
2017
, “
An Integrated Shannon Entropy and TOPSIS for Product Design Concept Evaluation Based on Bijective Soft Set
,”
J. Intell. Manuf.
,
30
(
4
), pp.
1645
1658
.
21.
Turan
,
F. M.
, and
Omar
,
B.
,
2015
, “
Application of Integrated Fuzzy-AHP for Design Concept Evaluation: A Case Study on Mold Design Selection
,”
The Malaysia-Japan Model on Technology Partnership
,
Tokyo
,
2015
.
22.
Zhu
,
G.-N.
,
Hu
,
J.
, and
Ren
,
H.
,
2020
, “
A Fuzzy Rough Number-Based AHP-TOPSIS for Design Concept Evaluation Under Uncertain Environments
,”
Appl. Soft Comput.
,
91
, p.
106228
.
23.
Efe
,
B.
,
Yerlikaya
,
M. A.
, and
Efe
,
Ö. F.
,
2020
, “
Mobile Phone Selection Based on a Novel Quality Function Deployment Approach
,”
Soft Comput.
,
24
(
20
), pp.
15447
15461
.
24.
Hambali
,
A.
, and
Amira Farhana
,
M.
,
2018
, “
Development of Integrated Analytic Network Process (ANP) and Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) in the Conceptual Design Selection
,”
J. Eng. Sci. Technol.
,
13
(
9
), pp.
2716
2733
.
25.
Tian
,
Z.-P.
,
Wang
,
J.
,
Wang
,
J.-Q.
, and
Zhang
,
H.-Y.
,
2016
, “
Simplified Neutrosophic Linguistic Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Approach to Green Product Development
,”
Group Decis. Negot.
,
26
(
3
), pp.
597
627
.
26.
Jing
,
L.
,
Peng
,
X.
,
Li
,
J.
,
Wang
,
J.
, and
Jiang
,
S.
,
2018
, “
A Decision Approach With Multiple Interactive Qualitative Objectives for Product Conceptual Schemes Based on Noncooperative-Cooperative Game Theory
,”
Adv. Eng. Inform.
,
38
, pp.
581
592
.
27.
Ying
,
C.-S.
,
Li
,
Y.-L.
,
Chin
,
K.-S.
,
Yang
,
H.-T.
, and
Xu
,
J.
,
2018
, “
A New Product Development Concept Selection Approach Based on Cumulative Prospect Theory and Hybrid-Information MADM
,”
Comput. Ind. Eng.
,
122
, pp.
251
261
.
28.
Wang
,
F.
,
2018
,
Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making Method Based on Similarity Measure and Its Application
,
Anhui University
,
Anhui/Hefei, China
.
29.
Wang
,
H.
,
Pan
,
X.
, and
He
,
S.
,
2018
, “
A New Interval Type-2 Fuzzy VIKOR Method for Multi-Attribute Decision Making
,”
Int. J. Fuzzy Syst.
,
21
(
1
), pp.
145
156
.
30.
Liu
,
P.
,
2012
, “
An Approach to Group Decision Making Based on 2-Dimension Uncertain Linguistic Information
,”
Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ.
,
18
(
3
), pp.
424
437
.
31.
Chen
,
W.
, and
Zou
,
Y.
,
2020
, “
Group Decision Making Under Generalized Fuzzy Soft Sets and Limited Cognition of Decision Makers
,”
Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.
,
87
, p.
103344
.
32.
Ali
,
G.
, and
Akram
,
M.
,
2020
, “
Decision-Making Method Based on Fuzzy N-Soft Expert Sets
,”
Arab. J. Sci. Eng.
,
45
(
12
), pp.
10381
10400
.
33.
Maghrabie
,
H. F.
,
Beauregard
,
Y.
, and
Schiffauerova
,
A.
,
2019
, “
Grey-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach: Addressing Uncertainty at Complex Decision Problems
,”
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
,
146
, pp.
366
379
.
34.
Liu
,
P.
,
Chen
,
S.-M.
, and
Wang
,
Y.
,
2020
, “
Multiattribute Group Decision Making Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Partitioned Maclaurin Symmetric Mean Operators
,”
Inf. Sci.
,
512
, pp.
830
854
.
35.
Atanassov
,
K. T.
,
1999
,
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets
, Physica, Heidelberg ed., Vol.
35
,
Springer
,
New York
, pp.
139
177
.
36.
Wang
,
F.
, and
Wan
,
S.
,
2020
, “
Possibility Degree and Divergence Degree Based Method for Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Group Decision Making
,”
Expert Syst. Appl.
,
141
(
1
), p.
112929
.
37.
Jia
,
Z.
, and
Zhang
,
Y.
,
2019
, “
Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making With Uncertain Weights
,”
Math. Probl. Eng.
,
2019
, pp.
1
9
.
38.
Yu
,
G.-F.
,
Li
,
D.-F.
, and
Fei
,
W.
,
2018
, “
A Novel Method for Heterogeneous Multi-Attribute Group Decision Making With Preference Deviation
,”
Comput. Ind. Eng.
,
124
, pp.
58
64
.
39.
Wang
,
L.
,
Labella
,
Á.
,
Rodríguez
,
R. M.
,
Wang
,
Y.-M.
, and
Martínez
,
L.
,
2017
, “
Managing Non-Homogeneous Information and Experts’ Psychological Behavior in Group Emergency Decision Making
,”
Symmetry
,
9
(
10
), p.
234
.
40.
Zhang
,
X.-X.
,
Ge
,
B.-F.
,
Jiang
,
J.
, and
Yang
,
K.-W.
,
2015
, “
A New Consensus Model for Group Decision Making Using Fuzzy Linguistic Preference Relations With Heterogeneous Experts
,”
J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst.
,
30
(
1
), pp.
171
182
.
41.
Li
,
C.
,
2020
, “
Heterogeneous Multi-Attribute Group Decision Making Method Based on Shapely Value Correction
,”
2nd International Symposium on Mechanics, Structures and Materials Science
,
Tianjin City, China
, 2258(1):020013.
42.
Wang
,
X.
, and
Cai
,
J.
,
2017
, “
A Group Decision-Making Model Based on Distance-Based VIKOR With Incomplete Heterogeneous Information and Its Application to Emergency Supplier Selection
,”
Kybernetes
,
46
(
3
), pp.
501
529
.
43.
Li
,
G.
,
Kou
,
G.
, and
Peng
,
Y.
,
2018
, “
A Group Decision Making Model for Integrating Heterogeneous Information
,”
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst.
,
48
(
6
), pp.
982
992
.
44.
Atanssov
,
K. T.
,
1986
, “
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set
,”
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
,
20
(
1
), pp.
87
96
.
45.
Wan
,
S.-P.
,
Xu
,
J.
, and
Dong
,
J.-Y.
,
2016
, “
Aggregating Decision Information Into Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers for Heterogeneous Multi-Attribute Group Decision Making
,”
Knowl. Based Syst.
,
113
(
1
), pp.
155
170
.
46.
Wang
,
Z.
,
Dang
,
Y.
, and
Song
,
C.
,
2009
, “
Multi-objective Decision Model of Grey Situation Based on Interval Number
,”
Control. Decis.
,
24
(
3
), pp.
388
392
.
47.
Anand
,
M.
, and
Bharatraj
,
J.
,
2017
, “
Theory of Triangular Fuzzy Number
,”
Proc. NCATM
,
2017
, p.
80
.
48.
Seyed-Hosseini
,
S.
,
Safaei
,
N.
, and
Asgharpour
,
M.
,
2006
, “
Reprioritization of Failures in a System Failure Mode and Effects Analysis by Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory Technique
,”
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
,
91
(
8
), pp.
872
881
.
49.
Li
,
D.
, and
Ren
,
H.
,
2015
, “
Multi-attribute Decision Making Method Considering the Amount and Reliability of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information
,”
J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst.
,
28
(
4
), pp.
1877
1883
.
You do not currently have access to this content.