0
Research Papers

A Relative Equilibrium Decision Approach for Concept Design Through Fuzzy Cooperative Game Theory

[+] Author and Article Information
Liting Jing

Key Laboratory of Special Equipment Manufacturing and Advanced Process Technology,
Zhejiang University of Technology,
Ministry of Education,
Hangzhou 310014, China
e-mail: jlt0805@foxmail.com

Zhi Li

Key Laboratory of Special Equipment Manufacturing and Advanced Process Technology,
Zhejiang University of Technology,
Ministry of Education,
Hangzhou 310014, China
e-mail: 380801065@qq.com

Xiang Peng

Key Laboratory of Special Equipment Manufacturing and Advanced Process Technology,
Zhejiang University of Technology,
Ministry of Education,
Hangzhou 310014, China
e-mail: pengxiang@zjut.edu.cn

Jiquan Li

Key Laboratory of Special Equipment Manufacturing and Advanced Process Technology,
Zhejiang University of Technology,
Ministry of Education,
Hangzhou 310014, China
e-mail: hutli@163.com

Shaofei Jiang

Key Laboratory of Special Equipment Manufacturing and Advanced Process Technology,
Zhejiang University of Technology,
Ministry of Education,
Hangzhou 310014, China
e-mail: jsf75@zjut.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Computers and Information Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering. Manuscript received July 30, 2018; final manuscript received January 17, 2019; published online May 16, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Caterina Rizzi.

J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng 19(4), 041001 (May 16, 2019) (12 pages) Paper No: JCISE-18-1192; doi: 10.1115/1.4042837 History: Received July 30, 2018; Accepted January 22, 2019

In the early stages of the product design, multiple principle solutions are obtained through function solving, and a large number of conceptual schemes are generated by combination. Therefore, scheme decisions are important factors in the concept design. The existing decision methods primarily focus on the satisfaction of economic needs, and the impact of technical indicators on the technical performance of the scheme, while ignoring the conflict of needs between the two subject objectives in the decision process. Actual decisions need to be weighed against each other’s expectations. In addition, the qualitative interactive objectives will affect the decision direction of the conceptual scheme. Herein, we propose a relative equilibrium decision approach for concept design based on the fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory-cooperative game model. This model is primarily divided into two parts. One is to solve the impact relationship between the objectives, and the objectives’ weights are obtained through fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (FDEMATEL). The second is to incorporate the objectives’ weights and impact utility into the cooperative game model, to reasonably weigh the relative interests of the two subjects to meet the corresponding interactions, and to obtain the scheme with the largest overall design desirability. Finally, the case study proves that this decision model can identify the optimal scheme. This model is proven to be robust by comparison with other methods.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Xu, Z., and Wang, H., 2016, “Managing Multi-Granularity Linguistic Information in Qualitative Group Decision Making: An Overview,” Granular Comput., 1(1), pp. 21–35. [CrossRef]
Nguyen, H. T., Dawal, S. Z. M., Nukman, Y., and Aoyama, H., 2014, “A Hybrid Approach for Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Decision Making in Machine Tool Selection With Consideration of the Interactions of Attributes,” Expert Syst. Appl., 41(6), pp. 3078–3090. [CrossRef]
Pahl, G., and Beitz, W., 1984, Engineering Design, Design Council, London.
Khalid, H. M., and Helander, M. G., 2006, “Customer Emotional Needs in Product Design,” Concurrent Eng. Res. Appl., 14(3), pp. 197–206. [CrossRef]
Jiang, S. F., and Li, J. Q., 2016, “Research of the Effectual Action Unit-Based Inverse Method for Solving the Functional Structure of Design History,” Adv. Mech. Eng., 8(8), pp. 1–12.
Withanage, C., Park, T., and Choi, H. J., 2010, “A Concept Evaluation Method for Strategic Product Design With Concurrent Consideration of Future Customer Requirements,” Concurrent Eng. Res. Appl., 18(4), pp. 275–289. [CrossRef]
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(C), pp. 444–456. [CrossRef]
Malak, R. J., and Paredis, C. J., 2010, “Using Parameterized Pareto Sets to Model Design Concepts,” J. Mech. Des., 132(4), pp. 215–228. [CrossRef]
Tiwari, V., Jain, P. K., and Tandon, P., 2016, “Product Design Concept Evaluation Using Rough Sets and VIKOR Method,” Adv. Eng. Inform., 30(1), pp. 16–25. [CrossRef]
Chen, Y., Feng, P., He, B., Lin, Z., and Xie, Y., 2006, “Automated Conceptual Design of Mechanisms Using Improved Morphological Matrix,” J. Mech. Des., 128(3), pp. 516–526. [CrossRef]
Zhai, L. Y., Khoo, L. P., and Zhong, Z. W., 2009, “A Rough Set Based QFD Approach to the Management of Imprecise Design Information in Product Development,” Adv. Eng. Inform., 23(2), pp. 222–228. [CrossRef]
Atlason, R. S., Stefansson, A. S., Wietz, M., and Giacalone, D., 2018, “A Rapid Kano-Based Approach to Identify Optimal User Segments,” Res. Eng. Des., 29(3), pp. 459–467. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Z. F., and Chu, X. N., 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. [CrossRef]
Ayağ, Z., 2005, “A Fuzzy AHP-Based Simulation Approach to Concept Evaluation in a NPD Environment,” Iie Trans., 37(9), pp. 827–842. [CrossRef]
Jiang, S. F., Jing, L. T., Peng, X., Chai, H., and Li, J. Q., 2018, “Conceptual Design Conceptual Scheme Optimization Based on Integrated Design Objectives,” Concurrent Eng. Res. Appl., 26(3), pp. 231–250. [CrossRef]
Kang, Y., and Tang, D., 2013, “Matrix-Based Computational Conceptual Design With Ant Colony Optimisation,” J. Eng. Des., 24(6), pp. 429–452. [CrossRef]
Ölvander, J., Lundén, B., and Gavel, H., 2009, “A Computerized Optimization Framework for the Morphological Matrix Applied to Aircraft Conceptual Design,” Comput. Aided Des., 41(3), pp. 187–196. [CrossRef]
Cantamessa, M., Montagna, F., and Cascini, G., 2016, “Design for Innovation—A Methodology to Engineer the Innovation Diffusion Into the Development Process,” Comput. Ind., 75, pp. 46–57. [CrossRef]
Gabus, A., and Fontela, E., 1972, World Problems, an Invitation to Further Thought Within the Framework of DEMATEL, Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Geneva, Switzerland.
Pamučar, D., Mihajlović, M., Obradović, R., and Atanasković, P., 2017, “Novel Approach to Group Multi-Criteria Decision Making Based on Interval Rough Numbers: Hybrid DEMATEL-ANP-MAIRCA model,” Expert Syst. Appl., 88, pp. 58–80. [CrossRef]
Saaty, T. L., 1990, “How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 48(1), pp. 9–26. [CrossRef]
Ayağ, Z., 2005, “An Integrated Approach to Evaluating Conceptual Design Alternatives in a New Product Development Environment,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 43(4), pp. 687–713. [CrossRef]
Mohebbi, A., Achiche, S., and Baron, L., 2018, “Multi-Criteria Fuzzy Decision Support for Conceptual Evaluation in Design of Mechatronic Systems: A Quadrotor Design Case Study,” Res. Eng. Des., 29(3), pp. 329–349. [CrossRef]
Saaty, T. L., 1996, Decision Making With Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, RWS Publication, Pittsburgh, PA.
Gürbüz, T., Alptekin, S. E., and Alptekin, G. I., 2012, “A Hybrid MCDM Methodology for ERP Selection Problem With Interacting Criteria,” Decis. Support Syst., 54(1), pp. 206–214. [CrossRef]
Geng, X., and Chu, X., 2012, “A New Importance–Performance Analysis Approach for Customer Satisfaction Evaluation Supporting PSS Design,” Expert Syst. Appl., 39(1), pp. 1492–1502. [CrossRef]
Chen, J. K., and Chen, I. S., 2010, “Using a Novel Conjunctive MCDM Approach Based on DEMATEL, Fuzzy ANP, and TOPSIS as an Innovation Support System for Taiwanese Higher Education,” Expert Syst. Appl., 37(3), pp. 1981–1990. [CrossRef]
Wu, W. W., and Lee, Y. T., 2007, “Developing Global Managers’ Competencies Using the Fuzzy DEMATEL Method,” Expert Syst. Appl., 32(2), pp. 499–507. [CrossRef]
Zhou, Q., Huang, W., and Zhang, Y., 2011, “Identifying Critical Success Factors in Emergency Management Using a Fuzzy DEMATEL Method,” Saf. Sci., 49(2), pp. 243–252. [CrossRef]
Ayağ, Z., 2016, “An Integrated Approach to Concept Evaluation in a New Product Development,” J. Intell. Manuf., 27(5), pp. 991–1005. [CrossRef]
Chen, M. S., Lin, M. C., Wang, C. C., and Chang, C. A., 2009, “Using HCA and TOPSIS Approaches in Personal Digital Assistant Menu–Icon Interface Design,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 39(5), pp. 689–702. [CrossRef]
Song, W., Ming, X., and Wu, Z., 2013, “An Integrated Rough Number-Based Approach to Design Concept Evaluation Under Subjective Environments,” J. Eng. Des., 24(5), pp. 320–341. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Z. J., Gong, L., Jin, Y., Xie, J., and Hao, J., 2017, “A Quantitative Approach to Design Alternative Evaluation Based on Data-Driven Performance Prediction,” Adv. Eng. Inform., 32(C), pp. 52–65. [CrossRef]
David, E., Azoulay-Schwartz, R., and Kraus, S., 2006, “Bidding in Sealed-Bid and English Multi-Attribute Auctions,” Decis. Support Syst., 42(2), pp. 527–556. [CrossRef]
Wang, M. X., Liu, S. L., Wang, S. Y., and Lai, K. K., 2010, “A Weighted Product Method for Bidding Strategies in Multi-Attribute Auctions,” J. Syst. Sci. Complex., 23(1), pp. 194–208. [CrossRef]
Jiménez, A., Mateos, A., and Sabio, P., 2013, “Dominance Intensity Measure Within Fuzzy Weight Oriented MAUT: An Application,” Omega, 41(2), pp. 397–405. [CrossRef]
Chen, N., Xu, Z., and Xia, M., 2015, “The ELECTRE I Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method Based on Hesitant Fuzzy Sets,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Making, 14(3), pp. 621–657. [CrossRef]
Liu, P., and Zhang, X., 2011, “Research on the Supplier Selection of a Supply Chain Based on Entropy Weight and Improved ELECTRE-III Method,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 49(3), pp. 637–646. [CrossRef]
Shidpour, H., Cunha, C. D., and Bernard, A., 2016, “Group Multi-Criteria Design Concept Evaluation Using Combined Rough Set Theory and Fuzzy Set Theory,” Expert Syst. Appl., 64, pp. 633–644. [CrossRef]
Xiao, A., Zeng, S., Allen, J. K., Rosen, D. W., and Mistree, F., 2005, “Collaborative Multidisciplinary Decision Making Using Game Theory and Design Capability Indices,” Res. Eng. Des., 16(1–2), pp. 57–72. [CrossRef]
Lewis, K., and Mistree, F., 1998, “Collaborative, Sequential and Isolated Decisions in Design,” J. Mech. Des., 120(120), pp. 643–652. [CrossRef]
Rao, S. S., and Freiheit, T. I., “A Modified Game Theory Approach to Multiobjective Optimization,” J. Mech. Des., 113(3), pp. 286–291. [CrossRef]
Fernández, M. G., Panchal, J. H., Allen, J. K., and Mistree, F., 2005, “Concise Interactions and Effective Management of Shared Design Spaces: Moving Beyond Strategic Collaboration Towards Co-Design,” ASME 2005 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Long Beach, CA, Sept. 24–28.
Takai, S., 2010, “A Game-Theoretic Model of Collaboration in Engineering Design,” J. Mech. Des., 132(5), 051005. [CrossRef]
Aliahmadi, A., Sadjadi, S. J., and Jafari-Eskandari, M., 2011, “Design a New Intelligence Expert Decision Making Using Game Theory and Fuzzy AHP to Risk Management in Design, Construction, and Operation of Tunnel Projects (Case Studies: Resalat Tunnel),” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 53(5–8), pp. 789–798. [CrossRef]
Li, F., Zhu, Q., and Liang, L., 2018, “Allocating a Fixed Cost Based on a DEA-Game Cross Efficiency Approach,” Expert Syst. Appl., 96, pp. 196–207. [CrossRef]
Lin, C. J., and Wu, W. W., 2008, “A Causal Analytical Method for Group Decision-Making Under Fuzzy Environment,” Expert Syst. Appl., 34(1), pp. 205–213. [CrossRef]
Huang, C. Y., Shyu, J. Z., and Tzeng, G. H., 2007, “Reconfiguring the Innovation Policy Portfolios for Taiwan’s SIP Mall Industry,” Technovation, 27(12), pp. 744–765. [CrossRef]
Jing, L. T., Peng, X., Li, J. Q., Wang, J. X., and Jiang, S. F., 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. [CrossRef]
Jiang, S. F., Li, J. Q., and Mao, Z. F., 2015, “Research on the Propagation Path of Function Change in Product Conceptual Design,” Adv. Mech. Eng., 8(10), pp. 1–15.
Annamdas, K. K., and Rao, S. S., 2009, “Multi-Objective Optimization of Engineering Systems Using Game Theory and Particle Swarm Optimization,” Eng. Optim., 41(8), pp. 737–752. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

A schematic diagram of a cutting device

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The causal diagram of each objective

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Results of three different decision methods under different objectives’ weights

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In