Clean Techn Environ Policy (2012) 14:319–332
DOI 10.1007/s10098-011-0404-y
ORIGINAL PAPER
Application of fuzzy logic-based environmental conscious QFD
to rotary switch: a case study
S. Vinodh • Gopinath Rathod
Received: 10 March 2011 / Accepted: 13 July 2011 / Published online: 28 July 2011
 Springer-Verlag 2011
General public and government agencies seriously view the
environmental issues. Environmental issues have become
an imperative concern for most companies in relation to
modern product development. These activities stimulate
the environmentally friendlier production technologies
with a focus on minimization of environmental impact.
Special procedures have to be formulated during the
product development process to comply with recent green
directives. In order to improve the focus on eco-designed
products with regard to customer needs and cost consid-
erations, this study presents the application of fuzzy eco-
quality function deployment (QFD) to aid product design
team in considering environmental concerns. This fuzzy
multi-objective model considers the overall customer sat-
isfaction and encourages enterprises to produce environ-
mentally friendlier products. The case study describing the
evolution of eco-friendly model of rotary switch has been
presented. An optimal balance between environmental
acceptability and overall customer satisfaction has been
obtained as an outcome of the conduct of the study.
Keywords Quality function deployment  Eco-QFD 
Fuzzy method  Design for environment
S. Vinodh (&)
Department of Production Engineering, National Institute
of Technology, Tiruchirappalli 620 015, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: vinodh_sekar82@yahoo.com
G. Rathod
Basaveshwar Engineering College, Bagalkot 587102,
Karnataka, India
e-mail: gopinath.rathod@gmail.com
Introduction
The contemporary manufacturing organizations recognize
environmental consciousness as an important concept for
survival in the competitive world. Manufacturing decisions
inherently face uncertainties and imprecision (Azadegan
et al. 2011). Government agencies view critically the
resource optimization and environmental issues in life
cycle perspective. This situation stimulates the environ-
mentally friendly production technologies which avoid
harmful emissions into air, water, and soil. Various studies
argue that manufacturing decisions and choices have to be
consistent with the corporate strategy for effective envi-
ronmental production management (Li 2007). The key
issue for a successful eco-design product is not only to
meet environmental objectives but also to consider cost
effectiveness, market demand, and multi-functionality
requirements. In order to incorporate customer needs into
product design concept, quality function deployment
(QFD) is an effective technique to achieve customer sat-
isfaction in totality (Griffin and Hauser 1993). The struc-
tured approach of QFD sometimes becomes difficult for the
practitioners to utilize. The reasons are: the weighing fac-
tors are described using vague linguistic language; the
customer information is gathered in a subjective manner,
hence it comes from a variety of sources; majority of the
efforts are being spent on capturing the voice of the cus-
tomer-performance characteristics and relative importance
characteristics (Masui et al. 2003).
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an approach
to systematically evaluate a set of alternatives with multi-
ple criteria (Mustajoki et al. 2005). For the importance
evaluation of attribute, it is expressed in linguistic terms
such as ‘unimportant’, ‘very important’, and then trans-
formed in the form of concise numbers. It has been well
123
320
recognized that human assessment of the qualitative attri-
bute of a product are always subjective, imprecise and the
linguistic terms are used to express human feelings that are
vague in nature. To overcome the above drawbacks, a
fuzzy Eco-QFD approach proposed in the literature is used.
Fuzzy Eco-QFD extends the scope of QFD, and combines
QFD, life-cycle cost (LCC), and life-cycle analysis (LCA)
to evaluate environmental effects and costs in the system
development process (Utne 2009). The approach is used for
aiding a design team in selecting target levels for technical
attributes based on environmental concerns (Kuo et al.
2009). Fuzzy logic is multi-valued, dealing with member-
ship and truth degrees (Fung et al. 2002). The eco-design
product development problem has been formulated as
fuzzy multi-objective model not only for fulfilling overall
customer satisfaction but also provides a means for plan-
ning environmentally friendlier products. A case study has
been illustrated using the fuzzy eco-design approach for
achieving optimal balance between environmental accept-
ability and overall customer satisfaction.
The research questions that are addressed using this
approach are as follows:
• How to use a fuzzy approach to the Eco-QFD to aid a
design team in choosing customer requirements and
technical attributes based on environmental concerns?
• How to use fuzzy multi-objective model to consider the
overall customer satisfaction and encourage enterprises
to produce an environmentally friendlier product?
• How to reduce the vagueness and uncertainty in group
decision-making process while developing products?
• How to obtain the optimal balance between environ-
mental acceptability and overall customer satisfaction?
• How to integrate environmental concerns with quality,
cost, and customer requirements to improve the product
design process using Eco-QFD?
In the past, several environmental impact analyses
evaluation and fuzzy QFD tools have been developed for
Eco-design products. For example, Griffin and Hauser
(1993) have contributed how QFD is a total-quality-man-
agement process in which the ‘‘voice of the customer’’ is
deployed throughout the R&D, engineering, and manu-
facturing stages of product development. Frei (1998) has
integrated environmental aspects into the earliest design
phases to enable Eco-effective product design. The author
has presented a case study as an example of eco-effective
product design. Keeney and Raiffa (1976) have advocated
the two major trends that characterize the development of
decision theory. The first is on increased emphasis on the
application of decision models and measurement methods
to solve real world decision problems. The second is a shift
away from the once dominant probability issue in decision
modeling toward the preference and value issue. The
123
S. Vinodh, G. Rathod
authors have addressed how to help a confused-decision
maker to evaluate complex action alternatives, when their
outcomes are uncertain and have several value relevant
attributes. They presented the structuring and formulization
of complex decision problems; models and assessment
methods to quantify multi attribute preferences; and
applications of multi-attribute theory. French (1988) has
presented decision theory and subjective probability that
explains and demonstrates the axioms and fundamental
concepts of these theories in a simple way. Mustajoki et al.
(2005) have presented the use of intervals in the simple
multi-attribute rating technique (SMART) and SWING
weighing methods. They presented by allowing the refer-
ence attribute to be any attribute, by allowing the decision
maker to reply with intervals to the weight ratio questions
to account for the judgmental imprecision.
ISO 14044:2006 specifies requirements and provides
guidelines for LCA including: definition of the goal and
scope of the LCA, the life cycle inventory analysis (LCI)
phase, the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase, the
life cycle interpretation phase, reporting and critical review
of the LCA, limitations of the LCA, relationship between
the LCA phases, and conditions for use of value choices
and optional elements. Vanegas and Labib (2001) have
proposed a novel method for determining optimum targets
in QFD using fuzzy QFD model. They have used fuzzy
numbers to represent the imprecise nature of the judg-
ments, and to define more appropriately the relationships
between environmental concerns (Ecs) and customer
attributes (CAs). Masui et al. (2003) presented a concept
called QFDE in which QFD has been applied to environ-
mentally conscious design. Ramasamy and Selladurai
(2004) have proposed a fuzzy logic approach to prioritize
engineering characteristics in QFD. Karsak (2004) has
presented a fuzzy multiple objective programming
approach that incorporates imprecise and subjective infor-
mation inherent in the QFD planning process to determine
the level of fulfillment of design requirements. Rao (2008)
has presented three multiple attribute decision-making
methods for the evaluation of environmentally conscious
manufacturing (ECM) programs for producing a given
product which include analytic hierarchy process (AHP),
the technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal
solution (TOPSIS), and the modified TOPSIS method. The
author has proposed ‘ECM program selection index’ which
helps to evaluate and rank the ECM programs for pro-
ducing a given product. Munoz et al. (2008) have presented
the analyses of sustainability approach of a sample of 52
Spanish listed firms. This process is based on the study of
different indexes generated in order to evaluate the com-
pany’s commitment through its stakeholders, the social and
financial performance of these organizations, and the rela-
tionship between them by introducing a fuzzy logic-based
Application of fuzzy logic based-environmental conscious QFD
methodology in order to generate the aforementioned
indexes. Barajas and Agard (2008) have proposed the
ranking procedure in fuzzy decision-making process based
on normal trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, instead of traditional
triangular fuzzy numbers. The ranking procedure is based
on the fuzzy preference relation.
Bereketli et al. (2009) have developed a method called
Eco-QFD to provide a framework for designing Eco-
mobile phone by integrating the life cycle analysis (LCA)
into QFD throughout the entire product development pro-
cess. Kuo et al. (2009) have developed eco-quality function
deployment (eco-QFD) is to aid a product design team in
considering environmental concerns since QFD is a proven
quality systems tool to achieve total customer satisfaction.
Fargnoli and Sakao (2008) have proposed coordinating
‘Ecodesign’ methods in early stages of industrial product
design by the integration of several design tools in a
framework of a general nature aimed at reducing the gap
between theory and practice. Zhang and Chu (2009) have
proposed a group decision-making approach incorporated
with two optimization models (i.e., logarithmic least
squares model and weighted least squares model) to
aggregate the multi-format and multi-granularity linguistic
judgments. The authors have utilized the fuzzy set theory to
address the uncertainty in the decision-making process. Liu
(2009) has developed an extended fuzzy QFD which
expands the research scope, from product planning to part
deployment. The author has also proposed a modified fuzzy
clustering method to classify various bottleneck groups of
part characteristics. Celik et al. (2009) have presented the
QFD principles toward shipping investment process via the
ship of quality (SoQ) framework. Also, the authors have
integrated the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) and
fuzzy axiomatic design (FAD) algorithms into the SoQ
framework in order to involve quantitative outcomes into
the shipping investment decisions. Ramanathan and Yunf-
eng (2009) have presented data envelopment analysis
(DEA) method to incorporate cost and environmental fac-
tors in QFD. The authors have applied the proposed QFD–
DEA method to design the security fasteners for a Chinese
company. Vinodh and Rathod (2010) have carried out a
research work for ensuring sustainable product design by
the integration of environmentally conscious quality func-
tion deployment (ECQFD) and life cycle assessment (LCA)
approaches. They have developed a integrated sustainable
product development model by using ECQFD and LCA
approaches for ensuring sustainable product design.
Lin et al. (2010) have presented the application of fuzzy
QFD model with interdependence relations of environ-
mental production requirements aspects and sustainable
production indicators criteria for original equipment man-
ufacturing firm in Taiwan. The authors have proposed a
systematic analytical procedure in conjunction with fuzzy
321
sets theory and analytical network process to facilitate the
main issue of the QFD problem. Wang (2010) has pre-
sented a novel method of constructing a QFD model under
pure linguistic environment by assessing customer needs,
evaluating the relationship between customer needs and
solution schemes, and prioritizing the solution schemes.
Mehdizadeh (2010) has presented a fuzzy centroid-based
method to rank customer requirements with competition
consideration. The proposed method focuses on normal
fuzzy numbers and non-normal fuzzy numbers to capture
the true customer requirements. Vinodh and Chintha
(2011a) have carried out a research to assess the leanness
of an organization using multi-grade fuzzy approach. In
this research, the authors have designed a leanness mea-
surement model incorporated with multi-grade fuzzy
approach. Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011) have examined the
problem of identifying an effective model based on sus-
tainability principles for supplier selection operations in
supply chains. Due to its multi-criteria nature, the sus-
tainable supplier evaluation process requires an appropriate
multi-criteria analysis and solution approach. The authors
have developed a novel approach based on fuzzy analytic
network process within multi-person decision-making
schema under incomplete preference relations. The method
not only makes sufficient evaluations using the provided
preference information, but also maintains the consistency
level of the evaluations. Amoozgar et al. (2011) have
presented a novel approach for formation control of non-
holonomic wheeled mobile robots (WMRs). They have
used fuzzy logic scheme for tracking performance and
superior energy consumption using kinematical method.
Vinodh and Chintha (2011b) have presented a QFD
approach by incorporating fuzzy logic for scientific prior-
itization of agile decision domains, agile attributes, and
agile enablers.
The research gap observed based on the literature review
is that very few researchers have concentrated on the
development of approaches that are focused on handling
both environmental concerns and customer satisfaction. In
this context, this fuzzy Eco-QFD proposed by Kuo et al.
(2009) has been used in our study to address the research
objectives.
Methodology
The research begins with literature review on fuzzy QFD
applications with respect to environmental consciousness.
This is followed by the selection of appropriate approach
for the case problem. The appropriate list of customer
requirements and technical attributes has been identified
for a rotary switch. Then house of quality of fuzzy Eco-
QFD has been developed between CRs and TAs without
123
322
consideration of environmental concerns of rotary switch.
This is followed by the development a house of fuzzy Eco-
QFD between CRs and TAs with consideration of envi-
ronmental concerns of rotary switch. This is followed by
the derivation of practical inferences.
Case study
In this section, the details about the case company and
various steps involved in the development of fuzzy Eco-
QFD have been discussed.
About the case company
The case study has been conducted at ABC electronics
limited, a rotary switches manufacturing organization
located in Tamil Nadu, India started in the year 1985
(hereafter referred to as ABC). ABC manufactures rotary
switches and has implemented various world class strat-
egies such as 5S and ISO quality management system.
There existed a vital need for the case organization to
develop eco-friendly products with regard to environ-
mental concerns without compromising customer satis-
faction. Since customer needs as well as environmental
concerns are complicated and often imprecise, fuzzy
approaches, such as fuzzy sets, fuzzy arithmetic, and
fuzzy defuzzification methods need to be applied. It has
been decided to implement fuzzy Eco-QFD method for
meeting this requirement. To implement the fuzzy Eco-
QFD, a team of three experts from design, manufactur-
ing, and customer service has been selected. The experts
are the division heads and they possess rich experience
regarding the working nature of the organization. Based
on the LCA, the product stages of raw material, manu-
facturing, distribution, and disposal processes are evalu-
ated and analyzed. Customer needs and environmental
concerns have been generated by a group of experts. The
weight for each customer need and environmental con-
cerns has also been evaluated and determined by this
group of experts.
Identification of the environmental Customer
Requirements (CRs) and Technical Attributes (TAs)
Quality function deployment is a method for structured
product planning and development. It enables a devel-
opment team to specify clearly the CR and evaluates
each proposed product systematically in terms of its
impact on meeting those requirements. This section
describes the requirements and attributes considered from
an environmental perspective throughout the life cycle of
the product. Gathering and analyzing the CR is critically
123
S. Vinodh, G. Rathod
important in QFD in order to provide customer-oriented
products. The CR may come from a wide variety of
sources, such as surveys, focus groups, interviews, trade
shows, complaints, and even expert opinions (Griffin and
Hauser 1993; Gryna 2001). It is essential to capture the
marketing needs from the customers’ perspective. Typi-
cally, due to the limited experience and lack of precise
information, customers may not be able to describe what
they really need precisely and clearly. Moreover, the
expressions tend to be subjective, qualitative, and vague.
Sometimes, expert opinions are preferred since these
opinions are more technical, objective, and easy to be
understood. To further consider environmental concerns,
the requirement of environmental concerns should be
identified as well. To summarize CRs as well as envi-
ronmental concerns systematically, a house of quality can
be constructed. Environmental CR represent the quieter,
safer operation of switches: comfortable to hold switches
easily; increased life time of the switches; portability;
reduced material use; Easier to transport; reduced energy
consumption; increased durability; easy to reuse as a
product; easy to disassemble during the maintenance
stage; easy to clean; easy to sort the products; harmless
to the living environment of the users during manufac-
turing and use; and ease of disposability.
When customer needs and environmental concerns are
identified, a cross-functional team is needed to translate
those needs into appropriate TA. When the environmental
concerns are taken into consideration, the term technical
attributes must consist both general technical attributes and
environmental attributes. To better identify environmental
attributes, a systematic method, life cycle analysis, can be
applied from the raw material, manufacturing, distribution,
use, and recycling stages. As the environmental attributes
are considered in house of quality, the next step is to
evaluate the relationship between each of both traditional
and environmental customer needs and each of both tra-
ditional and environmental technical attributes. Typically,
the relationship is determined qualitatively, such as strong,
medium, weak, and no relation with appropriate weights by
a cross-functional team. The relationship between CRs and
TAs is determined based upon the past experience due to
the lack of precise information in the cross-functional
team. To determine the relationship objectively, fuzzy
methods can be implemented.
Fuzzy sets, fuzzy operations, and fuzzy preference
relation
In this section, the concepts of fuzzy sets, fuzzy numbers,
fuzzy operations, particularly the operations of triangular
fuzzy numbers, linguistic variables, and fuzzy preference
relation, are briefly reviewed.
Application of fuzzy logic based-environmental conscious QFD 323

Fuzzy sets
Fuzzy set theory, introduced by Zadeh (1965), was used for
solving problems in which descriptions of activities, obser-
vations, and judgments are subjective, vague, and imprecise.
Let X be a collection of objects, called the universe, whose
elements are denoted by x. fuzzy set in X is defined by a
membership function lA * (x), which maps each element
x in X into a real number in the interval [0, 1]. The function
value lA * (x) represents the grade of membership of x in A˜.
A fuzzy number A is a special type of fuzzy set in X with the
membership function lA * (x) which satisfies the normality
and convexity condition. The height of the fuzzy set means
the maximum degree of membership. If there exists at least
an element with the height of one, then the fuzzy set is
normalized. A fuzzy number is a convex, normalized fuzzy
set whose membership function is at least segmentally
continuous and has the functional value lA(x) = 1 at pre-
cisely one element. There are many types of fuzzy numbers
such as triangular fuzzy number, trapezoidal fuzzy number,
L–R type fuzzy number, etc. Among them, triangular fuzzy
number (TFN) is a widely used type of fuzzy number since it
can be easily handled arithmetically and interpreted intui-
tively. Therefore, TFNs are selected to develop the proposed
fuzzy Eco-QFD method. Fuzzy numbers are one way to
describe the vagueness and lack of precision of data. Alge-
braic equations involving fuzzy numbers are an important
application of fuzzy set theory. They can be used for expert
system reasoning, fuzzy process modeling and control, and
so forth. A TFN A˜, denoted as A˜ = (a, b, c), where
a B b B c, has the triangular-shape membership function
introduced by Zadeh (1965).
Linguistic variables
Most of the data in QFD are assessed by product developers
or customers. Cognitists state those human beings are more
comfortable with using linguistic terms rather than numerical
numbers to describe what they perceive. Hence, the assess
values can be easily expressed in linguistic terms. For
instance, customers may assess the importance of CRs in
linguistic terms, such as ‘‘very poor’’, ‘‘poor’’, ‘‘very good’’,
etc. However, these terms are often imprecise or vague. It
may be more appropriate to treat them as fuzzy rather than
precise. Since the fuzzy set theory is designed to deal with
subjective, vague, or imprecise information, linguistic vari-
ables can be precisely quantified by fuzzy sets. Specifically,
the TFN is employed to quantify the linguistic variables used
in fuzzy Eco-QFD. For example, {very poor, poor, fair, good,
very good}, can be used to express the current performance
of a company’s product. Linguistic variables are variables
whose values are words or sentences in a natural or artificial
language. Basic variables can be defined as [0, 1] in order to
evaluate suitable situation of the criteria (attributes), where
‘‘1’’ can be regarded as the optimal suitable situation, while
‘‘0’’ can be regarded as the poorest situation.

Table 1 Fuzzy results for weighing importance for each customer requirements
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Weight
Crisp Fuzzy Crisp Fuzzy Crisp Fuzzy (dm30 , dm300 , dm3000 )

CR1 Quiet 7 (6,7,8) 7 (6,7,8) 5 (4,5,6) (5.33, 6.33, 7.33)

CR2 Operates safely 7 (6,7,8) 9 (8,9,9) 7 (6,7,8) (6.67, 7.67, 8.33)
CR3 Operates easily 9 (8,9,9) 9 (8,9,9) 7 (6,7,8) (7.33, 8.33, 8.67)
CR4 Comfortable to hold 7 (6,7,8) 5 (4,5,6) 5 (4,5,6) (4.67, 5.67, 6.67)
CR5 Reliable 9 (8,9,9) 9 (8,9,9) 7 (6,7,8) (7.33, 8.33, 8.67)
CR6 Portable 7 (6,7,8) 5 (4,5,6) 1 (1,1,1) (3.67, 4.33, 5.33)
CR7 Less material usage 9 (8,9,9) 9 (8,9,9) 7 (6,7,8) (7.33, 8.33, 8.67)
CR8 Easy to transport and retain 7 (6,7,8) 9 (8,9,9) 9 (8,9,9) (7.33, 8.33, 8.67)
CR9 Easy to process and assemble 9 (8,9,9) 9 (8,9,9) 9 (8,9,9) (8.00, 9.00, 9.00)
CR10 Less Energy consumption 9 (8,9,9) 9 (8,9,9) 7 (6,7,8) (7.33, 8.33, 8.67)
CR11 High durability 5 (4,5,6) 7 (6,7,8) 9 (8,9,9) (6.00, 7.00, 7.67)
CR12 Easy to reuse 7 (6,7,8) 5 9 (8,9,9) (6.00, 7.00, 7.67)
CR13 Easy to disassemble 9 (8,9,9) 9 (8,9,9) 9 (8,9,9) (8.00, 9.00, 9.00)
CR14 Easy to clean 9 (8,9,9) 7 (6,7,8) 5 (4,5,6) (6.00, 7.00, 7.67)
CR15 Easy to sort 5 (4,5,6) 7 (6,7,8) 5 (4,5,6) (4.67, 5.67, 6.67)
CR16 Harmless to living environment 7 (6,7,8) 9 (8,9,9) 9 (8,9,9) (7.33, 8.33, 8.67)
CR17 Possible to dispose of at ease 5 (4,5,6) 7 (6,7,8) 7 (6,7,8) (5.33, 6.33, 7.33)

123
324
Fig. 1 a Crisp values and
b triangular fuzzy numbers
Fuzzy preference relation
A stepwise algorithm of the fuzzy model used in this study
is presented as follows:
Step 1 Define the linguistic terms as triangular fuzzy
numbers
Step 2 Determine the weight for each customer
requirement (CR) by P experts. Then, w1j, w2j ,…,
and wPj are the weight for the jth CR. To fuzzify
these weights described in Step 1, the fuzzy
weights are d1j , d2j ,…, and dpj for the jth CR.
Finally, aggregate weights through all experts by
means of fuzzy addition and scalar multiplication
for the jth CR to form an average value TFN
Step 3 Aggregate fuzzy performance ratings through all
experts by means of fuzzy addition and scalar
multiplication to form a comprehensive
performance matrix S, where performance rating
Sji = (1/P) 9 (S1j ? S2j ?,…, ? SPj ) with
P experts is a TFN
Step 4 Aggregate fuzzy performance ratings with fuzzy
weights by means of fuzzy multiplication to form
an importance weighted, comprehensive decision
matrix E:
Eij ¼ Sij  dj
Step 5 Compute the ranking values for each CR under
each technical attribute (TA) by taking
defuzzification for each Eji. In this study, center-
of-gravity (COG) is used for defuzzification since
COG is one of the most common forms of
defuzzification. The formula is as follows: Let
Aji(x) are membership functions associated with
the fuzzy number Eji s for each i and each j. Then
the correspondent crisp values uji are for each
i and each j, where a is the lower bound of
support of the fuzzy number Eji, and b is the upper
bound of support of the fuzzy number Eji
123
S. Vinodh, G. Rathod
Step 6 Rank the TAs in accordance with the sum of the
ranking values uji. That is, Uj1 ? Uj2 ?  ? Uj17
for each j
Application of fuzzy Eco-QFD for rotary switch design
This section describes the application of fuzzy Eco-QFD
for the design of a rotary switch. A group of three experts
from the design, production and quality control depart-
ments generated 17 customer requirements with and
without the environmental concerns for a rotary switch as
described in Sect. 3.2. The weight for each customer
requirements and their environmental impacts are evalu-
ated in Table 1. To evaluate the weight for each CR, a five
point scale of 1–3–5–7–9 is used, where ‘9’ indicates the
strong relationship, ‘5’ indicates medium relationship and
‘1’ indicates certain strength. Each expert will give a crisp
value for each CR. Then the crisp value for each CR given
by the expert is fuzzified. The different crisp values and
respective triangular fuzzy numbers are shown in Fig. 1.
For example, the computation of the weight for ‘less
energy consumption’
CR10 ¼ ½ð8 þ 8 þ 6Þ=3; ð9 þ 9 þ 7Þ=3; ð9 þ 9 þ 8Þ=3
¼ ð7:33; 8:33; 8:67Þ:
Technical attributes are deployed and evaluated based on
the life cycle analysis from the raw material supply,
manufacturing and design, distribution, use and recycling.
The fuzzy results of fuzzy Eco-QFD without consideration of
environmental concerns are presented in Table 2 and with
consideration of environmental concerns are presented in
Table 3. The column values of Table 3 are the crisp values of
each attributes multiplying the respective weights in CR rows.
Results and discussions
Fuzzy Eco-QFD enables the design engineers to select the
most important technical attributes taken into account from
 Table 2 Fuzzy Eco-QFD of rotary switch without environmental considerations
Weight Material Supply
Cover plate Contact stages Mounting plate Front plate Knob shaft Knob

Quiet (5.33, 6.33, 7.33) 6.3 7.3 7.7 4.3 5.3 5.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 1.0 3.0 3.4 6.3 7.3 7.7
Operates safely (6.67, 7.67, 8.33) 7.3 8.3 8.7 1.7 2.7 3.1 8.0 9.0 9.0 7.3 8.3 8.7 8.0 9.0 9.0 5.7 6.7 7.1
Operates easily (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 7.3 8.3 8.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 4.3 5.3 5.7
Comfortable to hold (4.67, 5.67, 6.67) 3.7 4.7 5.1 1.7 2.7 3.1 2.3 3.3 3.7 8.0 9.0 9.0 7.3 8.3 8.7 8.0 9.0 9.0
Reliable (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 3.7 4.7 5.1 2.3 3.3 3.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 1.7 2.7 3.1 2.3 3.3 3.7
Portable (3.67, 4.33, 5.33) 6.3 7.3 7.7 4.3 5.3 5.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 2.0 3.0 3.4 6.3 7.3 7.7
Less material usage (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 7.3 8.3 8.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 4.3 5.3 5.7
Easy to transport and retain (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 3.7 4.7 5.1 1.7 2.7 3.1 2.3 3.3 3.7 8.0 9.0 9.0 7.3 8.3 8.7 8.0 9.0 9.0
Easy to process and assemble (8.00, 9.00, 9.00) 6.3 7.3 7.7 4.3 5.3 5.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 2.0 3.0 3.4 6.3 7.3 7.7
Less energy consumption (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 7.3 8.3 8.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 4.3 5.3 5.7
High durability (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 3.7 4.7 5.1 1.7 2.7 3.1 2.3 3.3 3.7 8.0 9.0 9.0 7.3 8.3 8.7 8.0 9.0 9.0
Easy to reuse (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 2.0 2.4 1.0 2.0 2.4
Easy to disassemble (8.00, 9.00, 9.00) 1.7 2.7 3.1 5.5 6.0 6.4 8.0 9.0 9.0 7.3 8.3 8.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 0.0 0.7 1.1
Application of fuzzy logic based-environmental conscious QFD

Easy to clean (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 2.0 2.4 1.0 2.0 2.4
Easy to sort (4.67, 5.67, 6.67) 0 0.7 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.4 1.0 2.0 2.4 4.3 5.3 5.7 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.0 0.7 1.1
Harmless to living environment (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 1.7 2.7 3.1 8.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 7.3 8.3 8.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 0.0 0.7 1.1
Possible to dispose of at ease (5.33, 6.33, 7.33) 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 2.0 2.4 1.0 2.0 2.4
Summarization 238.0 177.0 288.6 298.5 272.7 239.0
Relative importance 5.71 4.25 6.93 7.18 6.55 5.74
Rank 8 11 3 2 5 7
LCD percentage
36.36%
Weight Design and manufacturing
Cover plate Contact Mounting Front plate Knob shaft Knob Inspection
installation stage setup plate setup assembly installation setup

Quiet (5.33, 6.33, 7.33) 3.3 4.3 4.7 2.7 3.7 4.1 4.0 5.0 5.4 8.0 9.0 9.0 7.3 8.3 8.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 0.3 1.3 1.7
Operates safely (6.67, 7.67, 8.33) 6.3 7.3 7.7 4.3 5.3 5.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 8.0 9.0 9.0 6.3 7.3 7.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 1.0 2.0 2.4
Operates easily (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 3.3 4.3 4.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 4.3 5.3 5.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 4.3 5.3 5.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 1.0 2.0 2.4
Comfortable to hold (4.67, 5.67, 6.67) 1.7 2.7 3.1 2.3 3.3 3.7 2.3 3.3 3.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.4
Reliable (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 2.3 3.3 3.7 4.3 5.3 5.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 4.3 5.3 5.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 1.0 2.0 2.4
Portable (3.67, 4.33, 5.33) 3.3 4.3 4.7 2.7 3.7 4.1 4.0 5.0 5.4 8.0 9.0 9.0 7.3 8.3 8.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 0.3 1.3 1.7
Less Material Usage (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 3.3 4.3 4.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 4.3 5.3 5.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 4.3 5.3 5.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 1.0 2.0 2.4
Easy to transport and retain (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 1.7 2.7 3.1 2.3 3.3 3.7 2.3 3.3 3.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.4
325

123
 Table 2 continued
326

Weight Design and manufacturing

123
Cover plate Contact Mounting Front plate Knob shaft Knob Inspection
installation stage setup plate setup assembly installation setup

Easy to process and assemble (8.00, 9.00, 9.00) 3.3 4.3 4.7 2.7 3.7 4.1 4.0 5.0 5.4 8.0 9.0 9.0 7.3 8.3 8.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 0.3 1.3 1.7
Less energy consumption (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 3.3 4.3 4.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 4.3 5.3 5.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 4.3 5.3 5.7 2.3 3.3 3.7 1.0 2.0 2.4
High durability (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 1.7 2.7 3.1 2.3 3.3 3.7 2.3 3.3 3.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.4
Easy to reuse (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 0.0 1.0 1.4 0.0 1.0 1.4 0.3 1.3 1.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.3 1.3 1.7 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.7
Easy to disassemble (8.00, 9.00, 9.00) 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.7 2.7 3.1 1.7 2.7 3.1 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.4
Easy to clean (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 0.0 1.0 1.4 0.0 1.0 1.4 0.3 1.3 1.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.3 1.3 1.7 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.7
Easy to sort (4.67, 5.67, 6.67) 0.0 0.7 1.1 3.3 4.3 4.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 3.3 4.3 4.7 0.3 1.3 1.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 1.7 2.7 3.1
Harmless to living environment (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.7 2.7 3.1 1.7 2.7 3.1 0.3 1.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.4
Possible to dispose of at ease (5.33, 6.33, 7.33) 0.0 1.0 1.4 0.0 1.0 1.4 0.3 1.3 1.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.3 1.3 1.7 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.7
Summarization 136.7 127.5 169.7 299.6 265.5 277.8 65.3
Relative importance 3.28 3.06 4.07 7.2 6.38 6.67 1.56
Rank 17 19 12 1 6 4 21
LCD percentage 32.22%

Weight Distribue Use Recycling

Eco friendly Corrugate Easy Disassembily Cover plate Contact stage Mounting plate Front plate
package package Installation easily disassembly disassembly disassembly disassembly

Quiet (5.33, 6.33, 7.33) 2.3 3.3 3.7 1.3 2.3 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.7 0.0 0.7 1.1 2.3 3.3 3.7
Operates safely (6.67, 7.67, 8.33) 3.3 4.3 4.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.4 3.3 4.3 4.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 4.3 5.3 5.7
Operates easily (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 4.3 5.3 5.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.7 1.1 4.3 5.3 5.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 2.3 3.3 3.7 0.3 1.3 1.7 4.3 5.3 5.7
Comfortable to hold (4.67, 5.67, 6.67) 8.0 9.0 9.0 6.3 7.3 7.7 0.0 0.7 1.1 4.3 5.3 5.7 3.7 4.7 5.1 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.3 1.3 1.7 1.0 2.0 2.4
Reliable (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 1.0 2.0 2.4 4.3 5.3 5.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 2.3 3.3 3.7 3.7 4.7 5.1 3.3 4.3 4.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 1.0 2.0 2.4
Portable (3.67, 4.33, 5.33) 2.3 3.3 3.7 1.3 2.3 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.7 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.7
Less Material Usage (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 4.3 5.3 5.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.4 3.3 4.3 4.7 2.3 3.3 3.7 0.3 1.3 1.7 4.3 5.3 5.7
Easy to transport and retain (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 8.0 9.0 9.0 6.3 7.3 7.7 8.0 9.0 9.0 4.3 5.3 5.7 3.7 4.7 5.1 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.3 1.3 1.7 1.0 2.0 2.4
Easy to process and assemble (8.00, 9.00, 9.00) 2.3 3.3 3.7 1.3 2.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.7 0.0 0.7 1.1 2.3 3.3 3.7
Less energy consumption (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 4.3 5.3 5.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.4 3.3 4.3 4.7 2.3 3.3 3.7 0.3 1.3 1.7 10 2.0 2.4
High durability (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 8.0 9.0 9.0 6.3 7.3 7.7 8.0 9.0 9.0 4.3 5.3 5.7 3.7 4.7 5.1 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.3 1.3 1.7 1.0 2.0 2.4
Easy to reuse (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.7 2.7 3.1 6.3 7.3 7.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 4.3 5.3 5.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 3.7 4.7 5.1
Easy to disassemble (8.00, 9.00, 9.00) 1.7 2.7 3.1 0.0 1.0 1.4 3.3 4.3 4.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 3.7 4.7 5.1
Easy to clean (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 1.0 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.7 2.7 3.1 6.3 7.3 7.7 7.3 8.3 8.7 4.3 5.3 5.7 6.3 7.3 7.7 3.7 4.7 5.1
Easy to sort (4.67, 5.67, 6.67) 1.7 2.7 3.1 0.0 1.0 1.4 3.3 4.3 4.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 1.7 2.7 3.1 1.0 2.0 2.4 1.0 2.0 2.4 1.7 2.7 3.1
Harmless to living environment (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 3.3 4.3 4.7 1.7 2.7 3.1 3.3 4.3 4.7 1.7 2.7 3.1 3.3 4.3 4.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 3.3 4.3 4.7
S. Vinodh, G. Rathod
Application of fuzzy logic based-environmental conscious QFD 327

5.1
the view point of environmental concerns. Technical

disassembly
Front plate
attributes are deployed and evaluated based on the life

4.7
cycle analysis from the raw material, design and manu-

168.47
4.04
facturing, distribution, use, and recycling stages. From
3.7

13
Table 3, material supply (36.59%) and design and manu-
Mounting plate

7.7
facturing (31.74%) are the most important technical attri-
disassembly

butes of LCA for a rotary switch product which are

7.3

accounted for the 68.33%, that influence customer pur-

138.9
3.33

chasing decisions. This indicates that the product devel-

6.3

16

opment team can prioritize all the TAs and tackle the
5.7

problems based on the importance when resources and time

Contact stage
disassembly

are limited. The ranking difference when considering the

5.3

environmental concern is summarized in Table 4.

163.5
3.92
4.3

The results shows that TAs consists of cover plate,

15

mounting plate, front plate, knob shaft, corrugated pack-

8.7

age, contact stage disassembly, and front plate disassembly

215.7 (5.18)
disassembly
Cover plate

should be taken into consideration with highest priorities

8.3

from the view point of environmental concerns. This study

5.18
7.3

enabled the decision makers to make appropriate decision

9

pertaining to the environmental concerns.

7.7
Disassembily

In order to practically validate the effectiveness of

Recycling

7.3

applying fuzzy Eco-QFD, a questionnaire-based validation

20.46%
easily

166.1

has been conducted among the experts of ABC electronics

3.99
6.3

14

limited. The format of the questionnaire being used is

3.1

shown in Fig. 2.
Installation

The responses of the experts are presented in Table 5.

2.7

The overall opinion of experts is quoted as follows:

2.51%
104.6
Easy

2.51
Use

‘‘Fuzzy Eco-QFD is an effective approach which enables

1.7

20

design team of our organization to handle in choosing

0.7

customer requirements and technical attributes based on

Corrugate

environmental concerns and reduce the vagueness and

0.0
package

uncertainty in group decision making process while

134.6
3.23
0.0

developing products’’. Based on the analysis of the

18

response of the experts, it has been found that fuzzy Eco-

2.4
Eco friendly

QFD is an effective tool to integrate environmental con-

Distribue

cerns with quality, cost, and customer requirements to

2.0
package

8.37%
214.0

improve the product design process.

5.14
1.0

10

Impact of fuzzy Eco-QFD in the case organization

(5.33, 6.33, 7.33)

Fuzzy Eco-QFD is a useful tool to integrate environmental

Weight

concerns, quality, cost and customer needs to improve the

product development process. As a result of the fuzzy Eco-
QFD process, changes were made to embed environmental
consciousness at the early stages of rotary switch product
Possible to dispose of at ease

development. An alternative material with high insulation

strength is currently being evaluated for contact stages and
Relative importance

efforts have been taken to minimise the number of parts in

Table 2 continued

LCD percentage

the contact stages and front assembly to obtain weight

Summarization

reduction. The optimization of critical parts has also been

undertaken. The conduct of the study enables the design
team of the case organization to handle the selection of
Rank

customer requirements and technical attributes based on

123
 Table 3 Fuzzy Eco-QFD of rotary switch with environmental considerations
328

Weight Material supply 5.13 Design and manufacturing

Cover Contact Mounting Front Knob Knob Cover plate Contact Front plate Mounting Knob shaft Knob Inspection

123
plate stages plate plate shaft installation stage setup assembly plate setup installation setup

Quiet (5.33, 6.33, 7.33) 44.94 32.28 44.90 25.90 17.70 45.00 26.00 22.16 30.38 57.00 51.30 51.30 07.00
Operates safely (6.67, 7.67, 8.33) 61.21 18.9 68.00 61.23 68.00 49.00 53.70 38.56 61.24 68.00 53.70 61.24 13.60
Operates easily (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 65.69 33.25 65.70 60.28 65.70 41.40 33.25 14.60 41.36 65.70 41.40 57.60 14.60
Comfortable to hold (4.67, 5.67, 6.67) 25.51 14.18 17.57 51.00 46.00 51.00 14.18 17.60 17.60 40.25 45.90 45.90 00.70
Reliable (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 36.50 25.14 65.70 57.60 20.27 25.14 25.14 41.36 33.25 41.36 65.70 65.70 14.60
Portable (3.67, 4.33, 5.33) 31.52 22.64 31.50 18.20 12.43 31.50 18.20 15.54 21.31 40.00 36.00 36.00 04.80
Less material usage (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 65.69 33.25 65.70 60.28 65.70 41.40 33.25 14.60 41.36 65.70 41.40 57.60 14.60
Easy to transport and retain (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 36.50 20.27 25.14 73.00 65.70 73.00 20.27 25.14 25.14 57.60 65.70 65.70 01.08
Easy to process and assemble (8.00, 9.00, 9.00) 63.90 50.00 64.00 37.00 25.20 64.00 37.00 31.50 43.20 81.00 73.00 73.00 09.90
Less energy consumption (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 65.69 33.25 65.70 57.50 65.70 41.40 33.25 14.60 41.36 65.70 41.40 57.60 14.60
High durability (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 31.00 17.22 21.36 62.00 55.80 62.00 17.22 21.36 21.36 48.90 55.81 55.80 00.90
Easy to reuse (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 04.13 04.13 12.40 05.51 12.40 12.40 05.51 05.51 07.60 12.40 07.58 04.10 14.40
Easy to disassemble (8.00, 9.00, 9.00) 22.50 52.20 81.00 73.00 73.00 05.40 01.20 01.20 01.20 22.50 22.5 16.20 01.20
Easy to clean (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 04.13 04.13 12.40 05.51 12.40 12.40 05.51 25.50 07.60 12.40 07.58 04.10 14.40
Easy to sort (4.67, 5.67, 6.67) 03.40 10.20 10.20 28.90 03.40 03.40 03.40 23.24 10.20 23.24 06.24 10.20 14.20
Harmless to living environment (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 20.27 73.00 73.00 65.70 65.70 04.90 01.08 01.08 01.08 20.27 20.27 18.90 01.08
Possible to dispose of at ease (5.33, 6.33, 7.33) 13.80 03.80 11.40 05.51 11.40 11.40 05.06 05.06 06.96 11.49 06.96 03.80 13.30
Summarization 590.5 448.0 735.7 748.1 686.5 574.7 333.2 318.6 412.2 733.5 642.5 684.7 155.0
Relative importance 5.72 4.34 7.12 7.2 6.65 5.56 3.22 3.08 3.99 7.1 6.22 6.63 1.5
Rank 7 11 2 1 4 8 18 19 13 3 6 5 21
LCD percentage 36.59% 31.74%

Weight Distribute Use Recycling

Eco friendly Corrugate Easy Disassembly Cover plate Contact stage Mounting plate Front plate
package package Installation easily disassembly disassembly disassembly disassembly

Quiet (5.33, 6.33, 7.33) 19.62 13.30 02.10 02.10 03.80 13.30 03.80 19.60
Operates safely (6.67, 7.67, 8.33) 31.00 31.00 13.61 13.60 31.00 31.00 13.60 38.56
Operates easily (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 41.40 14.60 04.86 14.60 33.25 25.14 09.00 41.40
Comfortable to hold (4.67, 5.67, 6.67) 51.00 40.20 13.40 29.00 25.50 10.21 06.24 10.21
Reliable (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 14.60 41.40 14.60 14.60 25.14 36.50 31.00 14.60
Portable (3.67, 4.33, 5.33) 13.80 09.30 01.50 02.60 02.60 09.30 02.60 13.80
Less material usage (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 41.40 14.60 04.87 14.60 33.30 25.14 09.00 41.40
Easy to transport and retain (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 73.00 57.60 73.00 41.40 36.50 14.60 09.00 41.40
Easy to process and assemble (8.00, 9.00, 9.00) 27.90 18.90 01.20 03.00 05.40 18.90 05.40 27.90
Less energy consumption (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 41.40 14.60 04.90 14.60 33.25 25.14 19.00 14.60
High durability (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 62.00 48.94 04.10 35.10 31.00 12.40 07.58 12.40
S. Vinodh, G. Rathod
 Table 3 continued
Weight Distribute Use Recycling

Eco friendly Corrugate Easy Disassembly Cover plate Contact stage Mounting plate Front plate
package package Installation easily disassembly disassembly disassembly disassembly

Easy to reuse (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 14.70 00.92 17.23 04.90 56.00 35.14 49.00 31.00
Easy to disassemble (8.00, 9.00, 9.00) 22.50 07.20 36.90 37.00 63.90 36.90 64.00 40.50
Easy to clean (6.00, 7.00, 7.67) 14.70 00.92 17.23 49.00 55.81 35.14 49.00 31.00
Easy to sort (4.67, 5.67, 6.67) 14.20 04.54 23.24 10.20 14.18 10.21 10.21 14.18
Harmless to living environment (7.33, 8.33, 8.67) 33.25 20.30 33.25 20.30 33.25 33.25 33.25 33.25
Possible to dispose of at ease (5.33, 6.33, 7.33) 13.30 01.50 15.83 45.00 51.30 32.30 45.00 28.50
Summarization 529.7 339.7 272.0 395.7 535.2 404.6 356.7 427.5
Relative importance 5.13 3.3 2.63 3.8 5.18 3.91 3.45 4.14
Rank 10 17 20 15 9 14 16 12
LCD percentage 8.43% 2.63% 23.11%
Application of fuzzy logic based-environmental conscious QFD

Table 4 Ranking difference when considering the environmental concern

Material supply Design and manufacturing
Cover Contact Mounting Front Knob Knob Cover plate Contact Mounting Front plate Knob shaft Knob Inspection
plate stages plate plate shaft installation stage setup plate setup assembly installation setup

Fuzzy results Rank W/O EC 8 11 3 2 5 7 17 19 12 1 6 4 21

With EC 7 11 2 1 4 8 13 19 13 3 6 5 21
Difference 1 0 1 1 1 -1 -1 0 -1 -2 0 -1 0
Distribute Use Recycling
Eco Corrugate Easy Disassembly Cover plate Contact Mounting Front
friendly package installation easily disassembly stage plate plate
package disassembly disassembly disassembly

Fuzzy results Rank W/O EC 10 18 20 14 9 15 16 13

With EC 10 17 20 15 9 14 16 12
Difference 0 1 0 -1 0 1 0 1
329

123
330 S. Vinodh, G. Rathod

1. To what extent the concept of fuzzy Eco- QFD is practically understandable by the executives of your organization?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not all possible Partially Possible Completely possible

2. To what extent fuzzy approach to the Eco-QFD aid to a design team in choosing customer requirements and technical attributes based
on environmental concerns?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not all possible Partially Possible Completely possible

3. To what extent fuzzy Eco-QFD reduces the vagueness and uncertainty in group decision making process?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not all possible Partially Possible Completely possible

4. To what extent fuzzy Eco-QFD obtains the optimal balance between environmental acceptability and overall customer satisfaction?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not all possible Partially Possible Completely possible

5. What is your overall opinion about the application of fuzzy Eco-QFD for enabling the development of customer oriented sustainable
products?

2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not all possible Partially Possible Completely possible

Fig. 2 Format of questionnaire

Table 5 Responses of the experts

Serial Number Question Response of the experts in a Likert’s
scale of range 1–10 (1: Not all
possible, 5: Partially possible, 10:
Completely possible)

1 To what extent the concept of fuzzy Eco- QFD is practically 9.0

understandable by the executives of your organization?
2 To what extent fuzzy approach to the Eco-QFD aid to a design team in 9.5
choosing customer requirements and technical attributes based on
environmental concerns?
3 To what extent fuzzy Eco-QFD reduces the vagueness and uncertainty 9.5
in group decision making process?
4 To what extent fuzzy Eco-QFD obtains the optimal balance between 8.0
environmental acceptability and overall customer satisfaction?

123
Application of fuzzy logic based-environmental conscious QFD
environmental concerns. Also, the fuzzy approach aids the
reduction of vagueness and uncertainty in group decision
making process while developing eco friendly products.
Conclusion
This article uses fuzzy Eco-QFD approach to provide a
framework for designing eco-product by introducing LCA
into QFD through all the phases of product development
process. Due to the high degree of subjectivity and
uncertainty in the decision-making process in constructing
the house of quality, the application of fuzzy QFD
approach provides an efficient solution to handle the sub-
jective assessments (Zhang and Chu 2009). Fuzzy Eco-
QFD is a useful tool to integrate not only the environmental
concerns but also quality, cost and customer needs to
improve the product development process (Kuo et al.
2009). By the utilization of fuzzy theory in Eco-QFD, the
vagueness and uncertainty forced in group decision making
processes has been overcome. Several technical attributes
and environmental concerns can be prioritized so that
product design team can concentrate on their limited
resources on critical issues to develop customer-oriented
environmentally friendly products. The study has high
practical relevance as it enabled the development of cus-
tomer oriented sustainable products for the case
organization.
Acknowledgments The work reported in this paper was supported
by Department of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi, India
towards the execution of project titled ‘‘Development of a model for
ensuring sustainable product design in automotive organizations’’
(Ref No.SR/S3/MERC-0102/2009). The financial contribution is
gratefully acknowledged.
References
Amoozgar MH, Alipour K, Sadati SH (2011) A fuzzy logic-based
formation controller for wheeled mobile robots. Ind Robot
38(3):269–281
Azadegan A, Porobic L, Ghazinoory S, Samouei P, Kheirkhah AS
(2011) Fuzzy logic in manufacturing: a review of literature and a
specialized application. Int J Prod Econ 132(2):258–270
Barajas M, Agard B (2008) A ranking procedure for fuzzy decision-
making in product design. In: Proceedings of IDMME—virtual
concept, Beijing, China
Bereketli I, Genevois ME, Ulukan HZ (2009) Green product design
for mobile phones. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 58:213–217
Buyukozkan G, Cifci G (2011) A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision
framework for sustainable supplier selection with incomplete
information. Comput Ind 62(2):164–174
Celik M, Cebi S, Kahraman C, Er Deha I (2009) An integrated fuzzy
QFD model proposal on routing of shipping investment
decisions in crude oil tanker market. Expert Syst Appl
36(3):6227–6235
331
Fargnoli M, Sakao T (2008) Coordinating ecodesign methods in early
stages of industrial product design. Int J Env Conscious Design
Manuf 14(2):35–65
Frei M (1998) Eco-effective product design: the contribution of
environmental management in designing sustainable products.
J Sustain Prod Des 1(7):16–24
French S (1988) Decision theory—an introduction to the mathematics
of rationality. Wiley, New York
Fung RYK, Tang J, Tu Y, Wang D (2002) Product design resources
optimization using a non-linear fuzzy quality function deploy-
ment model. Int J Prod Res 40(3):585–599
Griffin A, Hauser JR (1993) The voice of the customer. Mark Sci
12(1):1–27
Gryna FM (2001) Quality planning and analysis: from product
development through use. McGraw-Hill International Edition,
London
Karsak EE (2004) Fuzzy multiple objective decision making
approach to prioritize design requirements in quality function
deployment. Int J Prod Res 42(18):3957–3974
Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives.
Preference and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York
Kuo TC, Wub HH, Shieh I (2009) Integration of environmental
considerations in quality function deployment by using fuzzy
logic. Expert Syst Appl 36:7148–7156
Li DF (2007) Compromise ratio method for fuzzy multi-attribute
group decision making. Appl Soft Comput 7(3):807–817
Lin YH, Cheng HP, Tseng ML, Tsai JCC (2010) Using QFD and
ANP to analyze the environmental production requirements in
linguistic preferences. Expert Syst Appl 37(3):2186–2196
Liu HT (2009) The extension of fuzzy QFD: from product planning to
part deployment. Expert Syst Appl 36(8):11131–11144
Masui K, Sakao T, Kobayashi M, Inaba A (2003) Applying quality
function deployment to environmentally conscious design. Int J
Qual Reliab Manag 20(1):90–106
Mehdizadeh E (2010) Ranking of customer requirements using the
fuzzy centroid-based method. Int J Qual Reliab Manag
27(2):201–216
Munoz MJ, Rivera JM, Moneva JM (2008) Evaluating sustainability
in organisations with a fuzzy logic approach. Ind Manag Data
Syst 108(6):829–841
Mustajoki J, Hamalainen RP, Salao A (2005) Decision support by
interval SMART/SWING-incorporating impression in the
SMART and SWING methods. Decis Sci 36(2):317–339
Ramanathan R, Yunfeng J (2009) Incorporating cost and environ-
mental factors in quality function deployment using data
envelopment analysis. Omega 37(3):711–723
Ramasamy NR, Selladurai V (2004) Fuzzy logic approach to
prioritize engineering characteristics in quality function deploy-
ment (FL-QFD). Int J Prod Res 21(9):1012–1023
Rao RV (2008) Evaluation of environmentally conscious manufac-
turing programs using multiple attribute decision-making meth-
ods. J Eng Manuf 222(3):441–451
Utne IB (2009) Improving the environmental performance of the
fishing fleet by use of quality function deployment (QFD).
J Clean Prod 17(1):724–731
Vanegas LV, Labib AW (2001) A fuzzy quality function deployment
(FQFD) model for deriving optimum targets. Int J Prod Res
39(1):99–120
Vinodh S, Chintha SK (2011a) Leanness assessment using multi-
grade fuzzy approach. Int J Prod Res 49(2):431–445
Vinodh S, Chintha SK (2011b) Application of fuzzy QFD for
enabling agility in a manufacturing organization: a case study.
TQM J 23(3):343–357
Vinodh S, Rathod G (2010) Integration of ECQFD and LCA for
sustainable product design. J Clean Prod 18(8):833–842
123
332 S. Vinodh, G. Rathod

Wang SY (2010) Constructing the complete linguistic-based and gap- Zhang Z, Chu X (2009) Fuzzy group decision-making for multi-
oriented quality function deployment. Expert Syst Appl format and multi-granularity linguistic judgments in quality
37(2):908–912 function deployment. Expert Syst Appl 36(5):9150–9158
Zadeh LA (1965) Introduction and control. Fuzzy Set 8:338–353

123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.