Compliance of Customer’s Needs with Producer’s Capacity: A Review

and Research Direction

By

Md. Mamunur Rashid

A study report submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering of the requirements for the record
of research student for the Month January to March, 2010.

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY CORPORATION KITAMI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

165 Koen-cho, Kitami, Hokkaido 090-8507, JAPAN.

MARCH, 2010
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author is highly grateful and indebted to Professor Jun’ichi Tamaki, Department of
Mechanical Engineering of National University Corporation Kitami Institute of Technology for
accepting me as a research student will effect from January-March,2010 and doctoral student
will effect from April 2010.The author is also highly grateful to Dr Sharif Ullah, Associate
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering of National University Corporation Kitami
Institute of Technology, Japan for his continuous inspiration & encouragement, valuable
suggestions and untiring support throughout this work.
The author is also grateful to Professor Masashi Sasaki, Mechanical Engineering Graduate
Program Director of National University Corporation Kitami Institute of Technology, for
providing assistance at different stages of this Graduate School.
The author gratefully acknowledges for the different assistances received from Dr. Mohammad
Rafiqul Islam, JSPS Fellow and Associate Professor of Rajshahi University of Engineering and
Technology, and Dr. S.M. Muyeen, JSPS Fellow and Mr. Md. Rafiqul Islam Sheikh, Doctorate
Candidate of Kitami Institute of Technology and Associate Professor of Rajshahi University of
Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh during this work.
My appreciation goes to International centre of Kitami Institute of technology for helping me in
many ways.
The author is thankful to the authority of Kitami Institute of Technology and the Government of
Japan for permitting him for this research work.
The author would like to express his sincere thanks to all others Teachers and Staffs of
Mechanical Engineering Department, who directly or indirectly have helped him in completing
this work properly.
The author is gratefully to the authority of Bangladesh Institute of Management, Dhaka and the
Government of Bangladesh for providing leave during this research work.
Finally, the author is grateful to my Mother, spouse Mimi, son Sakib and daughter Elmi for their
encouragement and understanding of this study.

2
 ABSTRACT

This is a literature review on product development for compliance customer’s needs with
producer’s capacity from a state of the art review 144 papers in this field. The main contributions
are perceived by this study including product development practices. This report is discussed the
probable challenges, which will be solved in the present doctoral study. A brief review of
methods and features of product development is illustrated. These are product modularity,
product family optimization, kansei engineering, axiomatic design theory, quality function
deployment and trading agent trade-off. It is also addressed for kano model and product value
chain, a method for design from kano indices for quantification, kano classifiers for
categorization of customer needs, configuration index for product configuration design,
compliance customer’s satisfaction and producer’s capacity by kano evaluator and a design
process model of analytical kano for decision making. Probabilities are derived from Kano
evaluation table for a starting work of proposed system development. An example of prospect
system for doctoral study is proposed and discussed of the proposed system. At last is concluded
a conclusion in this regard.

Key words: Product Family, Customer Needs, Kano Model, QFD, Product Modularity,
Axiomatic Design Theory, System Development, Doctoral Study, Particle Swarm Optimization

3
 CONTENTS
Title Page No.
Title Page 1
Acknowledgement 2
Abstract 3
Keywords 3
Contents 4
List of Symbols 5-8
List of Figures 9
List of Tables 10
1.0 Introduction and Challenges 11
2.0 Product Development 12
2.1 Product Platform and Modularity 17
2.2 Product Family Optimization 19
2.3 Kansei Engineering 23
2.4 Product Design Methods and Tools 24
2.5 Axiomatic Design Theory 27
2.6 Quality Function Deployment 29
2.7 Trading Agent Trade-off 30
3.0 Kano Model and Product Value Chain 31
3.1 A Method for Design from Kano Indices for Quantification 34
3.2 Kano Classifiers for Categorization of Customer Needs 37
3.3 Configuration Index for Product Configuration Design 38
3.4 Compliance Customer’s Satisfaction and Producer’s Capacity by Kano Evaluator 39
3.5 A design Process Model of Analytical Kano for Decision Making 39
4.0 Probabilities Calculation from Kano Evaluation Table 4 40
5.0 An Example of Prospect System for Doctoral Research 44
6.0 Discussion 45
7.0 Conclusion 46
References 47
Appendix: A Profile of Author 57

4
 LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbol Meaning
s the market segment
F a set of functional requirement
J a total of Customers
j individual customer
fi respondent evaluation according to functional
dysfunctional forms of Kano question.
∀ all
∃ there exist
A attractive
O one-dimensional
M must be
I indifferent
R reverse
Q questionable
X average dissatisfaction score
Y average satisfaction score

r is the vector with concern angle α

ρ configuration index
ri, αi kano indices
E kano evaluator
U overall customer satisfaction
C overall cycle time index
USL upper specification limit
µ population mean
ζ ,ω regression co-efficient
ADT axiomatic design theory
DBC design for customer
QFD quality function deployment

5
PCI process capability index
r0,αL,αH kano classifiers
KPIs key performance indicators
V product variants
CDI commonality versus diversity index
PSO particle swarm optimization
MOO multi objective optimization
DSM design structure matrix
ANN artificial neural network
DFFS design for six sigma
STEP standard for the exchange of product data
UMP universal manufacturing platform
STBFs start-up technology-based firms’ theory
DM design matrix
PDCA plan-do-check-act
PDCS a product definition and customization system
CA conjoint analysis
KA kohonen association
DKH a novel design knowledge hierarchy
APF architecture for product family
MDO multilevel multidisciplinary design
PPCEM product platform concept exploration method
APDL axiomatic product development life cycle
MOGAs multi objective genetic algorithms
SIO selection-integrated optimization
TQM total quality management
VBPDM variation based platform design method
UML unified modelling language
TIPS/TRIZ theory of inventive problem solving
CAs customer attribute
FRs functional requirement

6
DPs design parameter
PVs process variables
LVs logistic variables
SPC statistical process control
PCI product line commonality index
CI commonality index
DCI degree of commonality index
CMC comprehensive metric for commonality
CNs customer needs
SCM supply chain management
PCA principal component analysis
∆ defined

COPE a design decomposition model for

complex product environment
DM design matrices
DSM design structure matrix
NPD/PD/NPDP new product development process
CMM-I capability maturity model -integrated
PPCEM product platform concept exploration method
GA genetic algorithm
AIS artificial intelligence system
ID3 inductive learning based knowledge
extraction method
DFMC design for mass customization
VOC voice of customer
DSP design strategy project
SPD strategic product design
BNPD branded new product development
IDE industrial design engineering
CT computed tomography
CCD charge coupled device

7
STL stereo lithography CAD
CAE computer aided engineering
FEM field emission microscopy
ADV agile design for variety
PCI product line commonality index
SIO selection-integrated optimization
DPLM design process life cycle management
PLM product life cycle management
DSP decision support problem
EPV empirical performance validity
ESV empirical structural validity
TPV theoretical performance validity
TSV theoretical structural validity
C-K concept-knowledge

8
 LIST OF FIGURES
No. Name Page

Figure 1 Main Challenge of this study 11

Figure 2 Product Development Aspects 13
Figure 3 Delft Innovation Model for Product Development 14
Figure 4 Definition of Product Development 15
Figure 5 Design Process 15
Figure 6 Process of New Product Development 16
Figure 7: Platform Parameters and Individual Parameters 18
Figure 8 Product Family Generations 20
Figure 9 Part Family Structure from Customer Requirements 21
Figure 10 Multidisciplinary Designs and Optimization Process 21
Figure 11 Principle of Architecture of Product Family 22
Figure 12 Kansei Design Methodology Workflow 23
Figure 13 Domains of Axiomatic Design Theory with Linked Logistics Domain 28
Figure 14 Component of Quality House 30
Figure 15 Multi Agent Architecture 30
Figure 16 A Kano Model for Customer Satisfaction 32
Figure 17 Product Value Chain Adapted from Xu et al, 2009 33
Figure 18 Vector Representation of Customer Perception on a Kano Diagram 36
Figure 19 Kano Classifier and Kano Categories 37
Figure 20 An Analytical Kano Design Process 40
Figure 21 A Model for Prospect System 45

9
 LIST OF TABLE
No. Name Page

Table 1 Product Design Variables and Tools 24

Table 2 List of Methods and Tools for Product Development 25-26
Table 3 Kano Questionnaire 34
Table 4 Kano Evaluation Table 35
Table 5 Scores for Functional/Dysfunctional Features 36
Table 6 Self –Stated Importance Score 37
Table 7 Evaluation of Functional Individual Features of Kano Model 41
Table 8 Probabilities in % of Functional Features of Kano Model 41
Table 9 Probabilities in % of Functional Individual Features of Kano Model 42
Table 10 Evaluation of Dysfunctional Individual Features of Kano Model 43
Table 11 Probabilities in % of Dysfunctional Features of Kano Model 43
Table 12 Probabilities in % of Dysfunctional Individual Features of Kano Model 44

10
1.0 Introduction and Challenges

Product is a yield of producer including service or goods. Product is essential for satisfying
customer needs. It is also shown for producer technical ability. Producer’s revenue is fluctuated
due to change customer trends by age, income, education, automation and technological
advancement. The most appropriate leveraging strategy is introduced with respect to the target
market segments with considering of customer trends (Weck et al., 2005). Products families are
introduced into the market to meet the different segments of customers. This will be considered
main challenge to comply among satisfaction, affordability of customer and production rate,

Main
Challenge

Product Family

Customer Segment 1 Satisfaction

Affordability
Production Rate
Technical Ability
Customer Segment 2 Value Chain
Competition

Figure 1: Main Challenge of this Study

technical ability, value chain and competitor of manufacturer in various customer segments,
(Browing, 2002) which are also shown in figure 1. Now, cost saving and shorter lead times of
product development are considered for sustaining in the market. For this purpose, models are
developed to incorporate the effects of constituent costs such as production cost, holding cost,
setup cost, and shortage cost including a shelf-life constraint (Xu & Sarker, 2003) ,and, to reuse
existing product platform for introducing product family for cost saves and shorter new product
development and introducing in the market duly and leverage for cost saving. Practical
examples are eliminated or minimized human error in manufacturing process and management as

11
a result of mental and physical human imperfections for both quality and cost saving
(Burlikowska & Szewieczek, 2009). A cost modeling framework is allowed the value of
commonality to be quantified for design and manufacturing cost (Willcox & Wekayama, 2003).
Design structure of global service distribution is introduced for the service-oriented process
analysis to fulfill the customer requirements efficiently; the services should not only in a higher
quality but also within a shorter reaction time and at a low price (Meier& Kroll, 2008). So,
challenges of producer will be tackled different customer segments for facilitating cost saving by
fulfilling individual customer needs. So, manufacturer is followed regarding laws of
development of consumer needs (Petro, 2005), customer pain points (Handfield & Steininger,
2005), and attention of changing customer needs by adapting design requirements
(Hintersteiner, 2000).
The next challenge will be optimized of quantity of production, which can be trade-off among
companies’ fixed inputs including price of product, technical ability, labor, capital entrepreneurs,
physical resources and information resources with customers’ uncertain inputs including
satisfaction, demand of the product, purchasing ability and information resources. Systematic
design and evaluation of segmented production system structures are adapted of production
system’s organizational structure to be more reactive to a volatile and diversified market
behavior (Cochran et al., 2000). An Optimized production system design is segmented of the
manufacturing enterprise into small, flexible and decentralized production units including
presented segmentation procedure utilizes an axiomatic design framework and supports lean
management practices following strategic, organizational, and technological design aspects.
The last challenge of this study will be developed a generic system for product family
optimization. This system is allowed of four domains including customer attributes, functional
requirement, design parameters and process variables of Suh’s axiomatic design theory.
2.0 Product Development

Product development is the continuous process for human civilization. Summarized of existing
work for product development are following. The process of product development is conducted
very unsystematically and even resources are wasted of many companies, because of a lack of
communication and coordination between the different functions and aspects is involved in
product development. For the case of product development, time is considered a critical factor
and as time to market is become more important. Presently, electronic commerce and growth of

12
the internet is created new opportunities of product development. Many organizations are
followed the complex systems for product producing that have to be directed in order to meet
specific customer expectations (Martin, 2001). Every company’s economic growth and
sustainable value creation is targeted for long-term. Practical experiences of large structure are
suffered by efficiency losses due to increasing organizational complexity and bureaucracy (Matt,
2009). An analysis of existing design process models is introduced for modeling product
development processes, and detailed descriptions of the activities (Tate & Nordlund, 1996).
Designers and entrepreneurs and Engineers are followed many method or technique for
designing a new products. These aspects, methods and tools are shown in figure 2.

√
×
Voice of
Customer: …
Methods/Tools:
Customer
Scientific Analysis
Segments
QFD
Needs
TRIZ
Feedback
Axiomatic Design
Satisfaction
Knowledge-Based
…
Design
Simulation
Brainstorming
LCA
Design for X Product
CAD/CAM/CAE
Prototyping
Development Organizational
Design of Experiment Aspects:
Six-Sigma Strategic Goals
Lean Hierarchy
Mass Customization Coordination
Validation Teaming
Verification Support
Peripheral
… …
Aspects:
Competitors
Supply Chain
Regulations
Environment
…

Figure 2: Product Development Aspects, Methods and Tools

Delft innovation model of product development is conceived from strength, weakness,

opportunity and threat (SWOT) analysis of the organization. It is also called a fuzzy front end of
product development. After SWOT analysis, the organization is developed a new product with
compliance their standard. Muddy back end will be studied for the market introduction.
Evaluation of product is done by the information of consumers. So, delft innovation model is
applied for product development, market introducing, and evaluation of product use (Buijs &
Abbing, 2008). Figure 3 is shown delft innovation model, one of them for product development.

13
 Strategic situation of the company Strategic Product Position

Internal Generating

Evaluation of
External

Product Use
Analysis

Evaluation of
Search Areas Analysis

Product
Product Use

Search Areas
Fuzzy Front end of
Innovation

Evaluation
Product in Use
Product Use

Search Areas

External Need Evaluation

Bottleneck

Analysis
Analysis of
Internal

Generating Product Launch

Product ideas

Promotion and Sales

Manufacturing
Distribution,
Ideas
Market
Introduction
New Product Evaluation
development

Design Brief Product

Developmet
Technology
Development

Muddy Back End

Market

Product
Development

Product Design

Evaluation

Figure 3: Adapted Delft Innovation Model, Buijs & Abbing, 2008

Data mining techniques are identified generic routings from large amount of production
information and process data available in a firm’s legacy systems to cope with the textual and
structural types of data underlying generic routings (Jiao et al., 2007). The rapid change of
technology has been led to shorter product life cycles for many products most particularly in
consumer electronics (Minderhond & Fraser, 2005). Product development is considered

14
including product cost, quality and time-to-market each to more and more important. Figure 4 is
shown of definition of product development.
Transform raw Materials Quickly, easily, economically & efficiently Desired Product (Quality, Value & Utility)

Figure 4: Definition of Product Development Adapted from Mital, et al. 2007

A novel product definition and customization system (PDCS) is established for organizations to
meet this demand in today’s competitive and globalised business climate including product
definition using the laddering technique and a novel design knowledge hierarchy (DKH), and
product customization using an integrated methodology of conjoint analysis (CA) and Kohonen
association (KA) techniques for making design decisions via customer involvement, i.e. a
strategy for transferring customer preference into a specific product concept. (Chen et al., 2005).
Integrated design knowledge is applied for reuse framework, bringing together elements of best
practice reuse, design rationale capture and knowledge- based support in a single coherent
framework (Baxter et al., 2007).

Information
Design Process Sufficient information to
about needs
Generate a system that meets the needs
and constraints
and constraints
Figure 5: Design Process

The STBFs is introduced for undertaking their new product development (NPD) the relationship
between corporate strategy, NPD process features .New product success factors are considered
including corporate strategy theory, new product development theory, entrepreneurial theory,
technology management theory, economic development theory and business incubator theory
(Beven, 2007). A study is applied for the effectiveness of systematic and conventional
approaches to design (Sivaloganathan et. al., 2000). A formal basis for the creation of an
automated reasoning system is supported for creative engineering design (Sushkov et al., 1995).
A stepwise procedure based on quantitative life cycle assessment is integrated of environment
aspects in product development (Nielsen & Wenzel, 2002). A model is developed for concurrent
product and process design (Roemer & Ahmed, 2010). Various design concepts are evaluated in
order to identify the ‘Best’ concept with application of fuzzy logic for design evaluation and
proposes an integrated decision-making model for design evaluation at developing a computer
tool for evaluation process to aid decision-making (Green & Mamtami, 2004). A design
structure matrix (DSM) is provided a simple, compact, and visual representation of a complex

15
system that supports innovative solution to decomposition and integration problems for product
development (Browing, 2002). Figure 6 is shown a process of new product development.

Company Policy Business strategy Idea

Market/ Consumer Needs
Gen

Marketing and sales Production Detailed Plans Synthesis

Figure 6: Process of New Product Development

An information technology (IT) framework is solved the NPD problem through automatic
generation of information. The framework is used the concept of information templates or
models and a rule based system to generate manufacturing instructions. (Dean et al., 2008).
Information cannot be summed for decoupled designs and overcome this problem by applied
joint probability density function and uniformly distributed design parameters (Frey et al.,
2000).Two important issues in configuration product design are considered including
requirement configuration and engineering configuration (Shao et al., 2005).A deliberate
business process is involved hundreds of decisions and supported by knowledge and tools for
product development (Krishnan & Ulrich, 2001). The algebraic properties of fuzzy sets under
the new operations “drastic product” and “drastic sum” is introduced by Dubois in 1979 and the
algebraic properties in the case where these new operations are combined with the well-known
operations for fuzzy sets. The properties of fuzzy relations are also shown under a new
composition of fuzzy relations which is defined by using the drastic product development
(Mizumoto, 1981). The products model is solved two essential problems redundancy of both
technical and marketing effort and lack of long term consistency and focused for an approach to
managing new products (Meyer, 1992). Reused design is applied for product development
modeling and analysis & optimization (Ong et al., 2008). Off drape and hand off fabrics are
applied for 3D material simulation for garment manufacture (Palicska, 2008). Integrated design
of products and their underlying design processes are provided for a systematic fashion,
motivating the extension of PLM. It is included the lifecycle considerations of design processes
and design process lifecycle management (DPLM) (Panchal et al., 2004). ‘Validation Square’ is
validated by testing its internal consistency based on logic in addition to testing its external
relevance based on its usefulness with respect to a purpose (Pedersen et al., 2000). C-K theory
is applied for innovative design (Hatchuel & Weil, 2003). The development of a framework is

16
incorporated of different models for environmental analysis, with the option of a broader scope
that also includes economic and social aspects, thus covering the three pillars of sustainability
(Heijungs et al., 2010). Identified factors is explained or significantly contributed to successful
launch of product development of an innovation (Haapaniemi & Seppanen, 2008).
2.1 Product Platform and Modularity

Product modular and platform design is an important elemental technique in life cycle design for
improving, e.g., maintainability, upgradability, reusability, and recyclability. Following works
are reviewed for design of product platform and modularity. A method for determining modular
structure is aggregated various attributes related to a product life cycle and evaluating geometric
feasibility of modules (Umeda et al., 2008). A multi-criteria optimization is applied in product
platform design (Nelsen II et al., 1999). Product families are derived from scalable product
platforms that can be exploited from both a functional and a manufacturing standpoint from both
a functional and a manufacturing stand point to increase the potential benefits of having a
common platform. Product modularization is the concept of grouping a number of components
into modules, and defining interfaces between modules (Simpson et al., 2001). Product
modularization is applied cost saving in product development through using more components of
an existing product and existing processes. Now, modularization is attracted of manufacturing
company for the role of cost minimization. Analysis and improvement of product modularization
methods are arranged with complex products and also complexity has several aspects including
many variants, mix of different technologies, and having different solutions for one and the same
function (Holmqvist & Persson, 2003).A common platform is balanced against the constraints
of individual product variants and constraints of the family as a whole (Zugasti et al., 2000). A
systematic methodology for manufacturing modular products in a reconfigurable manufacturing
system is applied to the production of a DC motor and a ball screw (Yigit et al., 2002). A basic
theory for understanding interface a strategy in modular product innovation through a literature
review is covered a number of concepts including product architecture, functional modules,
internal and external interfaces, product platforms and families (Chen& Liu, 2005). A
methodology for achieving the goal is defined as a set of modules, platform parameters and
individual parameters, firstly, product modules are identified; second, a strategy of choosing
platform parameters is investigated based on considering the influence of customizing individual
parameters upon the activities, such as design, die, machining, assembly, service and

17
management, in all product life cycle; third, an optimization model is employed to determine the
value of platform parameters whose carriers are the modules (Fei et al., 2009).

Platform Parameters Individual Parameters

X1 X2 … Xp Xp+1 Xp+2 … Xn

Vp+1,1 Vp+2,2 … Vn,1 1st Product

… … … … …

V1 V2 … Vp Vp+1,j Vp+2,j … Vn, j jth Product

… … … … ….

Vp+1,m Vp+2,m … Vn, m mth Product

Values of Platform Values of Individual

Parameters Parameters
Figure 7: Platform Parameters and Individual Parameters
Developed function structure is applied for each product. After comparing function structures for
common and unique functions, rules are applied to determine possible modules. This process is
defined possible architectures. Each design is represented using a matrix of functions versus
products, with shared/unique function levels indicated (Dahmus et al., 2001). Common product
platforms and customizable modules in a strategic product development (PD) process are
developed a portfolio of derived product variants in a tactical customization process (Sellgren,
2008). A combination of axiomatic design (AD) theory, traditional traffic conflict analysis, and
TRIZ are applied to re-design urban intersections for improved efficiency. A clustering
algorithm is applied for common module identification that takes into account possible degrees
of commonality for modular product platform design. A module commonality is used
dendrograms for platform design (Otto, 2005, 2008). Product platform design is introduced to
improve commonality in custom products (Farrell & Simpson, 2003). Platform under
performance loss constraints is selected in optimal design of product families (Fellini et al.,
2002). Huang et al., 2003, are identified and development a product platform for mass
customization. The methodology of Axiomatic design is implemented the universal
manufacturing platform (Houshmand & Mokhtar, 2009). Modularity is applied for a product
life-cycle engineering (Ishii, 1995).

18
2.2 Product Family Optimization

According to the web, two definition of product family; first is considered a set of items as a
related group in forecasting, capacity planning or other functions. Second is also considered a
product family of a subset of product line which has certain attributes in common. Product
family optimization is considered the main challenge. So, few studies in this regard are reviewed.
Product variety optimization under modular architecture is developed (Fujita & Yoshida, 2002,
2001). Assembly sequence design methodology is applied for product family optimization (Guta
& Krishnana, 1998).Commonality versus diversity index (CDI) is considered to assess the
commonality and diversity within a family of products. The CDI is enabled the designers design
and improved the product family (Alizen et al., 2007 , 2009) Application of Axiomatic Design
and Design Structure Matrix to the decomposition of engineering systems is applied for complex
product environment of product development (Guenov & Barker, 2004 ) . Scale based product
families are presented a new single-stage approach for simultaneously optimizing a product
platform by PPCEM tools, and one or more dimensions to satisfy a variety of customer
requirements. These methods are improved an existing family of products (Messac et al., 2002).
A global methodology to form product families is taken advantages of fuzzy product
configuration. Fuzzy logic is considered as a way to improve the decision-making process
because of its ability to manage information more accurately than binary logic (Barajas &
Agard, 2009). The variation is raised when estimating the product line commonality index (PCI)
for a family of products are used data gathered from product dissection. Products family
optimization is considered for cost saves and profits maximization (Thevenot & Simpson,
2007). For comparing product family modeling with modeling single product is faced with
technical challenge (Tseng & Jiao, 2000). The applicability of the selection-integrated
optimization (SIO) methodology is applied for product family optimization (Khire & Messac,
2006). Exploration method is considered for conceptual design of a family of products including
product platform (Simpson et al., 1996, 1998, 2001, 2004). A solution of globally distributed
manufacturing networks is made interdependency between product design and choice of
production site (Grauer et al., 2007). Multiple products within a common application domain,
systematic use of a software product family process can be increased productivity including cost,
quality, effort and schedule (Ahmed et al., 2008). Data-mining based methodology for the
design of product families can be satisfied the needs of customers. It can be leaded to better

19
design of product and operation of processes as well as to sustainable processes or product
platforms (Agard & Kusiak, 2004). Particle swarm optimization is applied for the computation
of all global minimizers including product family optimization. The PSO strategy is solved
multi-objective problems since 1999. Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is considered for an
advancement technique for unconstrained continuous optimization problem (Parsopoulos and
Vrahatis, 2004). An example of product family generations is shown in figure 8.
Product
Product
Family
Family
Generations
Expansion

Product Generations
Product

Time
Figure 8: Product Family Generations

Fuzzy genetic is applied for prioritization in multi-criteria decision problems. A particle swarm
optimization-based multi-objective algorithm is also applied for flow shop scheduling. The
evolutionary algorithm is searched of the pareto optimal solution for objectives by considering
the make span, mean flow time, and machine idle time. The algorithm was tested on benchmark
problems to evaluate its performance. The results is shown that the modified particle swarm
optimization algorithm performed better in terms of searching quality and efficiency than other
traditional heuristics (Sha & Hsing-Hung, 2009). A multi level multidisciplinary design
optimization (MDO) is applied family optimization (Ferguson et al., 2009). A variation-based
method is applied for product family design (Nayak et al., 2002). An information modeling
framework is applied for product families to support mass customization manufacturing on a
combination of elements of semantic relationships with the object-oriented data model (Jia &
Tseng, 2000). A modeling framework is applied for relationship between product functionality
and manufacturing resources. A design method for investigation of product family structure is
realized for required product functional variety with efficient utilization of manufacturing
resources (Kimura & Nielsen, 2005). In the circumstances of product family optimization, PSO
(Eberhart & Kennedy, 1995) can be applied to solve multi objective optimization (MOO) with
multi level focus on product develop capacity of producer compliance with customer needs by

20
using Suh’s axiomatic design theory for sustaining business in global market. Part family
structure is shown in figure 9.
Customer
Requirements

Step: 3 Step: 1

Technical Structure Functional

design requirement
analysis

Step: 2

Functional structure
design

Figure 9: Part Family Structure from Customer Requirements

A PFA from three perspectives, mainly the functional, behavioral and structural views can be
provided a generic architecture to capture and utilize commonality, within each NPD and extends
to a common product line structure (Tseng & Jiao, 2000). Multidisciplinary design and
optimization process is shown in figure 10.

Figure 10: Multidisciplinary Design and Optimization Process

A method using design of experiments to help screen unimportant factors is identified factors of
interest to the product family, and a multi-objective genetic algorithm, the non-dominated sorting
genetic algorithm, to optimize the performance of the products in the resulting family (D’souza
and Simpson, 2003). Where a homogeneous the portfolio is begun by analyzing the current

21
product offerings to determine customer needs and functions. A heterogeneous portfolio is one
that has no common components, or shares a minimum number of components. A granulation
process is removed redundancies, and identified physical function carriers to deliver the required
functions (Salhieh, 2007). Principle of Architecture of Product family is shown in figure 11.
Universal support is influenced for product family and customer segments.

Architecture of Product Product Family Market Segments

E1 V1 Customer Segment 1

E2 V2 Customer Segment
C
Universal
E3 V3 Customer Segment 3
Support

Vi Customer Segment i
Demarcation Enabler

En
Vm Customer Segment m
Pattern Mechanism

Figure 11: Principle of Architecture of Product Family

A specific product within the product family including the variation mechanisms are used to
derive a specific product from the generic platform. The coverage of the platform and the
variation mechanisms used are not totally unrelated (Wijnstra, 2005). A genetic algorithm based
method can be done to help find an acceptable balance between commonality in the product
family and desired performance of the individual products in the family (D’souza and Simpson,
2003). A resource capability model is supported for product family analysis (Nielsen & Kimura,
2006).A model of product family information is applied for the purpose of supporting various
applications, and for achieving an efficient utilization of information (Sivard, 2000). A new
family of products is developed by designers and manufacturers with considering its supply

22
chain. First step of the design process, designers are proposed various solutions for the set of
variants of a product family and their bill-of-materials. Second step is selected some of these
variants while choosing the architecture of the supply chain and a mixed integer linear
programming model is investigated that optimizes the operating cost of the resulting supply
chain while choosing the product variants (Lamothe et al. 2006).
2.3 Kansei Engineering

Kansei engineering is well-known last 30 years including as an ergonomics and consumer

oriented technology for developing a new product, when a consumer wants to buy something,
he/she will have a kind of feeling and images ( Kansei in Japanese) in his/her mind. Figure 12 is
shown an overview of workflow for a typical study using kansei engineering:
Collect Kansei Word

Select and Parameterize Product Design Feature

Create Design Concept

Measure Concepts Kansei by Survey

Reduce Dataset Dimensionality by Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

Build Artificial Network (ANN) Model

Construct New Shapes Based on ANN Solution

Figure 12: Kansei Design Methodology Workflow

If the sensing of the customers is done properly by kansei engineering, then the product will be
successful. Otherwise, the new product will be very complex to fit to the market, even if kansei
engineering is used. Kansei engineering as a powerful consumer-oriented technology is applied
for product development (Nagamachi, 2002).Implicit shape parameterization is used for kansei
design methodology. Two major problems are shown kansei engineering to shape design. First is
given an implicit or unspoken parameterization of shape design features that could confuse
results; second is provided a low dimensional basis for compound shapes at the same time as
encoding small design features and respecting constraints (Nordgren & Aoyama, 2007). A
dramatic impact of affective (kansei) and mass customization can be delivered new products that

23
meet both the physical and psychological needs of users by interacting among designers,
engineers and manufacturer (Childs et al., 2006).
2.4 Product Design Methods and Tools
The design objective is minimized the production cost by the proper applications of design
variables and tools and techniques, which is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Products Design Variables and Tools

Design Objectives and Sub Objectives Minimize Production Costs

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Production Cost=Material Cost + Labor Cost

Design Variables Complexity of parts

Organization of the Production Process,

Materials , Technology needed

Shops facilities ,Technical Capabilities

Level of attention,Number and size of parts

Tools Production Simulation Tools ,Concept design

Structural design Tools

The summarized list of methods and tools is shown in Table 2, case study is used of these
reviewed papers as like, ship design, cameras and power tool, high vacuum pump, web site
development, Volkswagagen and vehicle. Six sigma is used for calculating a given process
capability can be interfaced with the axiomatic design schematization of the product for
designers .The best way to address customers’ needs and module-interface specifications are
represented by the DSM, a heuristic method & QFD-based method (Archidiaconal et al., 2002).
A mathematical programming model is applied for revenue Management under customer choice
(Chen & Homen-de-Mello, 2010).The construction of process models is applied for the product
development process of the construction of managerially useful decision aids (Smith &
Morrow, 1999).

24
Table 2: List of Methods and Tools of Product Development

Study Methods/ Tools

Endo, 2005; Karr et al,2009; MCDM, CAD/CAE, Simulation, Multi
Agent,
Agard & Kusiak, 2004; Data Mining Algorithm
Arcidiacono et al.,2002; Brown, 2005; Cochran et Axiomatic Design (AD) Theory, DFFS
al., 2000; Dickinson & Brown, 2009; Ghemraoui et (Six Sigma), FMEA and Fishbone
al., 2009; Houshmand & Mokhtar, 2009; Diagram, Lean, Lean Enterprise Model,
Hintersteiner and Tate, 1998; Hintersteiner, 2000 ; BPR , Risk Analysis, Standard for the
Harutunian et al.,1996; Kurniawan, et al.,2004; Lee,Exchange of Product data( STEP),
2003; Martin, 2001; Nordlund, 1996; Suh, 1998; Universal Manufacturing Platform
Suh, E.S. 2005; (UMP)
Alizon et al., 2007, 2009; commonality versus diversity index
Buijs & Abbing, 2008; Delft innovation Model
Baxter et al., 2007; Knowledge based design
Barajas & Agard, 2009; Green & Mamtami, 2004; Fuzzy Logic, Kano Model, QFD
Dran et al., 1999; Lee, Y.C & Huang, S.Y (2009),
Matzler, K. & Hinterhuber, H.H. (1998),
Sauerwein, 1999,Valtasaari,2000; Wood &
Antonsson, 1989 ;
Beven, 2007; Start-up Technology-Based Firms theory
(STBFs)
Browing T.R.(2001), Dong, Q & Whitney, D.E Design Structure Matrix (DSM), Design
(2001) Matrix (DM)
Burlikowska, M. D, & Szewieczek ,D (2009) Poka-Yoke, PDCA cycle
Childs et al. 2006; Nagamachi,2002; Nordgren & Kansei Engineering
Aoyama, 2007;
Chen& Homen-de-Mello,2010;Fujita, 2002; Fujita Mathematical Programming Models,
& Yoshida, 2001; Modular Architecture , Design
Simulation
Chen & Liu, 2005; Dahmus et al. 2001; Modular Product
Architecture
Chen et al. 2005; PDCS, CA,KA,DKH
Nayak et al. , 2002; Variation-Based Platform Design
Method (VBPDM)
Chen & Liu, 2005; Dahmus et al. ,2001; Modular Product
Architecture
D’souza and Simpson, 2003; Multi Objective Optimization, Genetic
Algorithm,
Dean, 2008; Bill of Materials
Durling and Niedderer, 2007; design practice

25
Table 2: List of Methods and Tools of Product Development (continued)

Du et al., 2001; Jia & Tseng ,2000; Architecture of Product Family (APF) and Generic
Product Structure (GPS)
Eberhart & Kennedy, 1995; Particle Swarm
Frey et al., 2000; AD, Information Theory, Probabilistic Design and
Tolerance Design
Fergason et al., 2009; Multilevel Multidisciplinary Design(MDO)
Fei et al. 2009; Module based Platform
Farrell & Simpson, 2003; Simpson, 1998; Product Platform Concept Exploration Method
Timothy et al., 2001; (PPCEM)
Fellini et al. ,2002; Pareto sets.
Gumus, 2005; Axiomatic Product Development Life Cycle
(APDL) model, QFD and Design for X.
Grauer et al. ,2007; Globally Distributed Manufacturing Networks
assessment
Guta & Krishnana, 1998; Sequence Design Methodology
Huang et al., 2003;Hatchuel & Weil, Design Theory, C-K Theory.
2003;
Heijungs et al., 2010; LCA, Industrial Ecology, design for environment
Helander & Jiao, 2002; E –Product Development
Ishii, 1995; Product Life Cycle Engineering
Khajavirad et al., 2007; Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithms (MOGAs)
Khire & Messac, 2006; Selection-Integrated Optimization (SIO)
Kondoh et al.,2007; Redesign Method, Production System, QFD, Quality
Value and Production Method Module
Lamothe et al., 2006; Linear programming model
Lilja, J. ,2005; Total Quality Management (TQM)
Lossack & Grabowski, 2000; Universal Design Theory
NIELSEN & KIMURA, 2006; UML- Unified Modeling Language
Nelson II et al., 1999; Pareto Set
Otto et al., 2008; Dendrograms
Shinno et al., 2002; Usability Analysis of Man-Machine Interface
Sivard, 2000; Generic Information Platform
Shao et al. 2005; Data Mining and Rough Set
Sushkov et al., 1995; The theory of inventive problem solving
(TIPS/TRIZ)
White,1992; Six Sigma
An analytically sound tool is facilitated for rapid assessments of security system nonperformance
in terms of probability of adversary success at the facility or asset level using concepts from
fuzzy logic (McGill & Ayyub, 2007). A focus on the interaction between the market, product
and supply system is worked in a concurrent engineering environment (Sahlin, 2000).
Automotive process for new product development is applied to the improvement of interface of
the modules and the component. Commonality-diversity specifications are including of degree of

26
commonality index (DCI), commonality index (CI), product line commonality index (PCI),
comprehensive metric for commonality (CMC) & commonality versus diversity Index (CDI).
These tools have been introduced to help designers maximize commonality within a family of
products (Sanongpong, 2009). The important points in using reverse engineering are acquired
data using non-contact 3D measuring instruments and generate CAD and CAE models based on
the derived data with automatic surfacing tool, clay galaxy for use in reverse engineering (Endo,
2005). A consumers’ perception of the factor rising health and their risk-reducing behavior is
studied for produce development (Kovacs, 2009). A technique is performed for design
calculations on imprecise representations of parameters. The Fuzzy Weighted Average technique
is used to perform these calculations. The γ -level is measured to determine the relative coupling
between imprecise inputs and outputs (Wood & Antonsson, 1989). Two design strategies are
applied for product development including delayed selection of components, and expanding and
shrinking platform (Umeda et al., 2005).
2.5 Axiomatic Design Theory

Axiomatic design is consisted of domain in the design world, mapping between these domains,
and characterization of a design by a vector in each domain, decomposition of the characteristic
vectors into hierarchies a process of zigzagging between the domains and design axioms, viz.,
independence & information axioms. Statistical process control (SPC) and methodologies are
improved quality for valid only when they are consistent with independence & information
axioms (Suh, 1995). ADT is applied by three steps, first is attempted by observing that design is
fundamental to all engineering. Second is developed the concept that there are two simple
axioms, independence and information, that govern design, just as Newton’s laws govern
mechanics. Third is observed that in order to apply the axioms designs must be decomposed into
a hierarchical structure. This is leaded to stating that there are three essential elements to
engineering design: the axioms, the structure, and the process for creating that structure (Brown,
2005). ADT is established for studying design and derived to represent the syntactic structure of
hierarchical evolving design objects and the dynamic design process (Zeng, 2002). A version of
information axiom is applied for f-granular information including maximize the coherency that is
overall definiteness of design information. Examples of decision trees, qualitative models, and
linguistic variables, are examined the logical interactions of these formatted knowledge with the
mapping process of FRs from a set of given DPs, and vice versa. A method is determined for

27
optimal design embodiments under the following assumptions: the design approach involves the
axiomatic design theory and the design-relevant information refers to a designer’s intuition,
expressible as f-granular information (Ullah, 2002, 2004, 2005). From different fields, and
different numbers of designers of the decomposition activities of ADT is generated sub-FRs,
identifying relevant customer needs, integrating sub-DPs, directing progress of the
decomposition, dimensioning DPs, layout of DPs, carrying down and refining constraints, and
ensuring consistency between levels (Tate, 1999). Figure 13 is demonstrated domains for
product family design by axiomatic design theory.
Product Family
Front-End Design Back-End Issues
Issues

Mapping I Mapping II Mapping III Mapping IV

Translation Assignment Allocation Output
CAs FRs DPs PVs LVs
CAs- Customer Attributes,
FRs- Functional Requirements,
DPs- Design Parameters
PVs- Process Variables and
LVs- Logistic Variables.

Customer Manufacturing Resource Allocation

Functionality Technical
satisfaction Cost Supply Contracts
Feasibility

Product Definition Supply Chain Design

Product Design Process design

Figure 13: Domains of Axiomatic Design theory (ADT) with linked Logistics Domain

Functional Requirements (FRs) are provided an effective design environment (Dickinson &
Brown, 2009). A systematic approach is connected customers in the product design and
development process based on Axiomatic Design (Kurniawan et al., 2004). The complexity
concept in axiomatic design theory is defined as a measure of uncertainty in achieving a desired
set of functional requirements to be revisited to refine its definition (Lee, 2003). The Universal
Design Theory (UDT) is applied to aim of integrating a broad variety of engineering domains,
such as mechanical engineering, material science, information science, chemistry, chemical
engineering or pharmaceutics to describe theoretical fundamentals and practical requirements of
UDT’s axiomatic approach to create something new in the world, a machine in mechanical

28
engineering or a specific drug in pharmaceutics (Lossack & Grabowski, 2000). Axiomatic
design theory is applied for decision making and software tools for product development
(Nordlund, 1996). An axiomatic design principle is applied for lean manufacturing (Reynal &
Cochran, 1996). Axiomatic design is applied to find contradiction in an integrated approach for
product design (Rizzuti et al., 2009). Axiomatic design principles are used for a systematic
human-safety analysis (Ghemraoui et al., 2009). The axiomatic product development Lifecycle
(APDL) model is used with a robust structure to develop and capture the development lifecycle
knowledge (Gumus, 2005). A multi product manufacturing problem is consisted of the total cost
minimization through increasing of production rate and reduction of cycle time (Sharma, 2009).
A design process for flexible product platforms is contributed for the uncertainty management of
engineering system, a way to implement flexible platform strategy to act in response to prospect
uncertainties (Suh, E.S., 2005).
2.6 Quality Function Deployment

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is focused an organizational framework tool on translating

the needs of internal and external customers into product features and later product
specifications. As a result, new product development time and cost can be decreased
significantly. Design for customer needs is used for product development with quality function
deployment. Product quality is judged individual customers. The market is critical of a business.
The easiest way is now considered through improve quality, which will be easily filled with
customers’ needs. A redesign method of production system based is applied on quality function
deployment (QFD). QFD can be used successfully in decreasing product development times,
decreasing the needs for product design changes, increase the returns of investment in product
development and of course in improving the potential for improving customer satisfaction. A
product must meet the needs of it customer chain, legal chain and social chain in some cases in
more than a hundred locations at one time (Kondoh et al., 2007). Figure 14 is shown component
of quality house. The failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) and quality function deployment
are applied for the dynamism and competitiveness of actual markets have imposed on effective
methodologies in order to improve the quality and reliability of systems and processes including
no significant investment (Oliosi et al., 2008). For this purpose, QFD is used to inspire,
organize, and then communicate information within a company, effectively bonding the different
skills and mindsets with a company collectively. QFD is experienced for use in improving the

29
level of products, product marketing, and production and their respective subsections
(Valtasaari, 2000).
Technical Interrelationship

Voice of the Company

VOC Weight Voice of Customer/Company Customer Perception

Market Analysis

Cost and Feasibility Engineering Measure

Figure 14: Component of Quality House
2.7 Trading Agent Tradeoff
Different trading agents are comprised on in the supply chain. Their management is very challenging for
sustaining business. So, supply chain could be made to absorb the vibration among the trading agent for
business success.

Sales Representative Agent Manufacturer

Marketing Manager Agent
Organization
Procurement
Corporate Knowledge buyer
Customer Agent
Base
Procurement
Manager Agent
Supply Agent
Delivery Scheduler Agent Production Scheduler Agent

Figure 15: Multi Agent Architecture Adapted from Sardinha et al., 2005

A Multi agent architecture for a dynamic supply chain management is presented a flexible architecture
for dealing with the next generation of supply chain management (SCM) problem based on a distributed
multi-agent architecture of a dynamic supply chain (Sardinha et al. 2005 ). Five algorithms including AIS,

30
GA, Endosymbiotic optimization, PSO and Psychological algorithm are solved a supply chain
optimization problem. Especially producer capability is aligned to meet the consumer needs
(Yadav et al., 2009). A conceptual design of mechatronic systems is applied on multi-agent
technology (Rzevski, 2003). A model is done to drive the complete multi-agent architecture,
and, at the same time, to simulate the dynamic environment (Renna et al., 2008).
3.0 Kano Model and Product Value Chain

Kano (Kano, 1984) is distinguished between three types of product requirements which
influence customer satisfaction in different ways when meet. Firstly, must-be requirements are
not fulfilled; the customer will be extremely dissatisfied. Then One-dimensional requirements
are usually explicitly demanded by the customer. Attractive requirements are neither explicitly
expressed nor expected by the customer. Reliability and validity of the kano-model have not yet
been tested thoroughly. The reliability of test-retest, alternate forms and stability of interpretation
of Kano model is done including concurrent, predictive convergent validity and methods of
classification. A kano model can be effectively incorporated customer liking in product design,
which leads to an optimization (Sauerwein, 1999). A methodology is determined the influence
of the components of products and services have on customer satisfaction and influence the
components of products and services have on customer satisfaction, the results of a customer
survey can be interpreted and how conclusions can be drawn and used for the management of
customer satisfaction is demonstrated (Sauerwein, 1996) . An analytical Kano model for
customer needs (CNs) analysis is provided decision support to product design. As a decision
making tool is applied by engineers, producers, designers for product development. The Kano
model is considered for producer concern in terms of the capacity to fulfill the CNs. The CNs is
translated into explicit and objective statements, namely the Functional Requirements (FRs). The
producer could be mapped the FRs to various product attributes, which represent the physical
form of a product. Kano indices in accordance with the Kano principles are being incorporated
quantitative measures into customer satisfaction. Two alternative mechanisms are applied to
product design. These are including the Kano classifiers are used as tangible criteria for
classifying customer needs, and the configuration index is introduced as a decision factor of
product configuration design. The merit of product configurations is justified using a Kano
evaluator, which leverages upon the both the customers’ requirements for satisfaction and the
producers’ facility (Xu et al., 2009). A new four steps methodology to manage innovation

31
project during front-end phases of Kano model is used for requirement assessment and
classification within four categories by a systemic approach dedicated to the need identification
tasks. Moreover a mathematical classification mode is suggested in order to achieve innovative
concepts comparison (Rejeb et al., 2008).
High Satisfaction
(Delighted)

3
5
Performance
Fully Absent 4
2 Performance Fully Present
(Dysfunctional) (Functional)

1 1-Must be
2- One-
dimensional
3-Attractive
4-Indifferent
5-Reverse

Low Satisfaction
(Disgusted)

Figure 16: A Kano Model of Customer Satisfaction

Granular/imprecise probability is simulated the uncertain customer answer by using kano model.
As a result, the method is developed to measure the information content of the customer answers
integrating both simulated and real ones so that everyone can minimize the information content
of the design of a product (Ullah & Tamaki, 2009).Two-dimensional quality model of Dr. Kano
is applied an approach of fuzzy questionnaires to modify kano’s two-dimensional questionnaires
which considered as subjective and developed a mathematical calculation performance
according to the quality classification of kano’s two-dimensional fuzzy mode. It is needed of
analyzing the requirement of customer (Lee & Huang, 2009). Figure 16 is shown Kano Model
for customer satisfaction. The ideal linkage between quality practice and customer value is
applied in order to increase its strength. In accordance to the idea of continuous improvement,
the aim is to improve the reflection of the value ‘focus on the customers’ in quality practice
(Lilja, 2005). A kano’s model of customer satisfaction is explored customers’ stated needs and

32
unstated desires and to resolve them into different categories which have different impacts on
customer satisfaction.A customer-producer interaction along the product value chain is shown in
figure no. 17

Producers
Customer FR
CNs

Visibility
Index
??? Product Attribute

Customer Perceptions ???

Overall Legacy
Customer
Satisfaction ¥ Producer
Capacity

Figure 17: Product Value Chain Adapted from Xu et al., 2009

It is shown how this categorization can be used as a basis for product development, especially for
quality function deployment with a brief discussion of the strategic importance of customer
satisfaction, and then Kano’s model and its combination with quality function deployment is
demonstrated (Matzler & Hinterhuber, 1998). Kano’s Model of Quality is developed a
conceptual framework for investigating features in the web environment that satisfy basic,
performance, and excitement needs of potential customers including differentiation of web
design features that customers take for granted from those that add value in the performance of
web specific tasks and those that generate delight, motivation, and loyalty of website users
(Dran et al., 1999).

33
3.1 A Method for Design from Kano Indices for Quantification

Kano survey is done within specific customer segments that consist of consumers with similar
demographic information. Let s denote the market segment which contains a total of J customers
{ }
(respondent), i.e. S ≡ t j | j = 1,2 ,...,J ; a set of FRs is identified as F ≡ { f i | i = 1,2,..., I } ;
Surveys are carried out to collect respondents’ evaluation of fi (∀i = 1,2,..., I ), according to the
functional and dysfunctional forms of kano questions, which are shown in table 3. For each
respondent tj ∈ s (∀ j = 1,2,..., J ), the evaluation fi (∀i = 1,2,..., I ), is represented as

eij = ( xij , yij , wij ) ; Where, xij is the score given to an FR for the dysfunctional form question,

yij is the score given to an FR for the functional form question and

wij is the self-stated importance, which is the respondent’s perception of the importance of an FR

Table 3: Kano Questionnaire

Kano question Answer

Functional Form of the question I like it that way

(e.g., if the car has air bags, how do you feel?) It must be that way

I am neutral

I can live with it that way

I dislike it that way

Dysfunctional form of the question I like it that way

(e.g., if the car does not have air bags, how do you It must be that way
feel?)
I am neutral

I can live with it that way

I dislike it that way

For each FR (fi), the average level of satisfaction for the dysfunctional from question within
−
market segment s is define as X , and the average level of satisfaction for the functional form
i

34
 −
question within the same market segment is defined as Y i , i.e.

−
1 J _
1 J
X = ∑ wij xij ,
J j =1 Y i
= ∑ wij yij
J j =1
(1)

A scoring system that defines consumer’s satisfaction and dissatisfaction is shown in table 5. The
scale is considered to be asymmetric because positive answers are measured to be stronger
responses than negative ones. The preliminary category of the FR is determined using following
table 4.
Table 4: Kano Evaluation Table

Dysfunctional form of the question

Like Must-be Neutral Live with Dislike

Functional form Like Q A A A O

of the question Must-be R I I I M

Neutral R I I I M

Live with R I I I M

Dislike R R R R Q

A, Attractive; O, One dimensional, M, Must be: I, indifferent; R, Reverse; Q, Questionable.

− −
The value pair ( X , Y i ) can be plotted in a two-dimensional diagram, where the horizontal axis
i
indicates the dissatisfaction score and vertical axis stands for the satisfaction score. Most
− −
( X , Y i ) should fall in the range of 0-1 because the negative values are results either
i
questionable or reverse categories. A questionable category will not be included in the averages,
and a Reverse category can be transformed out of the category by reversing the sense of
functional and dysfunctional of questions. From the customer’s perspective, the characteristic of
2
an FR (fi) can be represented as a vector, i.e., fi r i ≡ (ri, αi), where ri=/ r i /= X i + Yi 2 is the

magnitude of r i , and αi= tan −1 (Yi / X i ) is the angle between r i and the horizontal axis. The

rationale of representing the satisfaction and dissatisfaction as a vector r i is that it becomes

35
equivalent to a polar form, i.e., the magnitude of the vector denotes the overall importance of fi
to the customers belonging to segment s, and the angle αi determines the relative level of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
Table 5: Scores for Functional/Dysfunctional Features Adapted from Xu et al., 2009

Answer to the Kano question Functional form of Dysfunctional form of

the question the question

I like it that way (like) 1 -0.5

It must be that way (must-be) 0.5 -0.25

I am neutral (neutral) 0 0

I can live with it that way (live with) -0.25 0.5

I dislike it that way (dislike) -0.5 1

According, the classification of an FR can be defined based on the corresponding location of the
value pair in the diagram, as shown in figure 18.
1

Attractive One
Dimensional
Functional (Satisfaction)

r
Yi ri
0.5

αi
Indifferent Must Be
0

0.5 Xi 1

Dysfunctional (dissatisfaction)

Figure 18: Vector Representation of Customer Perception on a Kano Diagram

Therefore, the magnitude of the vector ( r i ) is called the importance index; and the angle (αi) is

36
 π
called the satisfaction index. Both 0< ri < 2 and 0< αi < are collectively called the Kano
2
indices. In the extreme situation, αi=0 means that dysfunction of fi causes dissatisfaction, while
functioning of fi does not enhance satisfaction, hence it is an ideal must-be element. Conversely,
π
αi= means fi is an ideal attractive element. The self-stated importance score is normalized such
2
that it falls within a range of 0-1, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Self –Stated Importance Score

Not Important Somewhat Important Very Important Extremely

Important Important

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

3.2 Kano Classifiers for Categorization of Customer Needs

Based on the above mathematical formulation, the FRs can be classified into four categories, i.e.
indifferent, must-be, attractive and one-dimensional as shown in figure 19.
1
A
Attractive B C

Attractive One-dimensional
Functional (Satisfaction)

H Must be
r0 G

Indifferent

O αL αH EE E

0 1
F
Dysfunctional (Dissatisfaction)

Figure 19: Kano Classifier and Kano Categories

3.2.1 An Indifferent Functional Requirement (FR): A threshold value of the importance

index, ro, is used to differentiate important FRs from less important ones. If ri < ro, fi is considered

37
as unimportant, and thus called an indifferent FR. The region defined by the sector OFI in figure
19. Where the radius is smaller than ro, is considered as the indifferent region. Hence ro is called
an indifference threshold.
3.2.2 A must be Functional Requirement (FR): Likewise, a lower threshold value of the
satisfaction index is defined as αL, such that for fi if ri > ro and αi < αL, it is considered as a must-
be FR. The region of the must-be FRs. The region of the must-be FRs corresponds to the sector
DEFG.
3.2.3 An Attractive Functional Requirement (FR): A higher threshold value of the satisfaction
index is defined as αH, such that for fi, if ri > ro and αi > αH, it is considered as an attractive FR.
The region of the attractive FRs is shown as sector ABHI.
3.2.4 An One Dimensional: If ri > ro and αL <αi < αH, fi is considered as a one-dimensional FR.
The region of the one-dimensional FRs is shown as sector BCDGH. The set of thresholds ro, αL
and αH are collectively called Kano classifiers, denoted as k= (ro, αL, αH). According to the Kano
principles, the classification of FRs provides a decision criterion for selecting the FRs that
constitutes a product configuration.
3.2.5 Observation: Determining appropriate values of Kano classifiers is challenging in that
these threshold values may be problem-specific and context-aware for different applications. In
practice, it is difficult to define universal thresholds for different products.
3.3 Configuration Index for Product Configuration Design

The configuration index ρ i is defined as a function of Kano indices (ri, αi) to indicate the
probability that an FR is contained in a Production configuration. For a particular αi, the
configuration index ρ i is proportional to the importance index ri, which agrees with the
observation that an FR with greater influence on customer’s satisfaction/dissatisfaction is more
likely to be included in the product configuration.

2 2  αi 
ρi = 1 − ri (2)
3  π 

At the same time, for a specific value of ri, ρ i decreases with an increase of the satisfaction index
αi, which reflects the decreasing priorities associated with kano categories in the order of must
be, one-dimensional and attractive. Decision-making upon on the kano classification suffers the
discontinuity problem, i.e., data points located near the boundaries of two adjacent regions may
be classified as dissimilar categories, while their distinction is minor. To improve such a

38
problem, this research process is needed a configuration index to specify the priority of an FR in
fulfillment of consumer prospects. The reason of this strategy is provided better decision support
to product configuration plan.
3.4 Compliance Customer’s Satisfaction and Producer’s Capacity by Kano Evaluator

The kano classifiers and configuration indices are provided two option mechanisms to decide the
FRs to be included in a product. When product configurations is reflected the consumers’
perceptions, the producers’ have to insist to design products at efficiently and effectively.
Therefore, product development is interlinked with customer’s satisfaction and producer’s
capacity. For this purpose, a kano model is explicitly defined by a kano evaluator to estimate the
value of planned products.
U
The kano evaluator (E) is defined by, E = (3)
C
I
Where: i) Overall customer satisfaction U = ∑ ρ i zi ; (4)
i =1

 1   
   3σ T 
ii) the overall cycle time index, C = λ exp CI  = λ exp ; (5)
 USLT − µ 
T
P   

1
If fi is contained in product p,
iii) zi= 0
Otherwise
USLT − µ
T
CI
iv) Process Capability Index, P = (6)
3σ T

v) USLT, µ T and σ T are the upper specification limit, the mean, and the

standard deviation limit of the estimated cycle time, respectively.

∑ (σ )
I I
vi) µ T = ∑ ζ i µ zi + ω ) ; vii) σ T =
T T
i
zi (7) and (8)
i
i =1 I =1

3.5 A Design Process Model of Analytical Kano for Decision Making

The product planning stage is featured a series of processes including elicitation. All kinds of
needs in customer language are translated for structured engineering by kansei and QFD. Utility
analysis, conjoint analysis and statistical analysis tools are applied for the finally selection of

39
structured needs of a design by customer (DBC). Different tools are used for product
development for elicitation of customer needs through voice of customer, kano map and web
based elicitation methods.

1. Identification of Functional 2. Division of Market Segments

Requirement
CN FR

s ≡  t | j = 1, 2 ,..., J 
F ≡ { f i | i = 1,2,..., I }  j 

4. Computation of Kano Indices 3. Kano Survey

2
• Kano questionnaire
ri=/ r i /= X i + Yi 2
• Kano Scale
Kano Indices
αi= tan −1 (Yi / X i ) • Kano statistics

Kano Classifiers, k= (ro, αL, αH) Kano

Evaluator
U
E=
Configuration index, 2 2 αi  C
ρi = 1− ri
3  π

Figure 20: An Analytical Kano Design Process

4.0 Probabilities calculation from Kano Evaluation Table 4

Probabilities are calculated from original kano evaluation table 4. It is a starting work for a
system development. Kano evaluation table 4 is applied for specific probabilities calculations
including it is considered functional form of the Kano evaluation table, and then it is considered
dysfunctional form of the kano evaluation table. Probabilities analysis of functional form of the
kano question of Table 4: Table 7, 8 and 9, are calculated the original situation of kano
questionnaire in the view of functional form of the product. A kano model has been captured
capability of the non-linear relationship between product performance and customer satisfaction.
The kano model is constructed through customer surveys, where customer questionnaire contains
a set of questions pair of each and every product attribute.

40
A) Probabilities Analysis of Functional Form of the Kano Question of Table 4:
Table 7: Evaluation of Functional Individual Features of Kano Model

Dislike Dislike Q
Dislike Like R
Dislike Live with R
Dislike Must-be R
Dislike Neutral R
Like Dislike O
Like Like Q
Like Live with A
Like Must-be A
Like Neutral A
Live with Dislike M
Live with Like R
Live with Live with I
Live with Must-be I
Live with Neutral I
Must-be Dislike M
Must-be Like R
Must-be Live with I
Must-be Must-be I
Must-be Neutral I
Neutral Dislike M
Neutral Like R
Neutral Live with I
Neutral Must-be I
Neutral Neutral I
Table 8: Probabilities in % of Functional Features of Kano Model

No Probabilities in %
Attractive 12%
Indifferent 36%
Must-be 12%
One-dimensional 4%
Questionable 8%
Reverse 28%
Total= 100%
Table 8 is shown probabilities in % of attractive, indifferent, must-be, one-dimensional,
questionable and reverse. Table 9 is shown specific outcome of probabilities after questionnaire
evaluation from functional point of the product.

41
Table 9: Probabilities in % of Functional Individual Features of Kano Model
Pr (Dis|A) 0%
Pr (L|A) 100%
Pr (Li|A) 0%
Pr (M|A) 0%
Pr (N|A) 0%
Pr (Dis|I) 0%
Pr (L|I) 0%
Pr (Li|I) 33%
Pr (M|I) 33%
Pr (N|I) 33%
Pr (Dis|M) 0%
Pr (L|M) 0%
Pr (Li|M) 33%
Pr (M|M) 33%
Pr (N|M) 33%
Pr (Dis|O) 0%
Pr (L|O) 100%
Pr (Li|O) 0%
Pr (M|O) 0%
Pr (N|O) 0%
Pr (Dis|Q) 50%
Pr (L|Q) 50%
Pr (Li|Q) 0%
Pr (M|Q) 0%
Pr (N|Q) 0%
Pr (Dis|R) 57%
Pr (L|R) 0%
Pr (Li|R) 14%
Pr (M|R) 14%
Pr (N|R) 14%

This data will be compared with original kano model. Sample of the questionnaire is not covered
usually whole population. Data collection from population is almost impossible worked for a
researcher. So, a question is raised for above difficulty. How to sample data will be compared
with population for design decision making? It will be study to develop a relation among sample
data, unanswered people with population in the doctoral study and a hypothesis of sample data
will be compared with to population. Table 10, 11 and 12 are calculated the original situation of
kano questionnaire in the view of dysfunctional form of the product. Table 11 is shown
probabilities in % of attractive, indifferent, must-be, one-dimensional, questionable and reverse
of dysfunctional requirements of customers. Table 12 is shown specific outcome of probabilities
after questionnaire evaluation from dysfunctional point of the product.

42
B) Probabilities Analysis of Dysfunctional Form of the Kano Question of Table 4:
Table 10 Evaluation of Dysfunctional Individual Features of Kano Model

Dislike Dislike Q
Dislike Like O
Dislike Live with M
Dislike Must-be M
Dislike Neutral M
Like Dislike R
Like Like Q
Like Live with R
Like Must-be R
Like Neutral R
Live with Dislike R
Live with Like A
Live with Live with I
Live with Must-be I
Live with Neutral I
Must-be Dislike R
Must-be Like A
Must-be Live with I
Must-be Must-be I
Must-be Neutral I
Neutral Dislike R
Neutral Like A
Neutral Live with I
Neutral Must-be I
Neutral Neutral I
Table 11 Probabilities in % of Dysfunctional Features of Kano Model
No Probabilities in %
Attractive 12%
Indifferent 36%
Must-be 12%
One-dimensional 4%
Questionable 8%
Reverse 28%
Total= 100%
Table 7,8,9,10,11 and 12 are developed besides of the literature review. All tables are developed
of the starting work for system development. A system will be developed and implementation in
the doctoral Study. All tables will be applied for system design of doctoral study.

43
Table 12 Probabilities in % of Dysfunctional Individual Features of Kano Model
Pr (Dis|A) 0%
Pr (L|A) 0
Pr (Li|A) 33%
Pr (M|A) 33%
Pr (N|A) 33%
Pr (Dis|I) 0%
Pr (L|I) 0%
Pr (Li|I) 33%
Pr (M|I) 33%
Pr (N|I) 33%
Pr (Dis|M) 100%
Pr (L|M) 0%
Pr (Li|M) 0%
Pr (M|M) 0%
Pr (N|M) 0%
Pr (Dis|O) 100%
Pr (L|O) 0%
Pr (Li|O) 0%
Pr (M|O) 0%
Pr (N|O) 0%
Pr (Dis|Q) 50%
Pr (L|Q) 50%
Pr (Li|Q) 0%
Pr (M|Q) 0%
Pr (N|Q) 0%
Pr (Dis|R) 0%
Pr (L|R) 57%
Pr (Li|R) 14%
Pr (M|R) 14%
Pr (N|R) 14%

5.0 An Example of Prospect System for Doctoral Research

The design tool is applied for production. For this purpose, the following design process: to
make simulation more accessible, to standardization of databases systems to avoid interfaces, to
integrate optimization inside production simulation loop and to include outfitting in the
simulation loop are simultaneously applied for design for production (Karr et al., 2009). All of
above theory and concept will be considered for system development. A prospect system for
doctoral study is shown in figure 21 including goal, target, constraint, methods, critical factor
analysis of product development. The constraints of product development are considered

44
including hierarchy, technology, producer’s capacity, competitors, supply chain, regulations and
environments.

Information Flow

Targets Constraints Methods/Tools

Value 1. Customer Hierarchy Kano Model

Critical Factor Analysis

satisfaction Technology QFD, Kansei
Adding
of level of customer Producer’s Engineering
segments Capacity Axiomatic Design
Goal 2. Business Theory (ADT),
Competitors
satisfaction through Supply chain Fuzzy Logic
Volume, Reliability, Regulations Particle swarm
Time table, Cost and Environments Optimization
Skills. …, …,
Figure 21: A model for Prospects System

These constraints are complied with customer needs using following tools or methods, including
kano Model, QFD, kansei engineering, axiomatic design theory (ADT), fuzzy logic and particle
swarm optimization. This study will be selected some key critical success factors including cost,
lead time, flexible design, rapid delivery, decoupled components and minimum information
content of product, which are considered main contributor for product development and factors
of compliance between customer’s needs and producer’s capacity.
6. Discussion
Product development is not so easy job to fulfill the customer needs and compliance with
producer capacity. If the company can be converged with customer needs, then he could be
survived in the market. Otherwise, the company will be arisen difficulty to live in market. In
Japan, some methods are developed for product development, including kano model, quality
function development, and kansei engineering etc. All are considered customer needs as a top
priority, and then customer’s needs are translated to explicit figures and parameters of product
design. This literature is reviewed a lot of methods, tools and techniques for product
development, that are converged with customers. All of methods are considered good for product
development. Kano model is really visualized a simple method for product design. Section 2 is
discussed different methods and tools technique for cost saving and lead time minimization
purpose. Cost and lead time is now considered for the critical factor of product development to
success in the market. So, a generic method of product development is needed. It will be

45
developed and implemented in the next study. Section 3 and 4, is discussed for product
development with how to maximize the value adding for both producer and customer using the
kano model. Axiomatic design theory is holistic approach of product development since 1990.
Particle swarm optimization is an artificial neural tool for optimization. It is considered best
optimization for local and global market segments optimization. PSO also can be considered
time or dynamic factors. It is automatically given the best objectives with time. So, a kano
model, axiomatic design theory and particle swarm optimization will be applied in proposed
system in section 5, to be developed a generic method of product development for doctoral
study. The challenges are briefly discussed in section 1, which will be solved in the doctoral
study.
7. Conclusion

This paper is reviewed from existence product development papers for the compliance between
customer’s needs with producer’s capacity. A proposed system model for doctoral research is
briefed here in section -5and doctoral research challenges are also addressed in section-1. A
family of product is considered to sustain in the market providing cost saving and reducing lead
time through platform-based product development. In this study is focused a kano method and
illustrated an example of prospect system for doctoral research for interactions between
consumers and the manufacturers. A kano evaluator is considered the good tool for measuring
standard of customer needs with producer capacity. This study is acted as doctoral research
directions for developing of a generic system for product family optimization using axiomatic
design theory.

46
References
Ahmed, F. et al. (2008). Fuzzy Inference System for Software Product Family Process Evaluation,
Information Sciences, 178, pp 2780-2793

Agard, B. & Kusiak, A. (2004), Data-Mining-Based Methodology for the Design Of Product
Families, International Journal of Production Research, 42(15), pp 2955–2969

Arcidiacono, G. et al. (2002). Axiomatic Design for Six Sigma, Proceedings of Second
International Conference on Axiomatic Design, June 10-11, 2002, Cambridge, MA. England

Alizon, F. et al. (2009). Assessing and Improving Commonality and Diversity within A Product
Family, Research in Engineering Design, 20,pp241–253

Alizon, F. et al. (2007). Improving An Existing Product Family Based on Commonality/Diversity,

Modularity and Cost, Design Studies, 28,pp387-409

Buijs, J. & Abbing, E.R. (2008). Teaching Branded New Product Development, International DMI
Education Conference: Design Thinking, Challenges for Designers, managers and Organizations ,
14-15 April, ESSEC Business School, Cergy-Pointoise, France

Baxter, D. et al. (2007). An Engineering Design Knowledge Reuse Methodology using Process
Modeling, Res Eng Design ,18,pp37–48

Barajas, M. & Agard, B. (2009). A Methodology to form Product Families through Fuzzy Product
Configuration, CIRRELT2009-31,pp1-42

Beven, P.W. (2007). New Product Development in Start-up Technology-Based Firms (STBFs),
Doctoral Thesis, Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Australia.

Brown, C.A. (2005). Teaching Axiomatic Design to Engineers – Theory, Applications, and
Software , Journal of manufacturing systems,24 (3),pp144)

Burlikowska, M. D, & Szewieczek, D (2009). The Poka-Yoke Method as an Improving Quality

Tool of Operations in the Process, Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing
Engineering, 36(1) , pp95-102

Childs, T.H.C. et al. (2006). Delivering Mass-Produced Bespoke & Appealing Products, JSME
International Journal, Series C, 49(1),pp2-10

Cochran, D.S. et al. (2000).The Application of Axiomatic Design and Lean Management Principles
in the Scope of Production System Segmentation, The International Journal of Production Research,
38 ( 6), pp1377-1396
Chen, L. & Homen-de-Mello, T. (2010). Discrete Optimization, Mathematical Programming Models
for Revenue Management under Customer Choice, European Journal of Operational Research,
203,pp294–305

47
Chen, C.H et al. (2005). PDCS—A Product Definition and Customization System for Product
Concept Development, Expert Systems with Applications, 28 , pp 591–602

Chen, K.M, & Liu, R, J (2005). Interface Strategies in Modular Product Innovation, Technovation,
25, pp 771–782

D’souza, B. and Simpson, T.W. (2003). A Genetic Algorithm Based Method for Product Family
Design Optimization, Eng. Opt., 35(1), pp1–18

Dong, Q & Whitney, D.E (2001),Designing a Requirement Driven Product Development Process,
ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences , September 9-12, 2001,
Pittsburgh, PA. USA

Dean, P.R. et al. (2008). A Framework for Generating Product Production

Information for mass customization, Int J Adv Manuf Technol , 38(12),pp44–1259

Dickinson, A & Brown, C.A (2009). Design and Deployment of Axiomatic Design,
The Fifth International Conference on Axiomatic Design, March 25-27,
Campus de Caparica, Portugal

Dahmus, J.B. et al. (2001). Modular Product Architecture, Design Studies, 22, pp 409–424

Dran, G.M.V. et al. (1999). Quality Websites: An Application of the Kano Model to Website
Design, Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems,
August 13-15, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Eberhart, R. & Kennedy, J. (1995). A New Optimizer using Particle Swarm Theory,
Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, Nagoya, Japan

Endo, M. (2005). Reverse Engineering & CAE, JSME International Journal, Series C,
48(2), pp218-223

Frey, D.D et al. (2000). Computing the Information Content of Decoupled Designs, Research
in Engineering Design, 12, pp90-102

Ferguson, S. et al. (2009). Designing a Family of Reconfigurable Vehicles using Multilevel

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, Struct. Multidisc Optimization, 39, pp171–186

Fei G.et al. (2009). Module-Scale-Based Product Platform Planning, Research in Engineering Design,
20 pp129–141
Farrell, R.S. & Simpson, T.W. (2003). Product Platform Design to Improve Commonality in Custom
Products, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,14,pp541-556

Fellini, R. et al. (2002). Platform Selection under Performance Loss Constraints in Optimal Design
of Product Families, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computer
and Information in Engineering Conference , September 29-October 2,Montreal, Canada

48
Fujita, K. (2002). Product Variety Optimization Under Modular Architecture,
Computer Aided Design, 34, pp953-965

Fujita, K. & Yoshida, H. (2001). Product Variety Optimization: Simultaneous Optimization of Module
Combination and Module Attributes, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference , September 9-12,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Gumus, B. (2005). Axiomatic Product Development Lifecycle, Doctoral Thesis,

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas Tech. University, USA

Grauer, et al. (2007). Globally Distributed Manufacturing Networks: Interdependencies between

Product Design and Choice of Production Site, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering
and Computer Science ,WCECS ,October 24-26, San Francisco, USA

Ghemraoui, R. et al. (2009). Systematic Human-Safety Analysis Approach Based on Axiomatic

Design Principles , The Fifth International Conference on Axiomatic Design, March 25-27,
Campus de Caparica, Portugal

Green, G. & Mamtami, G. (2004). An Integrated Decision Making Model for Evaluation of
Concept Design, Acta Polytechnica, 44 (3), pp 62-65

Guta, S. & Krishnana V. (1998). Product Family-Based Assembly Sequence Design

Methodology, IIE Transactions, 30( 10), pp 933 - 945

Guenov, M.D & Barker, S.G (2005), Application of Axiomatic Design Structure Matrix to the
Decomposition of Engineering Systems, System Engineering,8(1), pp29-40

Houshmand, M & Mokhtar, A (2009). Introducing a Road-Map to Implement the Universal

Manufacturing Platform using the Methodology of Axiomatic Design, The Fifth International
Conference on Axiomatic Design, March 25-27, Campus de Caparica, Portugal

Huang, G et al. (2003). Product Platform Identification and Development for Mass Customization,
CIRP Annals, Manufacturing Technology, 52, (1), pp117-120

Hintersteiner, J. D.(2000).Addressing Changing Customer Needs by Adapting Design Requirements,

Proceedings of First International Conference on Axiomatic Design,June21-23,MA,USA

Haapaniemi, T. & Seppanen, M. (2008). Antecedents and Key Success Factors in Adoption of
Consumer Electronics Industry Innovations , Euro MOT 2008 Proceedings, International
Association for Management of Technology, September 17-19, Nice, France

Heijungs, R. et al. (2010).Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability Analysis of Products, Materials,
Polymer Degradation and Stability and Technologies, Polymer Degradation and Stability,
95(3), pp 422-428
Helander, M.G. & Jiao, J. (2002). Research on E-product Development (ePD) for Mass
Customization, Technovation, 22(11), pp717-724

49
Hatchuel, A. & Weil, B. (2003). A New Approach of Innovative Design: An Introduction to C-K
Theory, International Conference on Engineering Design, August19-21, Stockholm

Harutunian, V. et al. (1996). Decision Making and Software Tools for Product Development Based
on Axiomatic Design Theory, CIRP Annals, 45(1),pp135-139

Handfield, R.B. & Steininger, W. (2005). An Assessment of Manufacturing Customer Pain Points:
Challenges for Researchers, An International Journal of Supply Chain Forum,6 (2), pp 6-15

Holmqvist, T.K.P. & Persson, M.L. (2003). Analysis and Improvement of Product Modularization
Methoods:Their Ability to Deal with Complex Products, System Engineering,6(3),pp 195-209

Ishii, K. (1995). Modularity: A Key Concept in Product Life-Cycle Engineering,

ASME Journal of Mechanical Design,117, pp42-47

Jia, J. & Tseng, M.M. (2000). Fundamentals of Product Family Architecture, Integrated
Manufacturing Systems,11(7), pp 469-483

Jia, J. & Tseng, M.M. (1999). An Information Modeling Framework for Product families to
Support Mass Customization Manufacturing, Annals of the CIRP,48(1),pp93-98

Jiao, J. et al. (2007). Product Family Design and Platform-Based Product Development: A State of
the Art Review, Special issue on Product Family Design and Platform-Based Product Development,
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 18(1),pp5-29

Jiao, J. et al. (2007). Identifying generic routings for product families based on text mining and
tree matching, Decision Support Systems, Vol.43, pp866-883

Kovacs, A.F (2009). Consumers' Perception of the Factors Risking Health and Their
Risk-Reducing Behavior, Doctoral Thesis, PhD School of Management and Business
Administration, Szent István University, Budapest and Gödöllö, Hungary

Khajavirad, A. et al. (2009). An Efficient Decomposed Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm for

Solving The Joint Product Family Optimization Problems, Struct. Multidisc Optim., 39 pp187-201

Khire, R.A. & Messac, A. (2006), Optimal Design of Product Families using Selection-Integrated
Optimization (SIO) Methodology , 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization
Conference, 6-8 Sep, Portsmouth, Virginia

Kondoh, S. et al. (2007). Development of Redesign Method of Production System Based on QFD
Journal of Advanced Mechanical Design, System and Manufacturing, 1(1) pp. 181-192

Kurniawan, S.H. et al. (2004).Connecting Customers in Axiomatic Design, Proceedings The Third
International Conference on Axiomatic Design, June 21-24, 2004, Seoul
Kimura, F & Nielsen, J. (2005). A Design Method for Product Family under Manufacturing
Resource Constraints, CIRP Annals, Manufacturing Technology, 54(1), pp 139-142

50
Krishnan, V. & Ulrich, K.T. (2001), Product Development Decisions: A review of the Literature,
Management Science, 47 (1), pp 1-21

Karr, D. et al., (2009). Design Methods, Committee IV.2, 17th International Ship and Offshore
Structures Congress, 16-21 August 2009, Seoul, Korea

Lamothe, J. et al. (2006). An Optimization Model For Selecting A Product Family And Designing
Its Supply Chain, European Journal of Operational Research ,169 , pp 1030–1047

Lee, T. (2003). Complexity Theory in Axiomatic Design, Doctoral Thesis, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, USA

Lee, Y.C. & Huang, S.Y. (2009). A New Fuzzy Concept Approach for Kano’s Model, Journal of
Expert Systems with Applications’, 36,pp 4479–4484

Lilja, J. (2005). Quality Practice and Customer Value Strengthening the Ideal Linkage, Doctoral
Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration & Social Sciences,
Sweden

Lossack, R, & Grabowski, H.(2000),The Axiomatic Approach in the Universal Design Theory,
Proceedings of First International Conference on Axiomatic Design, June 21-23, MA,USA

Meier, H. & Kroll, R.G.M. (2008). Approach of the Design for the Structure of Global
Distribution of Industrial Services, 6th CIRP International Conference on Intelligent
computation in Manufacturing Engineering, 23-25 July, Naples, Italy

Martin, S.B (2001). Developing E-Commerce Strategies Based on Axiomatic Design , Part of
Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, Göztepe Kampüsü 34722 , İstanbul

Matt, D.T (2009). Reducing the Time Dependent Complexity in Organizational Systems using
the Concept of Functional Periodicity, The Fifth International Conference on Axiomatic
Design, March 25-27, 2009, Campus de Caparica, Portugal

Matzler, K. & Hinterhuber, H.H. (1998). How to Make Product Development Projects More
Successful by Integrating Kano’s Model of Customer Satisfaction into Quality Function
Deployment, Technovation, 18(1), pp 25–38
McGill, W.L. & Ayyub, B.M. (2007 ), Multi-criteria Security System Performance Assessment
using Fuzzy Logic, Journal of defense Modeling and Simulation, 4 (4)pp356-376

Melvin, J.W. (2003). Axiomatic System Design: Chemical Mechanical Polishing Machine Case
Study, Doctoral Thesis, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology, USA

Messac, A. et al. (2002). Effective Product Family Design Using Physical Programming, Eng. Opt.,
34, pp245–261
Minderhoud, S. & Fraser, P (2005).Shifting Paradigms of Product Development in Fast And Dynamic
Markets, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 88, 127–135

51
Mital, A. et al. (2007). Product Development: A Structured Approach to Consumer Product
Development, Design, and Manufacture, Book, Oxford University Press.

Mizumoto, M. (1981). Fuzzy Sets and Their Operations, II, Information & Control, 50, (2),pp160-174

Moneim, A.F.A (2008). Fuzzy Genetic Prioritization in Multi-Criteria Decision Problems, Journal of
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering ,2( 4), pp175 - 182

Meyer, M.H. (1992). The Product Family and the Dynamics of Core Capability, Working Paper,
Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA, USA

Nagamachi, M. (2002). Technical Note Kansei Engineering as A Powerful Consumer-Oriented

Technology for Product Development, Applied Ergonomics,33,pp 289–294

Nayak, R.U. et al. ( 2002), A Variation-Based Method for Product Family Design,
Engineering Optimization, 34(1), pp 65–81

Nielsen, P.H & Wenzel, H. (2002), Integration of Environmental Aspects in Product

Development: A Stepwise Procedure Based on Quantitative Life Cycle Assessment,
Journal of Cleaner Production,10 , pp247–257

Nielsen, J. & Kimura, F. (2006). A Resource Capability Model to Support Product Family Analysis,
JSME International Journal, Series C, 49( 2),pp568-574

Nelson II, S.A et al. (1999). Multi-criteria Optimization in Product Platform Design, Proceedings of
ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, September 12-16, Lasvegas, Nevada, USA

Nordgren, A. & Aoyama, H., (2007).Implicit Shape Parameterization for Kansei Design Methodology,
JSME, Journal of Advanced Mechanical Design, Systems, and Manufacturing, 1(4),pp 442-452

Nordlund, M. (1996). Decision Making and Software Tools for Product Development Based on Axiomatic
Design Theory, Doctoral Thesis, Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden

Otto, K.H. (2005). Modular Product Platform Design, Doctoral Thesis, Helsinki University of
Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Finland

Otto, K.H. et al. (2008). Analyzing Module Commonality for Platform Design using Dendrograms,
Res Eng Design ,19, pp127–141

Oliosi, M. et al. (2008). An Integrated Approach to Enhance Quality and Reliability of Healthcare
Processes,6th CIRP International Conference on Intelligent computation in Manufacturing
Engineering, 23-25 July, Naples, Italy

Ong, S.K. et al. (2008). Design Reuse in Product Development Modeling and Analysis &
Optimization, Series on Manufacturing systems and Technology,
Vol-4, books.google.com , ch-1,pp 1-26

52
Palicska (2008). Examination off Drape and Hand off Fabrics for 3D Material Simulation for
Garment Manufacture, Doctoral Thesis, József Cziráki Doctoral School of Wood Sciences
and Technologies, University of Western Hungary, Hungary

Parsopoulos, K.E and Vrahatis, M.N. (2004). On the Computation of all Global Minimizers
through Particle Swarm Optimization, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation ,
8( 3),pp 211-224

Panchal, et al. (2004). Designing Design Processes in Product Lifecycle Management: Research
Issues And Strategies, Proceedings of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences,
September 28-October 2, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Pedersen, K. et al. (2000). Validating Design Methods & Research: The Validation Square, Proceedings
of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences September 10-14, Baltimore, Maryland

Petro, V. (2005). Laws of Development of Needs, published in the proceedings of the ETRIA TRIZ
conference, November 2005, Graz, Austria

Renna, P. et al. (2008).A multi-Agent Architecture for Budget-based Scheduling in Dynamic

Environments, 6th CIRP International Conference on Intelligent computation in
Manufacturing Engineering, 23-25 July, Naples, Italy

Rejeb, H.B. et al. (2008). A New Methodology Based on Kano Model for Needs Evaluation
and Innovative Concepts Comparison during the Front-End Phases, EuroMOT 2008 ,
September 17-19, Nice, France

Reynal, V.A. & Cochran, D.S. (1996). Understanding Lean Manufacturing according to Axiomatic
Design Principles , Working Paper, Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Rzevski, G. (2003). On Conceptual Design of Intelligent Mechatronics Systems, Mechatronics,

13, pp1029–1044

Rizzuti, S. et al. (2009). Axiomatic Design as a Means to Find Contradiction in an Integrated

Approach for Product Design, The Fifth International Conference on Axiomatic Design,
March 25-27, Campus de Caparica, Portugal

Salhieh, S.M. (2007), A Methodology to Redesign Heterogeneous Product Portfolios as Homogeneous

Product Families, Computer Aided Design,39, pp 1065-1074

Sharma, S.(2009), Revisiting the Shelf Life Constrained Multi-Product Manufacturing Problem,
European Journal of Operational Research,193, pp129–139
Sahlin, M.(2000), A Systematic Approach for Decision Making in a Concurrent
Engineering Environment, First International Conference on Axiomatic Design ,
June 21-23, 2000, Cambridge, MA, USA

53
Sanongpong, K. (2009). Automotive Process-based New Product Development: A Review of Key
Performance Metrics , Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, July 1 - 3, London, U.K

Simpson, T.W. et al. (1996).Conceptual Design of a Family of Products Through the use of the
Robust Concept Exploration Method, 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary
Analysis and Optimization, September 4-6, Bellevue, WA

Simpson, T.W. (1998). A Concept Exploration Method for Product Family Design,
Doctoral Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia

Simpson, T.W. (2004). Product Platform Design and Customization: Status and Promise,
Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 18, pp 3–20

Simpson, T.W. et al. (2001). Product Platform Design: Method and Application, Res. Eng. Design,
13 (2), pp 22-42

Sauerwein, E. (1996). The Kano Model: How to Delight Your Customers, International
Working Seminar on Production Economics, February19-23, Innsbruck, Igls, Austria

Smith, R.P & Morrow, J.A. (1999). Product Development Process Modeling,
Design Studies, 20, pp 237–261

Suh, N. P. (1995). Designing in of Quality through Axiomatic Design, IEEE transactions on

Reliability, 44 (2), pp 256-264

Sha. D.Y & Hsing-Hung L. (2009). A Particle Swarm Optimization for Multi-Objective Flow
Shop Scheduling, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technology, 45, pp749–758

Suh, E.S. (2005). Flexible Product Platforms, Doctoral Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, USA

Suh, N. P. (1998). Axiomatic Design Theory for Systems, Research in Engineering Design,
10, pp189–209

Shinno, H. et al. (2002). Product Development Methodology for Machine Tools, JSME
International Journal, Series C, 45 (3),pp815-820

Sivaloganathan, S. et al. (2000). A Hybrid Systematic And Conventional Approach For The
Design and Development of a Product: A Case Study, Design Studies,21, pp 59–74

Sivard, G. (2000). A Generic Information Platform for Product Families, Doctoral Thesis,
Royal Institute of Technology,S-100044, Stockholm, Sweden

Shao, X.Y. et al. (2005). Integrating data mining and rough set for customer group-based
discovery of product configuration rules, International Journal of Production Research,
Special Issue on Data Mining and Applications

54
Sardinha, J.A.R.P. et al. (2005). A Multi-Agent Architecture for a Dynamic Supply Chain
Management, Monografias em Ciência da Computação, 36 (05) pp1-13

Sauerwein, E. (1999). Experiences with the Reliability and Validity of the Kano-Method:
Comparison to Alternate Forms of Classification of Product Requirements, The
Eleventh Symposium on Quality Function Deployment,12-18 June, Novi, MI

Sushkov, V.V. et al. (1995). Introduction to TIPS: A theory for Creative Design.
Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 9 ,pp177-189

Sellgren, U. (2008). Agile Design for Variety, Machine Elements, Doctoral Thesis, Department
of Machine Design, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

Thompson, M.K. et al. (2009).The Application of Axiomatic Design Theory and Conflict
Techniques for the Design of Intersections, The Fifth International Conference
on Axiomatic Design, March 25-27, Campus de Caparica, Portugal

Thevenot, H.J. & Simpson, T.W. (2007).Guidelines to Minimize Variation when Estimating Product
Line Commonality through Product Family Dissection , Design Studies, 28 , pp 175-194

Tate, D. (1999). A Roadmap For Decomposition: Activities, Theories & Tools for System
Design, Doctoral Thesis ,Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

Tate, D. & Nordlund M. (1996). A Design Process Roadmap as a General Tool for Structuring
and Supporting Design Activities , Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Integrated
Design and Process Technology, Society for Design and Process Science, Dec. 1-4,Austin, TX

Tseng M.M & Schreyer, M. (2002). Model-Based Design of PLC Programs ,CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 31 (2),pp1-6

Tseng, M.M. & Jiao, J. (2000). Fundamental Issues Regarding Development Product Family
Architecture for Mass customization, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 11(7), pp 469-483

Tseng, M.M. & Jiao, J. (1999). An Information Modeling Framework for Product Families to
Support Mass Customization Manufacturing, Annals of the CIRP, 48(1), pp 93-98

Tseng, M.M. et al. (1998). Product Family Modeling for Mass Customization, Computers and
Industrial Engineering, 35 (3-4), pp 495-498

Ullah, A. M. M. S. (2002). F-Granular Design Information based Information Axiom, Second

Int. Conf Axiomatic Design, June 10–11, Cambridge, MA,USA

Ullah, A. M. M. S. (2004). Integration of High-Level Design Information with Axiomatic

Design Formulation, Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Axiomatic
Design, June 21-24, Seoul

55
Ullah, A. M. M. S. (2005). Handling Design Perceptions: An Axiomatic Design Perspective,
Research in Engineering Design , 16, pp109–117

Ullah, A.M.M.S. & Tamaki, J. (2009). Uncertain Customer Needs Analysis for Product development:
A Kano Model Perspective, Sixth International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious
Design and Inverse manufacturing, 7-9 December, Sappora, Japan

Umeda, Y. et al. (2008).Product Modularity for Life Cycle Design, CIRP Annals- Manufacturing
Technology ,57, pp 13–16

Umeda, Y.et al. (2005). Development of Design Methodology for Upgradable Products Based on
Function–Behavior–State Modeling, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and
Manufacturing 19, pp161–182

Valtasaari, M. (2000). Design for Customer Needs: Utilization of Quality function Deployment
in Product Development, Master’s Thesis, Lappeenranta University of Technology,
Sala, Finland

Weck, O.L.D. et al. (2005). Product Family Strategy and Platform Design Optimization, Special issue on
Product Family Design, MIT Publications, USA

Wijnstra, J.G. (2005). Classifying Product Families using Platform Coverage and Variation
Mechanisms, Softw. Pract. Exper., 35, pp 413–444

Willcox, K. & Wekayama, S. (2003). Simultaneous Optimization of a Multiple- Aircraft Family,

Journal of Aircraft, 41(4), pp 616-622
Wood, K.L. & Antonsson, E.K. (1989 ).Computations with Imprecise Parameters in Engineering
Design: Background and Theory, ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and
Automation in Design,111( 4), pp 616-625

Xu, Y. & Sarker, B.R. (2003). Models for a Family of Products with Shelf Life, and Production
and Shortage Costs in Emerging Markets, Computers & Operations Research, 30 ,pp 925–938

Xu, Q. et al. (2009). An Analytical Kano Model for Customer Need Analysis, Design Studies,
30 (1), pp87-110
Yigit, A.S. et al. (2002). Optimizing modular product design for reconfigurable manufacturing,
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 13, pp309-316
Yadav, S.R. et al. (2009), An algorithm portfolio based solution methodology to solve a supply
chain Optimization problem, Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp 8407-8420

Zugasti, J.P.G. et al. (2000). A Method for Architecting Product Platforms, Research in Engineering
Design, 12, pp 61-72

Zeng, Y. (2002).Axiomatic Theory of Design Modeling, Journal of Integrated Design and Process
Science, 6(3), pp 1-28

56
Appendix: A Profile of Author

Rashid, MD. Mamunur is a Management Counselor (Faculty), Production and Operations

Management Division at Bangladesh Institute of Management, Dhaka since February 16, 2004.
Prior this job he was an Assistant Engineer of Mechanical Engineering Department of Jamuna
Fertilizer Company, Bangladesh for seven years. He holds a Master of Science in Mechanical
Engineering and a Master of Business Administration. Besides of his jobs, he also did a Diploma
in Computer Science and Applications, a Post Graduate Diploma in Human Resource
Management and a Post Graduate Diploma in Marketing Management. Management
Accounting, Project Management, Safety and Maintenance Management, Information
Technology in Business and Artificial Neural System are completed by him in Graduate level
study at Industrial and Production Engineering Department of Bangladesh University of
Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh. He is published 10 papers. He is trained from
Singapore for 3 weeks on Mechatronics System Technology and 8 weeks on TQM and ISO from
Hyderabad, India. He is also taken some training at Bangladesh likes Project Management,
Vibration Monitoring and Maintenance Management. Now, he pursues for his doctoral degree at
Kitami Institute of Technology, Hokkaido, Kitami, Japan under the supervision of Professor
Jun’ichi Tamaki and Dr. Sharif Ullah will effect from April, 2010. He can be reached by e-mail:
mamun87245@gmail.com

57