Integration of QFD, AHP, and LPP methods in supplier development problems under uncertainty

Shad, Zahra; Roghanian, Emad; Mojibian, Fatemeh Article Integration of QFD, AHP, and LPP methods in supplier development problems under uncertainty Journal of Industrial Engineering International Provided in Cooperation with: Islamic Azad University (IAU), Tehran Suggested Citation: Shad, Zahra; Roghanian, Emad; Mojibian, Fatemeh (2014) : Integration of QFD, AHP, and LPP methods in supplier development problems under uncertainty, Journal of Industrial Engineering International, ISSN 2251-712X, Springer, Heidelberg, Vol. 10, pp. 1-9, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-014-0051-0 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/157395 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ TECHNICAL ARTICLE Integration of QFD, AHP, and LPP methods in supplier development problems under uncertainty Zahra Shad •Emad Roghanian •Fatemeh Mojibian Received: 23 July 2013 / Accepted: 20 December 2013 / Published online: 3 April 2014 The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Quality function deployment (QFD) is a customer-driven approach, widely used to develop or process new product to maximize customer satisfaction. Last researches used linear physical programming (LPP) procedure to optimize QFD; however, QFD issue involved uncertainties, or fuzziness, which requires taking them into account for more realistic study. In this paper, a set of fuzzy data is used to address linguistic values parameterized by triangular fuzzy numbers. Proposed integrated approach including analytic hierarchy process (AHP), QFD, and LPP to maximize overall customer satisfaction under uncertain conditions and apply them in the supplier development problem. The fuzzy AHP approach is adopted as a powerful method to obtain the relationship between the customer requirements and engineering characteristics (ECs) to construct house of quality in QFD method. LPP is used to obtain the optimal achievement level of the ECs and subsequently the customer satisfaction level under different degrees of uncertainty. The effectiveness of proposed method will be illustrated by an example. Keywords Quality function deployment (QFD) Fuzzy  Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) Linear physical programming (LPP) Supplier development Introduction The increasing global competition and cooperation and the vertical disintegration of production activities have created the logistical challenge of coordinating the entire supply chain (SC) effectively, upstream to downstream activities (Gebennini et al. 2009). Supply chain management (SCM) integrates suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and customers to meet final consumer needs and expectations efficiently and effectively (Cox 1999). Quality function deployment (QFD) was developed by Yoji Akao in the 1960s. The basis of QFD is to obtain and translate customer requirements into engineering characteristics, and subsequently into part characteristics, process plans, and production requirements. This paper is concentrated on the HOQ, which translates customer requirements into the engineering characteristics. By better managing the SC, companies can increase their customers’ satisfaction and achieve sustainable business success. SC has different levels and each level can be considered as a customer of the previous level that should be maximized to the customer satisfaction in each level. QFD can be used as a useful method to translate the requirements of each level to the ECs of the previous level. AHP method can be used as a powerful multi-criteria tool to extract the relationships between the requirements of each level and ECs of the previous level. Humans are often uncertain in assigning the evaluation scores in crisp AHP. So FAHP can capture this difficulty. Although QFD implementation extended recently, only a few researchers focused in the supply chain (e.g., Zarei et al. 2011; Hassanzadeh Amin and Razmi 2009). Satisfying customer requirement is multi-objective optimization problem. Different optimization methods have been applied in the field of QFD to maximize Z. Shad E. Roghanian Department of Industrial Engineering, Khaje Nasir Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran F. Mojibian (&) Department of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Jalal Ale Ahmad Highway, P.O. BOX 14115-111, Tehran, Iran e-mail: [email protected] 123 J Ind Eng Int (2014) 10:51 DOI 10.1007/s40092-014-0051-0 customer satisfaction. Mathematical programming is one of these optimization methods. Linear programming model is used to maximize the overall customer satisfaction (e.g., Chen and Ko 2009; Lai et al. 2007). Park and Kim (1998) used integer programming to optimize product design in the QFD. Chen and Weng (2006) used goal programming to determine the fulfillment levels of the design requirements in the QFD. Delice and Gu ¨ngo ¨r(2009) applied mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to acquire the optimized solution of alternative CRs. Chen and Ko (2010) consider the close link between the four phases using the means-end chain (MEC) concept to build up a set of fuzzy linear programming models to determine the contribution levels of each ‘‘how’’ for customer satisfaction. Bhattacharya et al. (2010) present a concurrent engineering approach integrating AHP with QFD in combination with cost factor measure (CFM), has been delineated to rank and subsequently select candidate suppliers under multiple, conflicting-in-nature criteria environment within a value-chain framework. Raissi et al. (2012) prioritize engineering characteristic in QFD using fuzzy common set of weight. Lai et al. (2006) used LPP as an effective multiobjective optimization method to optimize QFD. In this paper, we extended Lai et al. (2006) approach using fuzzy numbers instead of the crisp numbers to build HOQ. We used HOQ with triangular fuzzy numbers to extract mathematical model to deal with the fuzziness of the problem to achieve the optimal values of the ECs under different degrees of uncertainty. Due to the high importance of the SCM, the aim of this paper is to develop a useful approach by integrating fuzzy AHP, fuzzy QFD (FQFD), and LPP to obtain the optimal values of the ECs of the suppliers. Supplier development is an important issue in the context of the SCM. Also, supplier development is a multi-criterion decision-making (MCDM) problem which includes both qualitative and quantitative factors (e.g., Xia and Wu 2007; Chan and Kumar 2007). In this section literature review of QFD, fuzzy AHP, LPP methods, applying LPP with QFD and fuzzy linear programming are presented. In ‘‘Proposed methodology’’, we present proposed methodology and illustrated it solving a numerical example in ‘‘Numerical example’’. In ‘‘Discussion of results’’, the obtained results are discussed and, finally in ‘‘Conclusions’’ the conclusion is presented. Quality function deployment Quality function deployment aims at identifying the customers together with their demands for the product, which are translated into product characteristics. QFD methodology has introduced twofold principles in product development. First, the needs of the customer should be carefully considered during the development process, Secondly, the importance of the different product characteristics should be analyzed and ranked (Bevilacqua et al. 2006). Many researchers applied QFD to present a new product or to improve product design, which is explained as follows: Fung et al. (2005) applied an asymmetric fuzzy linear regression approach to estimate the functional relationships for product planning based on QFD. Kahraman et al. (2006) proposed a fuzzy optimization model based on FQFD to determine the product engineering requirements in designing a product. Soota et al. (2011) propose a method to foster product development using combination of QFD and ANP. Sener and Karsak (2011) combined fuzzy linear regression and fuzzy multiple objective programming for setting target levels in the QFD. Based on the Kano’s category of design requirements, Chen and Ko (2008) presented a fuzzy nonlinear model to determine the performance level of each design requirements to maximize customer satisfaction. Raharjo et al. (2008) applied AHP to overcome the priorities change over time in the QFD. Sharma and Rawani (2008) develop a post-HoQ model through a well-defined and structured approach to comprehensive matrix and SWOT analysis. Raissi et al. (2011) proposed a novel methodology using common set of weight (CSW) method as a well-known technique in DEA to aggregate each of the requirements expressed by customers and comparisons among the product produced by own company with competitive products. In the supply chain field, researchers used QFD as an effective decision-making tool, which is explained as follows: Bottani and Rizzi (2006) proposed a FQFD approach to deploy HOQ to efficiently and effectively improve the logistic process. Bottani (2009) presented an original approach to show the applicability of the QFD methodology to enhance agility of enterprises. Zarei et al. (2011) studied QFD application to identify viable lean enabler for increasing the leanness of food chain. Yousefi et al. (2011) propose an original approach for the management tools selection based on the quality function deployment approach, a methodology that has been successfully adopted in new products development. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) AHP is a decision support tool that can adequately represent qualitative and subjective assessments under the multiple criteria decision-making environment. AHP is strongly connected to human judgment and pairwise comparisons in AHP may cause bias in evaluator’s assessment which makes the comparison judgment matrix inconsistent 51 Page 2 of 9 J Ind Eng Int (2014) 10:51 123 (Aydogan 2011). Because of this problem, using the fuzzy set theory can solve evaluation bias problem in AHP. Various application of the FAHP can be found for solving MCDM problems. Kahraman et al. (2004) used FAHP to compare catering firms. Chan and Kumar (2007) applied FAHP for solving the global supplier selection problem. Haghighi et al. (2010) applied FAHP to priority of factors that impact electronic banking development in Iran. Rung and Shing (2013) propose a two-stage fuzzy logarithmic preference programming with multi-criteria decision making, to derive the priorities of comparison matrices in the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the analytic network process (ANP). Different methods in the FAHP were employed to extract the weight of criteria base on pairwise comparison matrices. Extent analysis method proposed by Chang (1992,1996)is a popular approach to determine the weight of criteria (e.g., Kahraman et al. 2004; Haghighi et al. 2010). Geometric mean technique proposed by Buckley (1985) also was used to define the fuzzy geometric mean and fuzzy weights of each criterion (e.g., Chen et al. 2008; Gu ¨ngo ¨r et al. 2009). After constructing pairwise comparison matrices (e D) according to geometric mean technique using Eq. (5) and (6), we can define the fuzzy weights of each criterion as following: e D¼ 1e d12  e d1n . . ... .. . . e dn1e dn2 1 2 6 43 7 5¼ 1e d12  e d1n . . ... .. . . 1 .e d1n 1 .e d2n 1 2 6 6 43 7 7 5 ð1Þ where e dij ¼traingular fuzzy number;i6¼ j 1i¼j . A fuzzy number e don Rto be a triangular fuzzy number if its membership function ledxðÞ:R!0;1½can be defined by the following equation: le dxðÞ¼ xdl dmdl;dlxdm drx drdm;dmxdr 0 otherwise 8 > > > < > > > : ð2Þ Let e aand e bbe two triangular fuzzy numbers parameterized by the triplet (a 1 ,a 2 ,a 3 ) and (b 1 ,b 2 ,b 2 ), respectively, then the operational laws of these two triangular fuzzy numbers are as follows: e ae b¼a1;a2;a3 ðÞb1;b2;b3 ðÞ ¼a1þb1;a2þb2;a3þb3 ðÞð3Þ e ae b¼a1;a2;a3 ðÞb1;b2;b3 ðÞ ffia1b1;a2b2;a3b3 ðÞð4Þ e rij ¼e di1e dij e din  1 nð5Þ and the normalized weight of each criterion is obtained as follows: e r0 ij ¼e rij e ri1e rij e rin  1ð6Þ In this paper, the normalized fuzzy weights are used to construct fuzzy HOQ of the QFD. Linear physical programming (LPP) Linear physical programming is a multi-objective optimization method that develops an aggregate objective function of the criteria in a piecewise Archimedean goalprogramming fashion. The physical programming approach in its nonlinear (general) form was developed by Messac (1996) and in its piecewise linear form, LPP, provides the means for DMs to express his/her priority with respect to each criterion using four classes, i.e., the DM declares each criterion as belonging to one of four distinct classes. Class functions allowed the DMs to express the ranges of differing levels of preference for each criterion. A criterion falls into one of four classes of penalty functions, hereby called class functions, defined as follows: Class 1S smaller-is-better, i.e., minimization Class 2S larger-is-better, i.e., maximization Class 3S value-is-better Class 4S range-is-better. Linear physical programming has been used in several diverse applications. Maria et al. (2003) used LPP in production planning. Melachrinoudis et al. (2005) propose a LPP model that enables a decision maker to consider multiple criteria (i.e., cost, customer service and intangible benefits) and to express criteria preferences not in a traditional form of weights, but in ranges of different degrees of desirability. Tian and Zuo (2006) proposed a multi-objective optimization model using physical programming for redundancy allocation for multi-state series–parallel systems. Applying LPP with QFD By applying LPP, the satisfaction level of each customer requirement is classified into one of six different ranges (ideal range, desirable range, tolerable range, undesirable range, highly undesirable range, unacceptable range). According to the proposed methodology by Lai et al. (2006) each engineering characteristic usually needs cost for improvement. Therefore, the last row of the HOQ is the cost index for each engineering characteristic. X j =(j=1, 2, …,q) is defined as the value of the engineering characteristic j. The normalized value of engineering characteristic jis defined as: J Ind Eng Int (2014) 10:51 Page 3 of 9 51 123 xj¼Xj=maxfXjgand 0 xj1ð7Þ Proposed algorithm by Messac et al. (1996) to obtain the weights of the different ranges is as follows: The value of a class function z i at the intersection of given ranges is the same for any customer requirement. z i (i=1, 2, …,p) is loss function defined in LPP, and can be viewed as a loss of customer satisfaction. zsis defined as the value of class function at range intersection s. It can be expressed mathematically as: zsziðtisÞð8Þ tis is the limit of different ranges, and sdenotes a range. zs is a constant for all iand ezsand is defined as: ezszszs12s5ðÞ ð9Þ z10ð10Þ According to the LPP method, we can define ezsas: ezs¼bp1ðÞezs13s5ðÞ ð11Þ where pdonates the number of customer requirements and bis the convexity parameter. etis is defined as: etis ¼tiðs1Þtis 2s5ðÞ ð12Þ The importance weight of each customer satisfaction level is given by: wis ¼ezs etis 2s5ðÞ ð13Þ wi1¼0ð14Þ The importance weight of each range for every customer requirement can be calculated as: e wis ¼wis wiðs1Þ2s5ðÞ ð15Þ And finally by solving the following proposed mathematical model by Lai et al. (2006), the optimal achievement level of the each EC allocated budget to each EC and CRs satisfaction level can be determined. min d is ;xX p i¼1X 5 s¼2 ðe wisd is Þð16Þ Subject to: X q j¼1 rijxjþd is tis1ðÞ i¼1;...;ps¼2;...;5ð17Þ X q j¼1 cjxjBð18Þ d is 0i¼1;...;ps¼2;...;5ð19Þ 0xj1J¼1;...;qð20Þ The deviational variable, denoted by d is - can be viewed as the distance from the value of the performance rating of customer requirement iunder consideration to tis1ðÞ , starting from the left-hand side. Cjis the cost of unit improvement of the engineering characteristic, and B is the cost limit for the improvement of all the engineering characteristics. Fuzzy linear programming Linear programming (LP) is the optimization technique most frequently applied in real-world problems. Any linear programming model representing real-world situations involves a lot of parameters whose values are assigned by experts, therefore some of these parameters or whole of them can be fuzzy. In this paper, for solving the fuzzy mathematical model we use Jime ´nez’s approach. According to Jime ´nez (1996), the expected interval (EI) of triangular fuzzy number e dcan be defined as follows: EI e d ¼Ed 1;Ed 2  ¼1 2dlþdm  ;1 2dmþdr ðÞ  ð21Þ Moreover, according to the ranking method of Jime ´nez (1996), for any pair of fuzzy numbers e aand e b, the degree in which e ais bigger than e bis defined as follows: lMe a;e b  ¼ 0ifEa 2Eb 1\0 Ea 2Eb 1 Ea 2Eb 1Ea 1Eb 2  if 0 2Ea 1Eb 2;Ea 2Eb 1  1ifEa 1Eb 2[0 8 > > > < > > > :ð22Þ When lMe a;e b  it will demonstrate that e ais bigger than, or equal, to e bat least in a degree a, and it will be represented by e aae bfor two types of the constraints following as: e aixe bii¼1;...;mð23Þ e aixe bii¼mþ1;...;tð24Þ According to the Jime ´nez et al. (2007), a decision vector x2< nis feasible in degree aif mini¼1;...;m¼ lMe aix;bi ðÞfg¼aAccording to the equation (20), the equation e aixbiis equivalent to the following: Eaix 2Ebi 1 Eaix 2Eaix 1þEbi 2Ebi 1 ai¼1;...;mð25Þ So equation can be rewritten as follows: 1aðÞEai 2þaEai 1  xaEbi 2þ1aðÞEbi 1i¼1;...;m ð26Þ We can do this for e aixbi, so this equation is equivalent to the following: 51 Page 4 of 9 J Ind Eng Int (2014) 10:51 123 aEai 2þð1aÞEai 1  xaEbi 1þ1aðÞEbi 2 i¼mþ1;...;tð27Þ In this paper, Jime ´nez’s approach is used to solve mathematical model. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: ‘‘Proposed methodology’’ presents the literature review of QFD, AHP, LPP and applying LPP with QFD. ‘‘Numerical example’’ presents the proposed methodology. In ‘‘Discussion of results’’, the proposed methodology is illustrated by solving a numerical example, and finally in ‘‘Conclusions’’ conclusions is presented. Proposed methodology Because of the ambiguity and fuzziness of the real-world problems crisp number cannot deal with the problem carefully. We extended Lai et al. (2006) proposed methodology by combining FAHP method to construct HOQ with the fuzzy numbers. Triangular fuzzy number in Table 1is used for weighting the ECs with respect to the each CR. Therefore, Eq. (17) is converted to the following equation: X q j¼1e r0 ijxjþd is tis1ðÞ i¼1;...;ps ¼2;...;5ð28Þ e r0 ij is triangular fuzzy number, which is obtained by geometric mean method based on the pairwise comparison according to FAHP. We use Jime ´nez’s approach to solve the mathematical model. In Fig. 1, stepwise procedure of the proposed methodology is shown. Numerical example We illustrate our proposed methodology step by step by solving an example of supplier development. Step 1: Information about company requirements and characteristics of the suppliers to satisfy these requirements are collected. Important CRs and ECs are shown in Table 2. Step 2: Pairwise comparison matrices based on the FAHP method between ECs with respect to the each of the CRs are constructed. For example, the relationship between the engineering characteristics with respect to the cost is shown in Table 3. Similarly, other pairwise comparison matrices can be obtained. Step 3: Fuzzy relationships of each CR with respect to ECs using Eq. (3)–(6) according to the geometric mean method is determined. For example, the fuzzy relationships between the first requirement and ECs are determined as follows: e r11 ¼ð e d11 e d12 e d13 e d14 e d15Þ1=5 e r11 ¼112=3ðÞ 1=5;111ðÞ 1=5;  113=2ðÞ 1=5¼ð0:922;1:149;1:413Þ Similarly, we can compute remaining e rij, they are as follows: e r12 ¼0:708;0:871;1:084ðÞ e r13 ¼0:979;1:149;1:33ðÞ e r14 ¼ð0:653;0:871;1:176Þ e r15 ¼ð0:784;0:871;1:275Þ We normalized the calculated weights as follows: e r0 11 ¼e r11 e r11 e r12 e r13 e r14 e r15 ðÞ 1 e r0 11 ¼0:922;1:149;1:413ðÞð0:922;1:149;1:413ðÞ 0:784;0:871;1:275ÞÞ1 ¼ð0:1;0:15;:23Þ The remaining e r0 ij, they are as follows: e r0 12 ¼0:1;0:15;0:23ðÞ;e r0 13 ¼0:15;0:21;0:28ðÞ; e r0 14 ¼0:09;0:15;0:23ðÞ;e r0 15 ¼ð0:11;0:16;0:29Þ Step 4: Fuzzy HOQ of QFD is constructed by fuzzy relationships. Table 4shows the fuzzy HOQ which is built by applying FAHP. Step 5: Table 5shows the class function of the CRs and the limit of different ranges of CRs. Step 6: After determining the limit of different ranges, the weight of the each range of the CRs according to the Messac et al. (1996)b¼1:1 and z2¼0:1ðsmall positive numberÞ is calculated by applying Eq. (8)–(15). The weights of the different ranges of the cost are as following: e w12 ¼0:001;e w13 ¼1:587;e w14 ¼11:499; e w15 ¼16:262 The weights of the other customer requirement can be defined similarly. Table 1 Triangular fuzzy conversion scale Linguistic scale Triangular fuzzy scale Triangular fuzzy reciprocal scale Equal (1,1,1) (1,1,1) Weak (2/3,1,3/2) (2/3,1,3/2) Fairly strong (3/2,2,5/2) (2/5,1/2,2/3) Very strong (5/2,3,7/2) (2/7,1/3,2/5) Absolute (7/2,4,9/2) (2/9,1/4,2/7) J Ind Eng Int (2014) 10:51 Page 5 of 9 51 123 Step 7: By using Eq. (16)–(20), we extract the mathematical model of the problem. We exchange the Eq. 17 with Eq. 29 in our model. Now, we have a model with fuzzy constraints. Step 8: By applying the Eq. (27)–(28), the fuzzy model is exchanged to the LP model. We solved the model with different degrees of uncertainty. Tables 6and 7show the optimal achievement levels of the ECs and CRs under different degrees of uncertainty which are obtained by solving the model. Fig1. Stepwise procedure. Constructing pair-wise comparison matrices based on the FAHP method between ECs with respect to the each of the requirement of each level Determining the fuzzy relationships between of each CR with respect to ECs by using equations (5)-(6) Building fuzzy HOQ of QFD by obtained fuzzy relationships between CRs and ECs Defining the class function of the CRs and the limit of different ranges of CRs according to the LPP method Calculating the weight of the each rang of the CRs by using equations (8)-(15) Extract the mathematical model for optimizing QFD with LPP method Solving fuzzy mathematical model under different degree of uncertainty Extract the optimal achievement level of the ECs and satisfaction level of CRs under different degree of uncertainty Collecting information of the different level of SCM to determine requirements and engineering characteristics (ECs) of each level Fig. 1 Stepwise procedure Table 2 Important CRs and ECs Customer requirements Engineering characteristics Cost EF =experience of the sector Conformity IN =capacity for innovation to follow up the customer’s evolution in terms of changes in its strategy and market Punctuality SQ =quality system certification Efficacy FL =flexibility of response to the customer’s requests Lead time RR =ability to manage orders online (EDI system) Table 3 Pairwise comparison matrix between the engineering characteristics with respect to the cost Cost EF IN SQ FL RR EF (1 1 1) (1 1 1) (3/2 2 5/2) (2/3 1 3/2) (2/3 1 3/2) IN (1 1 1) (1 1 1) (2/5 2/3) (1 1 1) (2/3 1 3/2) SQ (2/5 2/3) (3/2 2 5/2) (1 1 1) (3/2 2 5/2) (1 1 1) FL (2/3 1 3/2) (1 1 1) (2/5 2/3) (1 1 1) (2/3 1 3/2) RR (2/3 1 3/2) (2/3 1 3/2) (1 1 1) (2/3 1 3/2) (1 1 1) 51 Page 6 of 9 J Ind Eng Int (2014) 10:51 123 Discussion of results The obtained results of this numerical example in Table 6 show that in engineering characteristics, x 3 and x 4 which demonstrate, respectively, quality system certification and flexibility of response to the customer’s requests have not been fully achieved in some degree of uncertainty, while the other three characters have been obtained completely in all calculated degree of uncertainty. The results of Table 7indicate that the satisfaction level of CR 4 is rather higher than the other four requirements; therefore in thisexample,efficacyismore important than cost, conformity, punctuality, and lead time. Unlike the existing literature, this method integrates three different concepts such as AHP, QFD, and LLP to achieve the optimal values of the ECs and CRs under different degrees of uncertainty. Therefore, with respect to the company’s strategy, managers can use the resultsofproposedmethodtoimproveanddevelop engineering characteristics of suppliers to meet their requirements. Conclusions In this paper, we proposed a simple and useful methodology by integrating AHP, QFD, and LPP for supplier development problems under uncertainty conditions. We used fuzzy AHP to determine the relationships between customer’s requirements and engineering characteristics for building the relation matrix in the QFD method. Then, applying LPP, we formulated the mathematical model to optimize QFD. Proposed methodology helps decision makers to deal with the vagueness and imprecise involved in the real problems. In addition, it helps them to maximize overall customer satisfaction in supplier development. In addition, the proposed methodology can be used in the product design, product development, process development, and other decisionmaking problems. For the future work, we suggest to consider the correlation between engineering characteristics to increase the reliability of the obtained solutions or use the other type of fuzzy programming to obtain optimal achievement Table 4 Fuzzy HOQ of the QFD EC 1 EC 2 EC 3 EC 4 EC 5 CR 1 0.10 0.15 0.23 0.11 0.15 0.22 0.15 0.21 0.28 0.09 0.15 0.23 0.11 0.16 0.29 CR 2 0.10 0.15 0.23 0.11 0.16 0.23 0.12 0.17 0.23 0.11 0.15 0.24 0.12 0.18 0.26 CR 3 0.12 0.19 0.30 0.11 0.17 0.25 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.14 0.21 0.31 0.09 0.14 0.21 CR 4 0.13 0.19 0.27 0.11 0.17 0.27 0.12 0.16 0.21 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.31 CR 5 0.12 0.17 0.26 0.12 0.20 0.32 0.10 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.19 0.26 0.09 0.14 0.21 Table 5 Class function of the CRs and the limit of different ranges of CRs Customer requirements Class function The limit of different ranges of CRs according to the LPP method t 1 t 2 t 3 t 4 t 5 Cost 1S 0.14 0.36 0.57 0.71 1 Conformity 2S 1 0.89 0.74 0.47 0.32 Punctuality 2S 1 0.7 0.55 0.3 0.1 Efficacy 2S 1 0.75 0.65 0.5 0.2 Lead time 1S 0 0.29 0.57 0.86 1 Table 6 Optimal achievement levels of the ECs under different values of a aOptimal achievement levels of the ECs under different values of a x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 0.6 1 1 1 0.02 1 0.7 1 1 1 0.17 1 0.8 1 1 0.7 0.44 1 0.9 1 1 0.69 0.29 1 1 1 1 0.69 0.16 1 Table 7 Optimal achievement levels of the CRs under different values of a aSatisfaction levels of the CRs under different values of a CR 1 CR 2 CR 3 CR 4 CR 5 0.5 2.17 2.07 2.03 2.29 2.05 0.6 2.18 2.08 2.04 2.29 2.06 0.7 2.25 2.16 2.14 2.35 2.15 0.8 2.18 2.13 2.18 2.3 2.18 0.9 2.11 2.06 2.07 2.24 2.09 1 2.05 1.99 1.99 2.19 2.01 J Ind Eng Int (2014) 10:51 Page 7 of 9 51 123 level of engineering characteristics and customer satisfaction level. Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests. Authors’ contributions All authors ZS, ER and FM, have made adequate effort on all parts of thework necessary for the development of this manuscript according to his/herexpertise. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited. References Aydogan EK (2011) Performance measurement model for Turkish aviation firms using the rough-AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 38:3992–3998 Bevilacqua M, Ciarapica FE, Giacchetta G (2006) A fuzzy-QFD approach to supplier selection. J Purch Supply Manag 12:14–27 Bhattacharya A, Geraghty J, Young P (2010) Supplier selection paradigm: an integrated hierarchical QFD methodology under multiple-criteria environment. Appl Soft Comput 10:1013–1027 Bottani E (2009) A fuzzy QFD approach to achieve agility. Int J Prod Econ 119(2):380–391 Bottani E, Rizzi A (2006) Strategic management of logistics service: a fuzzy-QFD approach. Int J Prod Econ 103(2):585–599 Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17(1):233–247 Chan FTS, Kumar N (2007) Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega Int J Manag Sci 35:417–431 Chang DY (1992) Extent analysis and synthetic decision, optimization techniques and applications, vol 1. World Scientific, Singapore 352 Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95:649–655 Chen LH, Ko WC (2008) A fuzzy nonlinear model for quality function deployment considering Kano’s concept. Math Comput Model 48:581–593 Chen LH, Ko WC (2009) Fuzzy linear programming models for new product design using QFD with FMEA. Appl Math Model 33:633–647 Chen LH, Ko WC (2010) Fuzzy linear programming models for NPD using a four-phase QFD activity process based on the means-end chain concept. Eur J Oper Res 201:619–632 Chen LH, Weng MC (2006) An evaluation approach to engineering design in QFD processes using fuzzy goal programming models. Eur J Oper Res 172:230–248 Chen MF, Tseng GH, Ding CG (2008) Combining fuzzy AHP with MDS in identifying the preference similarity of alternatives. Appl Soft Comput 8:110–117 Cox A (1999) Power value and supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag 4(4):167–175 Delice EK, Gu ¨ngo ¨r Z (2009) A new mixed integer linear programming model for product development using quality function deployment. Comput Ind Eng 57:906–912 Fung RYK, Chen Y, Chen L, Tang J (2005) A fuzzy expected valuebased goal programming model for product planning using quality function deployment. Eng Optim 37(6):633–647 Gebennini E, Gamberinni R, Manzini R (2009) An integrated production–distribution model for the dynamic location and allocation problem with safety stock optimization. Int J Prod Econ 122:286–304 Gu ¨ngo ¨r Z, Serhadlıog ˘lu G, Kesen SE (2009) A fuzzy AHP approach to personnel selection problem. Appl Soft Comput 9:641–646 Haghighi M, Divandari A, Keimasi M (2010) The impact of 3D e-readiness on e-banking development in Iran: a fuzzy AHP analysis. Expert Syst Appl 37:4084–4093 Hassanzadeh Amin S, Razmi J (2009) An integrated fuzzy model for supplier management: a case study of ISP selection and evaluation. Expert Syst Appl 36:8639–8648 Jime ´nez M (1996) Ranking fuzzy numbers through the comparison of its expected intervals. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 4(4):379–388 Jime ´nez M, Arenas M, Bilbao A, Rodriguez MV (2007) Linear programming with fuzzy parameters: an interactive method resolution. Eur J Oper Res 177:1599–1609 Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ruan D (2004) Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: the case of Turkey. Int J Prod Econ 87:171–184 Kahraman C, Ertay T, Bu ¨yu ¨ko ¨zkan G (2006) A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using analytic network process. Eur J Oper Res 171:390–411 Lai X, Xie M, Tan KC (2006) QFD optimization using linear physical programming. Eng Optim 38(5):593–607 Lai X, Xie M, Tan KC (2007) Optimizing product design using quantitative quality function deployment: a case study. Qual Reliab Eng Int 23:45–572 Maria A, Mattson CA, Ismail-Yahaya A, Messac A (2003) Linear physical programming for production optimization. Eng Optim 35(1):19–37 Melachrinoudis E, Messac A, Min H (2005) Consolidating a warehouse network: a physical programming approach. Int J Prod Econ 97:1–17 Messac A (1996) Physical programming: effective optimization for computational design. AIAA J 34(1):149–158 Messac A, Gupta SM, Akbulut B (1996) Linear physical programming: a new approach to multiple objective optimization. Trans Oper Res 8:39–59 Park T, Kim K (1998) Determination of an optimal set of design requirements using house of quality. J Oper Manag 16:569–581 Raharjo H, Brombacher AC, Xie M (2008) Dealing with subjectivity in early product design phase: a systematic approach to exploit Quality Function Deployment potentials. Comput Ind Eng 55:253–278 Raissi S, Izadi M, Saati S (2011) A novel method on customer requirements preferences based on common set of weight. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 5(6):1544–1552 Raissi S, Izadi M, Saati S (2012) Prioritizing engineering characteristic in QFD using fuzzy common set of weight. Am J Sci Res 49:34–49 Rung YuJ, Shing WY (2013) Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an integrated fuzzy logarithmic preference programming. Appl Soft Comput 13:1792–1799 Sener Z, Karsak EE (2011) A combined fuzzy linear regression and fuzzy multiple objective programming approach for setting target levels in quality function deployment. Expert Syst Appl 38:3015–3022 Sharma JR, Rawani AM (2008) Quality function deployment: integrating comprehensive matrix and SWOT analysis for effective decision making. J Ind Eng Int 4(6):19–31 Soota T, Singh H, Mishra RC (2011) Fostering product development using combination of QFD and ANP: A case study. J Ind Eng Int 7(14):29–40 51 Page 8 of 9 J Ind Eng Int (2014) 10:51 123