The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

Optimizing
Optimizing supply chain supply chain
management using fuzzy management
approach
737
N. Gunasekaran
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kumaraguru College of Technology, Received July 2005
Coimbatore, India Revised January 2006
Accepted February 2006
S. Rathesh
Industrial Engineer, Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd, Mumbai, India
S. Arunachalam
School of Computing and Technology, University of East London,
Dagenham, UK, and
S.C.L. Koh
Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making procedure
and it is applied to find a set of optimal solution with respect to the performance of each supplier. This
method with the use of Monte Carlo simulation produces overall desirability level less imprecise and
more realistic than those of the conventional QFD methods for engineering design evaluation.
Design/methodology/approach – A few responses obtained from customers are simulated using a
triangular fuzzy QFD algorithm, Monte Carlo simulation and a multi-objective model to optimise the
total user preferences.
Findings – The proposed approach provides decision-making with an optimal solution less
imprecise in a QFD-based collaborative product design environment.
Research limitations/implications – The proposed approach depends on the few responses and
the random numbers derived from simulation. The random numbers need to be used after passing
them through random number testing methods. The responses obtained from the customer are
considered to be genuine and original.
Originality/value – The triangular fuzzy, Monte Carlo simulation and multi-objective optimisation
are embedded into QFD environment to make the decisions less imprecise than that of conventional
QFD and it is tested for a case study problem. It definitely helps the managers in a collaborative
product design environment.
Keywords Supply chain management, Fuzzy logic, Quality function deployment,
Monte Carlo simulation, Decision making
Paper type Research paper

Introduction Journal of Manufacturing Technology

In today’s competitive marketplace, companies have to develop products that satisfy Management
Vol. 17 No. 6, 2006
customer needs to become or remain successful (Appelqvist et al., 2004). Design is a pp. 737-749
main concern in modern manufacturing companies. However, not only carrying out q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-038X
design will make manufacturing companies be profitable and competitive, they need to DOI 10.1108/17410380610678774
JMTM improve the effectiveness of the design activity. As the inputs of engineering design
17,6 evaluation are characterized by imprecise or vague requirements, they have to be
represented and managed properly. For considering the above factors at the design
stage, quality function deployment (QFD) tool will be employed to enhance the
decision-making (Vanegas and Labib, 2001a).
This paper considers the QFD planning as multi-criteria decision problem and
738 proposes a fuzzy-based approach. The methodology proposed has overall desirability
level less imprecise and more realize than those of the conventional methods.
The proposed methodology incorporates a two-stage process. In the first stage, the
customer’s requirement will be compared with different design requirements, with
the help of fuzzified quality function deployment (FQFD). In the second stage, design
requirements were prioritized by grey-based relation algorithm. The proposed
methodology of grey relation algorithm on FQFD, by using Monte Carlo simulation
(MCS) on fuzzy membership function helps in optimizing engineering design and also
in multi-criteria decision-making.

Quality function deployment

The QFD is employed to determine the target values of engineering characteristics
(ECs) which are translated from voice of the customer (Vanegas and Labib, 2001b).
Customer requirements and their degree of importance are represented on the left side
of the house of quality (HoQ). The technical design characteristics are reported on the
top of HoQ. The matrix in the main body of the HoQ identifies the relationship matrix,
which highlights the mutual influence between customer requirements and product
engineering/design characteristics. The “roof” part of HoQ shows the correlation
among technical characteristics (Franceschini and Rosseto, 2002). The right side of
HoQ reports a competitive benchmarking on each customer attribute for competitor’s
product. Target levels of ECs are determined by all information contained in the HoQ.
Despite its apparent easiness, if information contained in the HoQ is not sufficiently
“accurate” QFD can become a “misleading” tool. Its correct and effective use needs a
careful design analysis and an accurate data collection (Vanegas and Labib, 2001a).
After customer identification, the first step of the QFD process is the setting up of
procedures for gathering information by customers. The second step concerns data
management and elaboration. Typical examples of these activities are the definition of
customer requirements and evaluation of their relative degree of importance. Methods
for determining the importance rating of technical characteristics are dependent on the
representation of the symbols contained in the relationship matrix. If symbols are
converted in a 1-3-9 numerical scale, we may use the simple weighted sum method.
Such procedures can become arbitrary in those situations in which the customer is not
able to give a significant evaluation of his requirements and his preference system is
not explicitly known.
The extreme consequence of the use of inadequate conversion can lead to a setting
up of a design of a product for an “ideal” customer, which is different from the real one.
The soft issues are that we do not know the “distance” between the tow designs. With
specific reference to QFD, the introduction of weights to assign a relative degree of
importance to customer requirements can lead to a prioritization order of technical
characteristics, which does not reflect customers’ real intentions (Franceschini and
Rosseto, 2002).
The ranking of technical design requirements Optimizing
The QFD approach provides two steps for the ranking of technical design supply chain
characteristics. The first one concerns the artificial conversion of the relationship
between customer requirements and design characteristics into numerical equivalent management
values (Franceschini and Rosseto, 2002). A special score is obtained by substituting
nine points for a strong relation (symbol ;), three points for a moderate relationship
(symbol †), and one point for a week relationship (symbol D). Numerical values so 739
obtained represent the new coefficients of the relationship matrix R as shown in
Figure 1.
The second step provides the determination of relative weights (RWs) w0j of
technical design characteristics:

X
K
w0j ¼ di · r ij ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n: ð1Þ
i¼1

where: di ¼ degree of importance of the customer requirements i-th, i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m;

rij ¼ numerical relationship between the customer requirements i-th and technical
design characteristics j-th; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; w0j ¼ importance rating for
the technical design characteristics j-th; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; m ¼ number of customer
requirements; n ¼ number of technical design characteristics.
Relative importance weights are obtained as follows:

w0j
wj ¼ ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n: ð2Þ
X
n
0
wj
j¼1
Mask Operation welding

Total Absolute weight

Degree of importance

Electron Gun Sealing

CRT Design Process

Fluorescent Paint

Electron Tube
Black Matrix

Monitor Users
Requirement

Brightness 9
Linearity 3
Focus 9
Figure 1.
White Balance 1 The HoQ for CRT example
Convergence 3 using traditional QFD
Absolute weight 111 87 27 135 144 504 approach
Relative weight (%) 22 17.3 5.36 26.8 28.6
JMTM Weights so determined represent the importance that the customer indirectly describes
17,6 to each design characteristics. They can be interpreted as the degree of “attention” that
a designer must reserve to each single technical characteristic during the product
development process. The determination of weights by means of equation (1) needs the
knowledge of the degree of importance of each customer requirements (dj), and the
conversion of symbols contained in the relationship matrix into “equivalent” numerical
740 scores (rij). The shaded region shown in Figure 1 is the prioritized HoQ for technical
characteristics and customer needs for the example listed above.

Fuzzy QFD (FQFD)

An important feature in QFD is that human input is used to determine both the
importance of each performance aspects and the relationship scores. Traditional QFD
requires humans to translate their perceptions into numerical scales (Vanegas and
Labib, 2001b). For example, the human is asked to denote if a relationship is low, high
or very high and their answer is translated to a scale like 1-3-5, 1-3-9 or 1-5-9. Atleast
two problems with this approach potentially degrade the value of a traditional QFD
study. The first problem is that not everyone has the same perception of a particular
linguistic description. For example, response of “high” from several different people
does not typically mean the same thing, yet they are assigned the same score
in traditional QFD. The fact is that perception of moderate to one person is equivalent
to strong in the mind of another. Failing to capture this ambiguity can create a bias in
the QFD result. The second problem is that the choice of scales can dramatically
influence the outcome. The fuzzy QFD approach proposed in this paper is to determine
the optimal levels of requirements to satisfy each customer. Fundamentally, fuzzy
arithmetic (Jain et al., 2004; Lowen, 1996) is applied to the linguistic expression to
describe the importance of each performance aspect, in order to construct a
quantitative measure of these responses that combines the inherent ambiguity of
linguistic statements.
Fuzzy QFD begins with human input from a number of experts using one of a finite
number of linguistic variables (LV), LVk, k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; k: For example, suppose the
experts are used to characterize the relationship between a particular technical
characteristics and customer needs as strong, moderate, and weak. These are assigned
the notation LV1 ¼ strong (S), LV2 ¼ moderate (M), LV3 ¼ weak (W). Each of these
descriptors is treated as a fuzzy set, bounded to a predetermined interval, and
characterized for this example in the interval [1,9]. Figure 2 shows one set of
assignments that can be made.

µ Ã (x) Weak Moderate Strong

1.0

0.5
Figure 2.
Membership functions for
LV 0
1 3 9 x
A membership function of a fuzzy set A ~ relates the possible quantitative values; the Optimizing
linguistic response may take a probability for each value selected. For example, if
x; a; b; c [ R; a , b , c, and R ¼ (2 1 1), the membership function, mAðxÞ; ~ is
supply chain
defined as (Lowen, 1996): management
8
>
> ðx 2 aÞ=ðb 2 aÞ; a # x # b;
<
~
mAðxÞ ¼ ðc 2 xÞ=ðc 2 aÞ; b # x # c; ð3Þ 741
>
>
: 0; otherwise:

Fuzzy QFD using MCS and appropriate membership function is used to quantify each
response and then the responses from all experts are averaged to provide the final value
of the measure (Abebe et al., 2000). To illustrate, consider the membership function
shown in Figure 2 that are mathematically defined in Table I. Now suppose M experts
provide their opinion on the relationship between customer needs i and technical
characteristics j using one of the k LV provided. The relationship score is calculated by:
X
M 

MCS triang LVm
k
m¼1
S ij ¼ ; i and j; ð4Þ
M
where MCS½triangðLVm k Þ
is the MCS value for the appropriate membership function of
the linguistic variable LVk that was chosen by expert m. The same process is repeated
for each customer needs – technical characteristics to generate the entire set of
relationship scores. The importance of each performance aspect is computed similarly.

Grey-based fuzzified QFD

The grey relationship grade represents the degree of relation between the reference
sequence say xo, and the comparison sequence say xi. The higher degree of relation
means the comparison sequence is more similar to the reference sequence than for
other comparison sequences. This measurement can be easily applied to measure the
similarity between data.
By using the equation (4), relationship score for each technical characteristics and
customer needs can be calculated. After calculating relationship score (Sij), the relationship
between each relationship score value for each customer response can be measured by
using grey relation formula. This will give out less imprecise value compared to other
methods, the value obtained is used further to calculate the degree of importance:
Dmin þ zDmax
Gðxo ; xi Þ ¼ ; ð5Þ
Doi þ zDmax

Fuzzy set Membership function Domain Triangular (min, mode, max)

Strong U(x) ¼ (x 2 9)/(9 2 3) 3#x#9 3, 9, 9

Moderate U(x) ¼ (x 2 1)/(3 2 1) 1#x#3 1, 3, 9 Table I.
U(x) ¼ (9 2 x)/(9 2 3) 3#x#9 Fuzzy set and
Weak U(x) ¼ (3 2 x)/(3 2 1) 1#x#3 1, 1, 3 membership functions
JMTM where z [ [0,1] is the distinguished coefficient and Doi, Dmax and Dmin are, respectively,
described as:
17,6
Doi ¼ jxo 2 xi j ð6Þ

Dmax ¼ maxjxo 2 xi j ð7Þ

742 Dmin ¼ minjxo 2 xi j ð8Þ

Method of total preferences

The method of total preference performs its function by using the RW, RW’s with
additional human expert’s opinion to develop a single measure that reflects the ability
of each alternative to satisfy the performance aspect, this is defined as the total user
preference (TUP) for alternative n, TUPn, and is computed as:

X
J
TUPn ¼ RWj WAnj ; n; ð9Þ
j¼1

where RWj is the relative technical importance rating of technical requirements j

(WAnj) the degree to which alternative n can deliver technical requirements j. Before
computing the TUPs the degree to which alternative n can deliver requirements j,
WAnj must be determined. The proposed methodology determines the WAs for input
provided by the decision maker using fuzzy QFD:

X
M

MCS LVm
k
WAnj ¼ m¼1 ; n and j: ð10Þ
M
Finally, the normalized TUP for alternative n (NTUPn), is calculated by:
TUPn
NTUPn ¼ ; every n; ð11Þ
X
N
TUPn
n¼1

A summary of these calculations for a prototype problem is illustrated in Table II.

Multi-objective model
The final stage of the proposed methodology is the multi-objective model. Clearly, no
single model is capable of being applicable to all situations rather a model must be
built that represents the situation. In the following, two objectives are considered that
we assume conflict, namely, maximizing customer value as measured by user
satisfaction and minimizing cost. The objective functions shall be formulated as
follows:
P
(1) Minimize TC ¼ ni¼1 TCi X i
P
(2) Maximize TUS ¼ ni¼1 NTUPi X i
 Optimizing
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 ... Alternative N
supply chain
Req. 1 RW1* WA11 RW1* WA21 RW1* WA31 ... RW1* WAN1 management
Req.
.. 2 RW
.. 2* WA12 RW
.. 2* WA22 ..RW2* WA32 .. . . RW
.. 2* WAN2
. . . . .. .
Req. j RWj* WA1j RWj* WA2j RWj* WA3j ... RWj* WANj
X n X n Xn X n
743
TUPn RWj *WA1j RWj *WA2j RWj *WA3j ... RWj *WAij
i¼1 X n i¼1 X n i¼1 X n i¼1 X n
NTUPn TUP1 = TUPn TUP2 = TUPn TUP3 = TUPn ... TUPN = TUPn Table II.
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1 i¼1 Total user preferences

where TUS is the total user satisfaction, TC the total cost, TUPn the TUPs for vendor n,
TCn the total cost of vendor n and:
(
1 if vendor n is selected;
Xn ¼
0 otherwise:

To resolve this problem, a strategy that parallels preemptive goal programming is

employed. A sub-problem is formed and solved with the highest priority objective as
the sole objective and a constraint is added to maintain the secondary objective at a
predetermined threshold level specified by the user. The first sub-problem solved as:
X
n
max TUS ¼ NTUPi X i
i¼1

X
n
such that TCi X i # TCmaximum ; X [ S; X n [ ð0; 1Þ for every n;
i¼1

where TCmaximum is the maximum threshold value of TC, S the feasible region.
A solution to this problem yields the maximum value of TUS for the threshold value
of TC. A second sub-problem is now formulated and solved in which TUSminimum is
used as the threshold value of TUS and TC is minimized. The most obvious initial
value of TUSminimum is the optimal value formed by solving the first sub-problem:
X
n
Min TC ¼ TCi X i
i¼1

X
n
such that NTUPi X i $ TUSminimum ; X [ S; X n [ ð0; 1Þ for every n;
i¼1

The resulting solution represents the best choice for the decision-maker. The model is
actually used as a quantitative tool to support this complex decision-making process
rather than providing the solution. To facilitate this, the second sub-problem is
repeatedly solved as the threshold value for the primary objective is incrementally
relaxed. In the above example alternative solutions would be generated by repeatedly
JMTM solving second sub-problem as the value of TUSminimum is decreased. The decision
maker is then presented a series of compromise solutions from which he or she can
17,6 proceed to impose other decision criteria.

An illustrative example
Let us consider the simple case of a design of cathode ray tube (CRT) with supply chain
744 network. The authors have made an attempt to determine the technical design
characteristics prioritization form the customer point of view. Figure 3 shows the
supply chain network with reliability as one major factor. Figures 4 and 5 show
the HoQ for the CRT product. It represents, the degree of importance is based on the
number of responses from customers as shown in Table III.

Importance of the performance aspect

Using the information from Table III, the importance of each performance aspect is
computed as:

Customers Reliability Requirement & Claim

Electron CRT TV End

gun Glass Mfg. Set User
vendor Mfg

Figure 3.
Reliability consideration
in SCM
Internal Reliability Assurance Testing

CRT Design Process

Mask Operation welding

Total Absolute weight

Degree of importance

Electron Gun Sealing

Fluorescent Paint

Electron Tube
Black Matrix

Monitor Users
Requirement
Brightness 6.66 5.67 2 53.99
Linearity 3.99 2 3.98 5
Figure 4. Focus 6.34 4.68 4.33 3.01 6.99
The HoQ for CRT example White Balance 1.66 4.33
using fuzzy QFD approach Convergence 4.07 1.93 4.35 6.67 3.01
(stage-I) Absolute weight 75.4 42.5 46.9 79.5 103 347.4
Relative weight (%) 21.7 12.2 13.5 22.9 29.7
 n h  io
dbrightness ¼ 3 MCS triang LVm ; Optimizing
strong
supply chain


MCS triang LVm
moderatek ¼ 7:007; 6:986; 7:003; 4:314 management

The value of 7.007, 6.986, and 7.003 are obtained from MCS using triangular
distribution for “Strong” shown in Figure 2 while 4.314 is the value from the
745
distribution for “Moderate”.

Grey-based algorithm for finding degree of importance

Using equation (5) the degree of importance for each performance aspect are
calculated as:

0:004 þ 0:3ð2:693Þ
Gð7:007; xi Þ ¼ ¼ 0:9794;
0:021 þ 0:3ð2:693Þ

Similarly grey relation is found for all pairs of importance of the performance aspect,
and the pair’s having highest relation are taken for averaging as show below:

Aging Test
Total Absolute weight
Degree of importance

STEM - C
SHORT

PIN - C
COEK

MIX

CRT Design Process

Mask Operation welding 4.33 6.67 1.66 4.35
Black Matrix 4.31 2 4.33 7
Fluorescent Paint 6.33 3 5.66 3 4.99 Figure 5.
Electron Gun Sealing 2 3.99 7.01 The HoQ for CRT design
Electron Tube 6.98 7.01 4.01 5.67 3 – aging test using fuzzy
Absolute weight 105 7.98 96.5 65.8 102 377.2 QFD approach (stage-II)
Relative weight (%) 27.9 2.12 25.6 17.4 26.9

Monitor users Req. Number of responses

Brightness 3 strong, 1 moderate

Linearity 3 moderate, 1 weak
Focus 3 strong, 1 weak
White balance 4 weak Table III.
Convergence 2 moderate, 1 weak, 1 strong Number of responses
JMTM Gbrightness ¼
½ð7:007 þ 7:003Þ þ ð6:986 þ 7:003Þ þ ð7:003 þ 7:007Þ þ ð4:314 þ 6:986Þ

17,6 8
¼ 6:66:

746 Relationship scores

Based on the customers opinion for the relationship between each customer needs and
technical characteristics. The relationship scores are calculated, suppose two members
think that relationship between Brightness to Mask operation and welding as “Strong”
and remaining two members thinks as “Moderate”. Then Sbrightness – Mask operation and
welding is calculates as:

S brightness Mask operation and welding

X
2 
 X2 h  i
MCS triang LVm
moderate þ MCS triang LVm
strong
¼ m¼1 m¼1
4
¼ 5:67:
The final transformation matrix and degree of importance are shown in Figures 4 and 5.

The method of total preferences

Before computing the TUPs from equation (9), the WAs must be determined using
FQFD for each requirement – vendor pair.
For, e.g. WAMask operation and welding2V 1 ¼ 4:307:
Hence,
TUPMask operation and welding2V 1 ¼ RWMask operation and welding £ WAMask operation and welding2V 1

¼ 0:217 £ 4:307 ¼ 0:935:

The values of TUP for each vendor are in Table IV.

Vendors
Criterion V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6

Mask operation and welding 0.935 0.935 1.532 0.927 0.942 0.938
Black matrix 0.528 0.854 0.525 0.855 0.531 0.854
Fluorescent paint 0.225 0.225 0.584 0.225 0.225 0.225
Electron gun sealing 1.604 1.613 1.616 1.605 1.606 1.606
Electron tube 2.091 1.285 2.081 0.495 1.282 2.082
COCK 1.216 1.207 0.461 1.206 1.215 0.466
SHORT 0.035 0.035 0.092 0.035 0.035 0.092
MIK 1.807 1.792 1.106 1.113 1.796 1.794
PIN – C 0.758 0.291 0.755 1.217 0.755 0.752
STEM – C 1.895 1.167 1.883 1.889 1.883 0.448
Table IV. Total user preferences 11.09 9.404 10.64 9.567 10.27 9.257
NTUPs and TUPs value Normalized TUP 0.184 0.156 0.177 0.159 0.171 0.154
Multi-objective modeling Optimizing
For this example, it is assumed that the costs of the product by alternative vendors, as
per the details in Table V.
supply chain
The team decides that NTUPs is the highest priority objective and TC is the management
secondary objective; however, TC must not exceed Rs. 5,000. Since, the NTUP is the
primary objective, the first sub-problem is:
747
X
6
Max TUS ¼ NTUPi X i
i¼1

X
6
Such that TCi X i # 5; 000; X [ S; X n [ ð0; 1Þ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; 6
i¼1

The optimal solution to this problems is TUS * ¼ 0.184 for X * ¼ vendor 1. The TC for
vendor 1 is Rs. 4,500. Solving the second sub-problem, minimize TC while keeping
TUs . 0.184 yields vendor 1 as optimal, so the minimum value of TUS is now
relaxed. The first level considered is TUSminimum ¼ 0.154, so the problem becomes:
X
6
Min TC ¼ TCi X i
i¼1

X
6
Such that NTUPi X i $ 0:154; X [ S; X n [ ð0; 1Þ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; 6:
i¼1

The optimal solution for this problem is TC * ¼ Rs. 2,150, X * ¼ vendor 3 and the
associated TUS ¼ 0.177. By further relaxing the TUSminimum, alternative solutions are
generated, some of which are illustrated in Table VI. The NTUP and TC decide the
vendor to be selected. Even though, the vendor 6 quotes less cost, the NTUP is
significantly less. And hence, the proposed methodology provides support in
decision-making for selecting his vendor.

Conclusion
To systemize the engineering design process, reduce cost and leading time, many
methods are emerging now a day, which are different from the conventional one.

Vendor 1 Rs. 4,500.00 Vendor 2 Rs. 6,700.00 Table V.

Vendor 3 Rs. 2,150.00 Vendor 4 Rs. 5,350.00 Cost of each vendor’s
Vendor 5 Rs. 3,750.00 Vendor 6 Rs. 2,650.00 software

NTUP TC Selected vendor

0.184 Rs. 4,500.00 Vendor 1 Table VI.

0.177 Rs. 2,150.00 Vendor 3 Alternative solution to
0.154 Rs. 2,650.00 Vendor 6 illustrative example
JMTM Fuzziification in the evaluation of design stage, is becoming a necessary element in the
17,6 engineering design process, as most of the information managed such as importance of
customer requirement and prioritized technical characteristics which make it clear that
fuzzy numbers are more appropriate than subjective crisp numbers. The methodology
described in this paper is a quantitative tool designed to assist decision makers, when
they are faced with a problem that requires selecting from a finite number of
748 alternatives, contain multiple objectives that conflict. And also it helps to know the
important functionalities for “cathode ray tube” which involves data that is both
tangible like cost and intangible like LV. This methodology enhances the
decision-making in a collaborative product design environment. The use of fuzzy
QFD also brings a sense of total user focus to the process. Further with the output
including a set of solution along with the degree of compromise associated with each
relative to the different objective, the team is encouraged to address priority in
quantitative fashion. Finally, the methodology will assist in pinpointing those areas of
concern where the team involvement and the use of specified tools are most needed.

Implications and future research

The outcome of this approach depends on the few responses received from customers
and simulation based on random numbers. Hence, it should be applied where there is a
need. The random numbers could be tested and used to avoid any unforeseen situation
with regard to the random numbers. Few more real life case studies could be conducted
to ensure the readiness of this approach for any other problem.

References
Abebe, A.J., Guinot, V. and Solomatine, D.P. (2000), “Fuzzy alpha-cut vs Monte Carlo techniques
in assessing uncertainty in model parameters”, Proc. of 4-th International Conference on
Hydroinfomatics, Iowa City.
Appelqvist, P., Lehtonen, J.M. and Kokkonen, J. (2004), “Modelling in product and supply chain
design: literature survey and case study”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 675-86.
Franceschini, F. and Rosseto, S. (2002), “QFD: an interactive algorithm for the prioritization of
product’s technical design characteristics”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13,
pp. 69-75.
Jain, V., Tiwari, M.K. and Chan, F.T.S. (2004), “Evaluation of the supplier performance using an
evolutionary fuzzy-based approach”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 735-44.
Lowen, R. (1996), Fuzzy Set Theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.
Vanegas, L.V. and Labib, A.W. (2001a), “Application of new fuzzy-weighted average (NFWA)
method to engineering design evaluation”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 39, pp. 1147-62.
Vanegas, L.V. and Labib, A.W. (2001b), “A fuzzy quality function deployment (FQFD) model for
deriving optimum targets”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 39,
pp. 99-120.

Further reading
Bojadziev, G. and Bojadziev, B. (1997), Fuzzy Logic for Business, Finance and Management,
World Scientific Publication, Singapore.
Erol, I. and Ferrel, W.G. Jr (2003), “A methodology for selection problems with multiple Optimizing
conflicting objectives and both qualitative and quantitative criteria”, International journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 86, pp. 187-99. supply chain
Khoo, L.P. and Ho, N.C. (1996), “Framework of a fuzzy quality function deployment system”, management
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 299-311.
Kumar, R. and Midha, P.S. (2001), “A QFD based methodology for evaluating a company PDM
requirements for collaborative product development”, Industrial Management & Data 749
Systems, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 126-31.
Ohdar, R. and Ray, P.K. (2004), “Performance measurement and evaluation of suppliers in supply
chain: an evolutionary fuzzy-based approach”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 723-34.
Power, D. (2005), “Implementation and use of B2B-enabling technologies: five manufacturing
cases”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 554-72.
Ross, T.J. (1995), Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications, McGraw-Hill International Edition,
Singapore.
Wang, J. (1999), “Fuzzy out ranking approach to prioritize design requirements in quality
function deployment”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 899-916.
Weber, C., Werner, H. and Deubel, T. (2003), “A different view on product data
management/product life-cycle management and its future potentials”, Journal of
Engineering Design, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 447-64.

Corresponding author
N. Gunasekaran can be contacted at: guna_kct_cbe_tn_in@yahoo.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints