Concept Design Evaluation of Sustainable Product–Service Systems: A QFD–TOPSIS Integrated Framework with Basic Uncertain Linguistic Information

IF 3.6 4区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Group Decision and Negotiation Pub Date : 2024-02-17 DOI:10.1007/s10726-023-09870-w
Qiang Yang, Zhen-Song Chen, Jiang-Hong Zhu, Luis Martínez, Witold Pedrycz, Mirosław J. Skibniewski
{"title":"Concept Design Evaluation of Sustainable Product–Service Systems: A QFD–TOPSIS Integrated Framework with Basic Uncertain Linguistic Information","authors":"Qiang Yang, Zhen-Song Chen, Jiang-Hong Zhu, Luis Martínez, Witold Pedrycz, Mirosław J. Skibniewski","doi":"10.1007/s10726-023-09870-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The product–service system (PSS) is a strategic design approach proposed to address sustainability in socio-economic systems amidst rapid industrialization and transition. Evaluating the concept design of a PSS is a crucial and initial step prior to implementation. This study presents an innovative framework for evaluating concept designs of sustainable PSS based on a well-defined evaluation index system via integrating quality function deployment (QFD) and the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) while accommodating extended basic uncertain linguistic information (EBULI). Specifically, a QFD-based framework is first developed to identify the requirements of various stakeholders and then to establish the multi-dimensional criteria for evaluating sustainable PSS. Then, a House of Quality-based relationship matrix is introduced to determine the weights of criteria more accurately. Further, an adaptive consensus-reaching process method based on an expert weighting optimization model is proposed to ensure a collective outputs recognized by multiple involved stakeholders. Finally, an improved EBULI-based TOPSIS method is presented to determine the priority ranking of alternative sustainable PSS concepts. A case study on a car-sharing PSS project demonstrates the viability and effectiveness of the proposed QFD–TOPSIS integrated approach under EBULI settings. The alternative PSS concept design, which demonstrates relatively good performance in criteria of high importance, is selected as the most suitable option. Moreover, relevant comparative and sensitivity analyses reveal that the proposed approach exhibits superiorities in appropriate criteria elicitation, accurate weights determination, and high consensus ranking outputs.</p>","PeriodicalId":47553,"journal":{"name":"Group Decision and Negotiation","volume":"95 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Decision and Negotiation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-023-09870-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The product–service system (PSS) is a strategic design approach proposed to address sustainability in socio-economic systems amidst rapid industrialization and transition. Evaluating the concept design of a PSS is a crucial and initial step prior to implementation. This study presents an innovative framework for evaluating concept designs of sustainable PSS based on a well-defined evaluation index system via integrating quality function deployment (QFD) and the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) while accommodating extended basic uncertain linguistic information (EBULI). Specifically, a QFD-based framework is first developed to identify the requirements of various stakeholders and then to establish the multi-dimensional criteria for evaluating sustainable PSS. Then, a House of Quality-based relationship matrix is introduced to determine the weights of criteria more accurately. Further, an adaptive consensus-reaching process method based on an expert weighting optimization model is proposed to ensure a collective outputs recognized by multiple involved stakeholders. Finally, an improved EBULI-based TOPSIS method is presented to determine the priority ranking of alternative sustainable PSS concepts. A case study on a car-sharing PSS project demonstrates the viability and effectiveness of the proposed QFD–TOPSIS integrated approach under EBULI settings. The alternative PSS concept design, which demonstrates relatively good performance in criteria of high importance, is selected as the most suitable option. Moreover, relevant comparative and sensitivity analyses reveal that the proposed approach exhibits superiorities in appropriate criteria elicitation, accurate weights determination, and high consensus ranking outputs.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
可持续产品服务系统的概念设计评估:带有基本不确定语言信息的 QFD-TOPSIS 综合框架
产品服务系统(PSS)是一种战略设计方法,旨在解决快速工业化和转型期社会经济系统的可持续性问题。评估 PSS 的概念设计是实施前至关重要的第一步。本研究通过整合质量功能展开(QFD)和理想解相似度排序偏好技术(TOPSIS),提出了一个基于明确评价指标体系的创新框架,用于评价可持续 PSS 的概念设计,同时兼顾扩展的基本不确定语言信息(EBULI)。具体来说,首先开发了一个基于 QFD 的框架,以确定各利益相关方的要求,然后建立评估可持续 PSS 的多维标准。然后,引入基于质量屋的关系矩阵,以更准确地确定标准的权重。此外,还提出了一种基于专家权重优化模型的适应性共识达成过程方法,以确保获得多个利益相关者认可的集体产出。最后,提出了一种改进的基于 EBULI 的 TOPSIS 方法,用于确定可持续 PSS 备选概念的优先排序。一项关于汽车共享 PSS 项目的案例研究证明了所提出的 QFD-TOPSIS 综合方法在 EBULI 环境下的可行性和有效性。在重要标准方面表现相对较好的 PSS 概念设计被选为最合适的方案。此外,相关的比较和敏感性分析表明,建议的方法在适当的标准征询、准确的权重确定和高度一致的排序输出方面表现出优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The idea underlying the journal, Group Decision and Negotiation, emerges from evolving, unifying approaches to group decision and negotiation processes. These processes are complex and self-organizing involving multiplayer, multicriteria, ill-structured, evolving, dynamic problems. Approaches include (1) computer group decision and negotiation support systems (GDNSS), (2) artificial intelligence and management science, (3) applied game theory, experiment and social choice, and (4) cognitive/behavioral sciences in group decision and negotiation. A number of research studies combine two or more of these fields. The journal provides a publication vehicle for theoretical and empirical research, and real-world applications and case studies. In defining the domain of group decision and negotiation, the term `group'' is interpreted to comprise all multiplayer contexts. Thus, organizational decision support systems providing organization-wide support are included. Group decision and negotiation refers to the whole process or flow of activities relevant to group decision and negotiation, not only to the final choice itself, e.g. scanning, communication and information sharing, problem definition (representation) and evolution, alternative generation and social-emotional interaction. Descriptive, normative and design viewpoints are of interest. Thus, Group Decision and Negotiation deals broadly with relation and coordination in group processes. Areas of application include intraorganizational coordination (as in operations management and integrated design, production, finance, marketing and distribution, e.g. as in new products and global coordination), computer supported collaborative work, labor-management negotiations, interorganizational negotiations, (business, government and nonprofits -- e.g. joint ventures), international (intercultural) negotiations, environmental negotiations, etc. The journal also covers developments of software f or group decision and negotiation.
期刊最新文献
GAN-Based Privacy-Preserving Intelligent Medical Consultation Decision-Making UCD–CE Integration: A Hybrid Approach to Reinforcing User Involvement in Systems Requirements Elicitation and Analysis Tasks Fostering Psychological Safety in Global Virtual Teams: The Role of Team-Based Interventions and Digital Reminder Nudges Advancing Content Synthesis in Macro-Task Crowdsourcing Facilitation Leveraging Natural Language Processing On the Combinatorial Acceptability Entropy Consensus Metric for Multi-Criteria Group Decisions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1