Journal of Engineering Design

ISSN: 0954-4828 (Print) 1466-1837 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjen20

A review on decision-making methods in

engineering design for the automotive industry

Cristina Renzi, Francesco Leali & Luca Di Angelo

To cite this article: Cristina Renzi, Francesco Leali & Luca Di Angelo (2017): A review on
decision-making methods in engineering design for the automotive industry, Journal of
Engineering Design, DOI: 10.1080/09544828.2016.1274720

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1274720

Published online: 09 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjen20

Download by: [University of South Carolina ] Date: 09 January 2017, At: 10:51
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1274720

A review on decision-making methods in engineering design

for the automotive industry
Cristina Renzi a , Francesco Lealib and Luca Di Angeloc
a InterMech-MO.RE., Interdepartmental Research Centre for Applied Research and Services in the Advanced
Mechanics and Motor Sector, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; b Department of
Engineering ‘Enzo Ferrari’, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; c Department of Industrial
and Information Engineering, and of Economics, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Decision-making methods have proven to be an effective support to Received 3 December 2015
engineering design. However, it is proved that very often designers Accepted 16 December 2016
prefer tested procedures and experience-based approaches. Many KEYWORDS
reasons have been discussed in the literature, dealing with consol- Decision-making methods;
idated design habits of people and companies, high cost in terms engineering design;
of time consumption, and lack of tools and knowledge. The paper industrial design; automotive
systematically investigates, through an extended critical review, how industry; product
decision-making methods can be used by automotive designers to development
solve the most common engineering problems involved along the
design process. In particular, the paper proposes an original classi-
fication of the most widely used decision-making methods in engi-
neering design, a match between such techniques with the typical
design phases, and a mapping of their application into the auto-
motive field. This research can be considered as a further step to
transfer the state-of-the-art knowledge on decision- making meth-
ods to the industrial context, establishing a common background for
practitioners and researchers.

Abbreviations

Name Acronym
Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP
Analytic Network Process ANP
Axiomatic Design AD
Bayesian Belief Network BBN
Conjoint analysis CA
Decision-making Problem-Solving Methods DPS
ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité ELECTRE
Goal Programming GP
Method of Imprecision MoI

CONTACT Cristina Renzi cristina.renzi@unimore.it InterMech-MO.RE., Interdepartmental Research Centre for

Applied Research and Services in the Advanced Mechanics and Motor Sector, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, via
Vivarelli 10, Modena, Italy

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 C. RENZI ET AL.

Multi-Attribute Decision-Making MADM

Multi-Attribute Utility Theory MAUT
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making MCDM
Multi-Objective Decision-Making MODM
Preference Ranking Organisation METHod for PROMETHEE
Enrichment Evaluations
Problem Structuring Methods PSM
Pugh’s Controlled Convergence PuCC
Quality Function Deployment QFD
Soft Systems Methodology SSM
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution TOPSIS
Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch TRIZ
(Theory of Inventive Problem-Solving)
VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje VIKOR
(Multi-criteria Optimisation and Compromise Solution)

1. Introduction
A decision generally implies the selection of a proposal, aiming at recognising the one that
best fits with goals, objectives, desires, and values. Decision-making methods study how to
identify and choose alternatives (Harris 1998).

1.1. Background
Engineering design can be conceived as a complex process made of a series of decisions (i.e.
‘either–or’) and compromises (a trade-off) (Rajan 1996; Allen and Mistree 1997). The existing
related literature proved that decision-making methods could be very useful in engineering
design (Krishnamurty 2006; Chen, Hoyle, and Wassenaar 2013). Conversely, investigations
demonstrate that designers are seldom motivated to use decision-making methods in their
daily routine and prefer tested procedures and experience-based approaches (Earl, John-
son, and Eckert 2005). This aspect is particularly critical in the automotive industry in which
numerous high-quality parts, intended for mass production, must be designed in a short
time. One of the main reasons is that most decision-making methods have to be adapted
to fit specific design problems. Designers have to tackle a huge amount of literature ref-
erences in order to find, by analogy, the technique that best fits their needs. Moreover,
knowledge transfer to the industrial context often requires a deep transformation of com-
panies’ practices and habits (Reich 2010), with high cost in terms of time consumption,
knowledge required, human resources, and technologies involved in their implementation
(Jetter 2006).

1.2. Motivation
Based on the personal experience of the authors with regard to their approach to the
automotive industry, a further problem consists in the reluctance to introduce new tech-
niques and approaches in the industry standards, particularly without a clear overview
of the actual impact of such techniques on the final product success rate. On the other
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 3

hand, researchers who approach design issues should be aware that teaching design
methods to practitioners is a challenging task as it is not a mere transfer of simple facts
(Jänsch et al. 2003). Conversely, efforts must be addressed to embed methods into design-
ers’ memories. Although different literature reviews focus on decision-making methods
related to industrial case studies within the engineering design field, several decision-
making methods remain largely unexplored in the industry (Franssen 2005). Moreover,
the boundaries between design theory and scientific methods do not appear to be accu-
rately defined yet (Reich 2013). With this purpose, the present review aims at providing a
common background for designers, focused on the selection of decision-making methods
for automotive industry design problems. To do this, the paper, firstly, proposes a clas-
sification of the most commonly used decision-making methods in engineering design;
then it matches the design techniques to typical design problems for every step of a
systematic engineering design process; finally, it maps applications into the automotive
industry.

1.3. Structure
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the method followed throughout the
review process. It defines the engineering design scenario of the investigation, groups and
classifies the most commonly used decision-making methods into the design process, and
clarifies the initial terms for the search for references in the literature. Section 3 presents
the results obtained, with a special focus on the automotive field of application. Results are
discussed in Section 4. Conclusions drawn in Section 5 close the paper.

2. The review method

Due to their great interest to academics and practitioners, many efforts have been devoted
to surveys of decision-making methods and applications (Krishnamurty 2006; Lewis, Chen,
and Schmidt 2006; Montagna 2011). In more recent review papers concerning decision-
making in engineering design (as in Zavadskas, Turskis, and Kildienė (2014) and later in
Mardani, Jusoh, and Zavadkas (2015) and in Mardani et al. (2016)), it is evident that few
review papers relating to the applications of decision-making methods in the field of indus-
trial engineering are published. In particular, these two latter references consider specific
categories of decision-making methods and the results are reported in terms of percent-
age of papers depending on the type of study, year of publication, the method or methods
used, the name of the journals, and the authors’ nationality.
An interesting exception is the survey by Mardani et al. (2015) in which the analysed
papers are summarised in terms of their application area and scope, study purpose, gap
and research problem, results, and outcome. However, also in this case every summary
consideration is left to the reader.
In any case, to the authors’ knowledge, no paper surveys specifically the decision-making
methods in the automotive field with some indication of the methods used at the different
design stages. With this purpose a review method, whose flow chart is depicted in Figure 1,
is proposed. The study has been performed in three steps:
4 C. RENZI ET AL.

Figure 1. The flow chart of the proposed method.

(1) state of the art and classification of the decision-making methods;

(2) engineering design keywords classification;
(3) identification of automotive applications with related decision-making methods.

2.1. State of the art and classification of the decision-making methods

A first horizontal literature research has been carried out, trying to keep the search field as
extensive as possible. With this aim, the occurrence of decision-making methods in indus-
trial design applications has been analysed on the Scopus database, including both journal
articles and conference proceedings. More than five hundred papers have been collected,
ordered, and analysed.
From the authors’ viewpoint, according to the nature of the decisional problem pro-
posed (multiple criteria decisional problems, unstructured/ill-posed problems, and struc-
tured problems), decision-making methods proposed in the literature for solving engineer-
ing design problems involve three main groups: Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM)
methods (Belton and Stewart 2002), Problem Structuring Methods (PSMs) (Rosenhead and
Mingers 2001), and Decision-making Problem-Solving (DPS) methods.
The MCDM methods are grouped into two additional sub-areas: Multi-Attribute (MADM)
and Multi-Objective (MODM) decision-making methods (Belton and Stewart 2002). The for-
mer deals with a finite number of alternatives and a discrete solution space, while the
latter searches within an infinite (and unknown) set of solutions in a continuous space.
Among MADM are the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) and the Outranking approaches
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 5

such as the ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (ELECTRE), the Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP), the Analytic Network Process (ANP), the Preference Ranking Organisation METHod for
Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE), and the VIKOR method. Goal Programming (GP) and
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) belong to the MODM
techniques.
The PSM focus on the solution of decision problems that deal with ill-posed problems
and uncertain contexts (Rosenhead 1989; Rosenhead and Mingers 2001). Belton and Stew-
art (2002) define the problem structuring process as one of ‘making sense of an issue’ and
identifying the problem structuring as an integrated part of the process of MCDM. The only
method used in the industrial design applications gathered under the PSM group is the Soft
systems methodology (SSM).
The DPS methods have been defined in this paper as a group of decision-making methods
addressing engineering design problems, related to the early design stages. They are the
Quality Function Deployment (QFD), the Axiomatic Design (AD) method (Suh 1998), the TRIZ
method (Altshuller 1999), and Pugh’s Controlled Convergence (PuCC) (Pugh 1981). Even if the
structure and behaviour of these techniques differ from one another, a common focus on
problem-solving gives us the opportunity to gather them in the same set. A further clas-
sification can group the above-mentioned methods into three classes, according to the
function performed by each method. As a general guideline:

• QFD and AD aim at transforming customer requirements (CRs) into product specifica-
tions;
• TRIZ is used either as a problem-solving method or for generating design alternatives;
• PuCC is used for the generation and selection of design alternatives.

Table 1 presents the keywords derived by the analysis of the proposed classification and
a short description of each method.
Other methods, such as the MoI, the CA, the BBN, and the Fuzzy Sets theory, which do not
belong to the set of MCDM, are sometimes used in combination with, or in place of, them in
order to solve specific problems. In particular, MoI has been used to represent uncertainty in
decision-making in place of MAUT. As specified in Otto and Antonsson 1993, in the eventu-
ality of zero preference attributes (e.g. stress limits or maximum allowed cost), MoI performs
a trade-off on the attribute levels, avoiding a zero performance. Thus, in this specific case,
it is more appropriate than the utility theory. CA is used for the quantification of customer
needs and the estimation of market response (Kohli et al. 2006). Nevertheless, some exten-
sions of the CA methodology have been provided in the literature, to include costs and
technical constraints related to the material selection and the manufacturing process. The
BBN is based on a stochastic approach, in which each design variable has a probability dis-
tribution function (PDF), so that any deviation from the peak provides a reduction in the
design success (Matthews 2006). The BBN is used in the early design phases, to better cap-
ture the imprecision and stochastic nature of the early design problems. A further method,
which is often combined with the MCDM methods, is the Fuzzy Sets theory. Fuzzy logic
mimics the human mind behaviour by employing approximate modes of reasoning (Renzi
et al. 2014). Moreover, fuzzy logic allows for imprecise concept dependencies, by includ-
ing imprecision on membership. Therefore, fuzzy logic allows to include imprecision in the
input data and thresholds in the design model.
6 C. RENZI ET AL.

Table 1. List of keywords related to decision-making methods in industrial design applications.

Decision-making
techniques Keywords Description
MCDM methods MAUT The MAUT employs a utility function for preference representation, which
includes the risk preferences of the decision-maker, in order to evaluate a
trade-off between attributes over the attributes domain (Von Neumann and
Morgenstern 2007; Malak, Aughenbaugh, and Paredis 2009)
ELECTRE Group of techniques based on preference modelling and aimed at generating
priorities, describing partial preferences and choosing a set of promising
actions (Roy 1991)
AHP AHP is a valid and widespread technique for evaluating alternatives, even if
it has several faults, mainly related to the lack of a theoretical framework
for modelling the hierarchy of decision problems, or the use of subjective
judgements in making pair-wise comparisons (Saaty 1980; Zahedi 1986)
ANP ANP is able to describe completely interactions and interdependencies
between attributes, in which higher-level criteria strictly depend on lower
levels (Saaty 2004)
PROMETHEE It is used to rank a finite set of alternative actions, in a simpler way in
comparison to the other MCDM methods (e.g. Macharis et al. 2004)
VIKOR The VIKOR method was developed for multi-criteria optimisation of complex
systems. It determines the compromise ranking list, the compromise
solution, and the weight stability intervals for preference stability of the
compromise solution obtained with the initial (given) weights (Opricovic
1998)
GP In GP, the solution satisfying all the given constraints represents the
compromise result, with the minimum distance between the attainment
and the aspiration levels of the objectives (Kharrat et al. 2011)
TOPSIS TOPSIS measures the distances between both the positive and the negative
ideal solutions and ranks the alternatives with respect to their relative
closeness to them (Hwang and Yoon 1981)
PSMs SSM SSM is designed to shape interventions in the problematic situations
encountered in management, organisational, and policy contexts, where
there are often no straightforward ‘problems’ or easy ‘solutions’ (Checkland
1981; Friend 1989; Mingers and Rosenhead 2004)
DPS method AD AD is a technique in which design solutions are generated systematically, and
are aimed at fulfilling specific design requirements as well as user needs
(e.g. Suh 1990; Goncalves-Coelho and Mourao 2007)
QFD QFD is a ‘system for translating customer requirements into appropriate
company requirements at each stage of the product development
cycle from research and product development to engineering and
manufacturing/sales and distribution’ (Ginn and Zairi 2005)
TRIZ TRIZ is a methodology for creative problem-solving, with the aim of
eliminating conflicts and generating strategies in a new product
development generation context (Altshuller 1984)
PuCC PuCC is a method for selecting the product alternatives in the conceptual
design phase by screening and scoring of the alternatives, which are
characterised by the homonymous matrices (Pugh 1981; Ulrich and
Eppinger 2008)

2.2. Engineering design keywords identification

The engineering design keywords classification is based on the assumption that the design
process consists of the following four phases, as widely assumed in the engineering design
research area (Pahl and Beitz 1996):

• design planning (specifically, product planning and clarifying the task);

• conceptual design;
• embodiment design; and
• detail design.
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 7

Table 2. Design activities related to the phases of the design process according to Pahl and Beitz (1996).
Design phases Design activities Design problems Design keywords
Planning Clarify the task and build Collection and management Uncertain data in
out the specification and of data and information in planning
requirements uncertain contexts
Specification of product Product requirements
technical requirements
Translation of customers’ needs Customers’ needs
into specifications for the (translation)
product
Conceptual Abstract the task to identify the Description of the decision- Decision-maker
essential problem maker preferences preferences
Establish the functional Generation of design Design alternatives
structures alternatives generation
Search for solution principles
Combine the solution
principles with concept
variants
Evaluate concept variants using Selection of design alternatives Design alternatives
technical and economic selection
criteria
Embodiment Develop a definitive layout and Definition of the complete Product performance
check that the requirements architecture of product
are met assembly
Evaluation of product
performance
Preparation of product design
documentation
Detail Select alternatives according Selection of material Material selection
to the physical realisation of
the product
Selection of industrial process Industrial process or
and equipment equipment selection
Final optimisation of
components and assembly
Release of the design
documentation

Typical design activities are then identified for every phase, and the most important
design problems are extracted by every activity (Table 2). In Table 2, also a first significant
set of keywords, derived by the analysis of the design problems, is reported. In particular,
for the planning phase, keywords are essentially related to the ways in which uncertainty is
managed within the early design problems. In the conceptual design phase, the keywords
are related to the preference description for the selection of design alternatives. The key-
words related to the embodiment design phase claim the search for a compromise solution
and the evaluation of the performance of the whole product design. Finally, in the detail
design, keywords are related to the selection of the most suitable material or the industrial
equipment or the best manufacturing process.

2.3. Identification of automotive applications with related decision-making

methods
A second horizontal literature research, for classifying papers resulting from technical areas
concerning automotive design, has been carried out, so that every automotive-related
8 C. RENZI ET AL.

design problem has been correlated to decision-making methods. In particular, in the Sco-
pus database, the keywords ‘automotive’, ‘car’, and ‘vehicle’ have been used, together with
each of the keywords related to the decision-making methods as defined in Table 1. The
papers found were grouped on the basis of the design keywords and, wherever needed,
the design problem, as defined in Section 2.2. If some papers fall into more than one design
problem keyword, the earliest design stage showed in the Pahl and Beitz (1996) is selected.
This avoids any duplication in the classification scheme.
Table 3 reports the results of this phase in terms of design keywords, design problem or
case study, and the decision-making methods used. In particular, in Table 3 only the prob-
lems related to the automotive design for which at least two papers are found have been
reported. Therefore, the contributions related to the automotive engineering design, con-
cerning the keywords ‘decision-maker preferences’, ‘design alternative generations’, and
‘product performance’, have not been considered.

Table 3. Decision-making methods to solve design problems in automotive design.

Reference
Automotive design Cebi and Kahraman (2010)
problem related to
uncertainty
Chen and Ngai (2008)
Fang et al. (2015)
Guo, Hu, and Zhao (2010)
Nepal, Yadav, and Murat
(2010)
Wei, Juan-Li, and Xiao-Tun
(2010)
Automotive design Büyüközkan, Feyzioğlu,
problem related and Ruan (2007)
to product
requirements
Chen and Chen (2014)
He, Tang, and Chang (2010)
Iranmanesh, Mokhtarani,
and Rastegar (2015)
Jiang et al. (2010)
Jikar et al. (2007)
Leary and Burvill (2007)
Li et al. (2007)
Madadi and Wong (2013)
Montelisciani et al. (2014)
Pang, Liu, and Liu (2012)
Park and Lee (2007)
Design problem Methods
Indicator panel design AHP + Fuzzy-AD
Design of a motor car MoI + Fuzzy-QFD
Vehicle fatigue in the design of a TOPSIS
truck cab
Customer requirements for Fuzzy-QFD
designing an oil pressure sensor
for mini-car engine
Evaluation of the planning design ANP + BBN
of a four-door midsize sedan
and a sports car
New diesel engine development QFD + AHP
case
Hatch door of a car Fuzzy-QFD
Remote-controlled racing car for a QFD
super marathon tournament
Car body NVH improvement QFD + AD + Fuzzy-
TOPSIS
Car sunshade QFD
Automobile design quality control QFD
Automotive component design QFD + AHP
Mass reduction opportunities QFD
for forged fatigue-limited
safety-critical automotive
components
Competitive seating arrangement QFD
Optimise cost and quality in an Fuzzy-GP
automotive parts manufacturing
company
New window regulator QFD
Selection from a series of QFD + ANP
engineering machinery engines
Digital laser welding system for TOPSIS
automobile side panels
(continued).
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 9

Table 3. Continued.
Reference Design problem Methods
Patidar (2010) Automotive HVAC system QFD + TRIZ
Subic et al. (2008) Car seat assembly QFD
Yang, Ong, and Nee (2013) Automobile remanufacturing QFD
industry
Automotive design Behzadian, Samizadeh, and Automotive part AHP-PROMETHEE
problem related to Nazemi (2010)
customer needs
Björnfot and Bakken (2013) Car interior design QFD
Hoyle and Chen (2007) Automotive manifold absolute QFD + PUGH
pressure sensor
Hoyle and Chen (2009) Automotive manifold absolute QFD + PUGH
pressure sensor
Li and Wu (2011) Variety of customer needs in QFD + CA
market automotive industry
Nahm (2013a) Car door design problem QFD
Nahm (2013b) Car door design problem QFD
Nahm, Ishikawa, and Inoue Car door design problem QFD
(2013)
Nepal, Yadav, and Johnson Case example from the automotive Fuzzy-AHP
(2014) industry (CS)
Sharif Ullah et al. (2016) Determination of a car’s external Fuzzy-QFD + TRIZ
shape
Yang, Ong, and Nee (2013) Integration of automotive Fuzzy-QFD
remanufacturing design in the
initial design stage
Automotive design Borjesson, Fancher, and Selection of standard original QFD + MAUT
problem related to Sellgren (2014) equipment manufacturer
design alternative engines
selection
Cagno and Trucco (2007) Design of an engine oil filter QFD
Koganti et al. (2007) Case study involving car front-end AHP
component design.
Shi and Mocko (2013) Car seat design AD
Vinodh, Kamala, and Automotive component design QFD + TRIZ + AHP
Jayakrishna (2014) selection
Xu, Moon, and Baek (2012) Selection of a transmission case in AHP
a Korean automotive industry
Yang, Ong, and Nee (2016) Three different alternator designs Fuzzy-TOPSIS
Automotive design Ahmed Ali et al. (2015) Composite material selection for AHP
problem related to automotive components
material selection
Al-Oqla et al. (2016) Natural fibres reinforced polymer AHP
composite materials for a
sustainable automotive industry
Chandrasekar, Raja, and Composite material selection for Fuzzy-AHP
Marimuthu (2014) an automobile torsion bar
Davoodi et al. (2011) Material selection for a car bumper TOPSIS
beam
Hambali et al. (2009) Polymeric composite automotive AHP
bumper beam
Hambali et al. (2010) Polymeric composite automotive AHP
bumper beam
Ilangkumaran et al. (2013) Material selection for an Fuzzy-
automobile damper AHP + PROMETHEE
Kazemi, Homayouni, and Automobile interior design (Iranian Fuzzy-Delphi AHP
Jahangiri (2015) firm for car dashboard design)
Maity and Chakraborty Bearing material selection PROMETHEE
(2013)
(continued).
10 C. RENZI ET AL.

Table 3. Continued.
Reference Design problem Methods
Mansor et al. (2013) Kenaf fibre polymer composite AHP + TRIZ
automotive parking brake lever
Mansor et al. (2014a) Kenaf fibre polymer composite AHP + TRIZ
automotive parking brake lever
Mansor et al. (2014b) Hybrid biocomposites thermoset TOPSIS
matrix for automotive bumper
beam application using the
TOPSIS method
Mayyas et al. (2011) Material selection of body in white AHP + QFD
Mayyas and Omar (2012) Eco-material selection assisted AHP + QFD
with decision-making tools
Mustafa et al. (2014) Materials selection for eco-aware PUGH
lightweight friction material
Peng and Xiao (2013) Journal bearing material selection ANP + PROMETHEE
Sapuan et al. (2011) Composites material selection AHP + TRIZ
using AHP for automotive brake
lever design
Waigaonkar, Babu, and Resin selection in rotational TOPSIS
Prabhakaran (2008) moulding (a rotationally
moulded automotive fuel tank)
Yang et al. (2015) An engine block and an intake Fuzzy-TOPSIS
manifold material selection for
remanufacturing
Automotive design Fernandes et al. (2008) Selecting the most suitable QFD + PUGH
problem related to technology to join metal pieces
process selection in a car manufacturer company.
Hambali et al. (2009) Composite manufacturing process Fuzzy-AHP
selection for a car bumper beam
Hou, Wen, and Han (2008) Welding system for producing the AD
handle of a motorcycle
Monitto, Pappalardo, and Automated Manufacturing System Fuzzy-AHP
Tolio (2002) selection for an automotive gear
lever
Park and Lee (2007) Digital laser welding system for TOPSIS
automobile side panels
Perçin and Min (2013) Machine selection in a Turkish steel Fuzzy-QFD + GP
automobile part manufacturer
Rahim and Maidin (2014) Assessing the factors which AHP
mostly influence additive
manufacturing.
Srinivasan et al. (2014) Ooptimal machining process for AHP
engraving operation on a gear
face in an automobile industry
Townsend and Urbanic AHP is applied to select between AHP
(2012) fused deposition modelling
and CNC machining for
manufacturing a V6 engine
section sand casting pattern
Note: CNC, computer numerical control.

3. Analysis of decision-based applications in automotive engineering design

In order to obtain quantitative considerations, in the following subsections, the papers
listed in Table 3 are grouped on the basis of the design phase and decision-making meth-
ods, analysed, and summarised. In Table 4, the methods used with the corresponding
recurrences in the papers analysed, related to automotive design problems of uncertainty,
product requirements, customer needs, design alternative selection, material selection, and
manufacturing process selection, are reported.
Table 4. Methods and number of literature contributions related to each automotive design problem (uncertainty, product requirements, customer needs, design
alternative selection, material selection, and manufacturing process selection).
Automotive design problems
Manufacturing
Uncertainty Product requirements Customer needs Design alternative selection Material selection process selection
Methods and AHP + Fuzzy-AD 1 Fuzzy-QFD 1 AHP-PROMETHEE 1 QFD + MAUT 1 AHP 4 QFD + PUGH 1
occurrences
MoI + Fuzzy-QFD 1 QFD 8 QFD 4 QFD 1 Fuzzy-AHP 1 Fuzzy-AHP 2
TOPSIS 1 QFD + AD + Fuzzy- 1 QFD + PUGH 2 AHP 2 TOPSIS 3 AD 1
TOPSIS
Fuzzy-QFD 1 QFD + AHP 1 QFD + CA 1 AD 1 Fuzzy- 1 TOPSIS 1
AHP + PROMETHEE
ANP + BBN 1 Fuzzy-GP 1 Fuzzy-AHP 1 QFD + TRIZ + AHP 1 Fuzzy-Delphi AHP 1 Fuzzy-QFD + GP 1
QFD + AHP 1 QFD + ANP 1 Fuzzy-QFD + TRIZ 1 Fuzzy-TOPSIS 1 PROMETHEE 1 AHP 3
AHP + TRIZ

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN

TOPSIS 1 Fuzzy-QFD 1 3
QFD + TRIZ 1 AHP + QFD 2
PUGH 1
ANP + PROMETHEE 1
Fuzzy-TOPSIS 1
Sum 6 15 11 7 19 9

11
12 C. RENZI ET AL.

3.1. Uncertainties in planning

In the following, contributions of the analysed literature for automotive design problems
related to uncertainty have been detailed.
AD + fuzzy-AHP. Cebi and Kahraman (2010) proposed a new methodology based on
an original version of the Axiomatic Design in which the relationship between the design
parameters and the functional requirements is defined by a fuzzy-based linguistic scale and
based on the AHP to obtain the weights expressing the importance of functional require-
ments. The methodology has been tested to design a new panel indicator for passenger car.
In order to analyse the design quality of the displays, Cebi and Kahraman (2014) introduced
the Choquet integral to the previous method.
TOPSIS. The uncertainties in the data are correlated to the material properties in the pre-
diction of the fatigue performance of a truck cab. In order to make the design less sensitive
to these uncertainties, Fang et al. (2015) proposed a multi-objective optimisation, in which
both the mean and standard deviation functions of fatigue life are optimised in a concur-
rent manner by a multi-objective particle swarm optimisation model. To rank the solution
in the Pareto frontier and choose the best possible compromise, an integration of TOPSIS
with Grey relation analysis is used.
ANP + BBN. Nepal, Yadav, and Johnson (2014) presented a method based on ANP–BBN
(Bayesian Belief Network) to prioritise the customer satisfaction (CS) attributes by consider-
ing not only the correlation among attributes themselves, but also the cross-correlations
among attributes and factors. The BBN methodology is used to deal with uncertainties
associated with the prioritisation process resulting from subjective expert judgements.
Illustrative case studies of a four-door midsize sedan and sports car evidenced that the
proposed methodology correctly prioritises CS attributes and aligns them with corporate
strategy. The benefit of the approach is highlighted by a comparison with a traditional AHP
model.
As pointed out by Wei, Juan-Li, and Xiao-Tun (2010),
QFD is a widely-used methodology for customer-oriented product design, which can be used
for generating a new product concept combining both customers’ and technologists’ perspec-
tives. However, how to effectively and objectively evaluate design concepts at the early stage
of product development has not been well addressed, as the information available is usually
incomplete, imprecise, subjective or even inconsistent.

In order to overcome these limitations, three modified versions of QFD are proposed in the
same number of papers.
MoI + fuzzy-QFD. Chen and Ngai (2008) proposed a novel fuzzy QFD in which fuzzy set
theory is used to quantify the design uncertainty that is associated with engineering charac-
teristics (ECs). Instead of the commonly used weighted sum approach to the optimisation
of QFD parameters, a more generalised synthesis strategy – MoI – is used to synthesise
multiple ECs to derive overall CS.
FUZZY-QFD. In order to solve the key problem of how to determine the importance of
different technical characteristics to best fulfil CRs in the early stage of product design,
Guo, Hu, and Zhao (2010) proposed a modified version of QFD. The α-cuts fuzzy weighted
method was used to calculate the importance of technical characteristics. These are ordered
by the values obtained by the averaging level cuts de-fuzzification method.
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 13

QFD + AHP. Wei, Juan-Li, and Xiao-Tun (2010) proposed a modified version of the QFD
model to incorporate product concept alternatives. The AHP method is used to determine
the relative weights of CRs in the House of Quality. The innovative aspect of the presented
methodology is in the evaluation of new product alternatives by using rough numbers.

3.2. Product requirements in planning

Product requirements are addressed in the early design phases, in which several uncertain-
ties are related to the expression of preference attributes on product alternatives. Moreover,
the lack of some technical data, typical of the early design phases, causes difficulties in the
proper representation of product technical requirements. Considering the product require-
ments in planning, the following applications are found and analysed (Table 4, columns
related to ‘product requirements’).
Fuzzy-QFD. In order to handle uncertainties related to the assessment of customers’
requirements, the discrete scale used in the conventional QFD is modified in Büyüközkan,
Feyzioğlu, and Ruan (2007), by using fuzzy set theory. The case study is related to the
development of the hatch door of a car.
QFD. In Iranmanesh, Mokhtarani, and Rastegar (2015), a methodology to capture infor-
mation through QFD is proposed by concurrently considering both customer attitudes and
engineering preferences. The case study of a car sunshade is proposed. In Jiang et al. (2010),
a combined QFD and failure modes and effect analysis (FMEA) is proposed as a quality con-
trol system in new product development. The proposed method is tested on the quality
design of some automobiles. Another limitation of QFD is addressed in Leary and Burvill
(2007), by including a design constraint within QFD, for analysing the feasibility of a design
solution. Li et al. (2007) proposed a method to determine the fundamental importance rat-
ings of CRs in QFD. A case study related to a competitive seating arrangement is proposed.
In Montelisciani et al. (2014), a method for translating needs into product requirements is
proposed, starting from the very early stage of Voice of Customer. An application related to
the design of a novel car window regulator is proposed to validate the method. In Subic
et al. (2008), a systematic approach to sustainable car seat design using a modified QFD is
proposed, in which both CRs and technical characteristics are integrated within a modified
QFD process.
QFD + AD + fuzzy-TOPSIS. In He, Tang, and Chang (2010), QFD is used to identify the
noise vibration harshness (NVH) of a car body. AD is applied to set up the design matrices
of functional and corresponding structural nodes, at the different levels of the body NVH
relational tree. FUZZY-TOPSIS is applied to compute the quality relation weight of its nodes.
QFD + AHP. In Jikar et al. (2007), an extended QFD is proposed to overcome limitations
related to the House of Quality. In particular, AHP and vector matrix algebra are used to
improve the original QFD, to help select the most suitable ECs.
Fuzzy-GP. Goal programming is also used in the definition of product design require-
ments. In Madadi and Wong (2013), a multi-objective MILP model is proposed to help
planners to optimise cost and quality concurrently within an automotive parts manufac-
turing company. A fuzzy-goal programming approach is used, in which quality is proposed
as a design objective. In this model, a fuzzy set is used to handle verbal judgements on the
quality objective.
14 C. RENZI ET AL.

QFD + ANP. In Pang, Liu, and Liu (2012), an integrated approach for translating CRs into
technical requirements is proposed with an application of engineering machinery engines
selection. In this approach, ANP is used to assign priorities to CRs by means of weights, while
the House of Quality in QFD is used for selecting alternatives.
QFD + TRIZ + Pugh. In Patidaar 2010, a Six Sigma methodology is applied to the design
of an automotive Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning system. In this context, QFD
and TRIZ are used, as well as the Pugh matrix, for considering product requirements, and
generating and selecting suitable design solutions.

3.3. Customer needs in planning

Regarding customer needs in planning, applications reported in Table 4 (column related to
‘customer needs’) are detailed in the following. Results show that the most used method
for dealing with customer needs is QFD, even if some limitations have been highlighted in
the literature.
AHP + PROMETHEE II. In Behzadian, Samizadeh, and Nazemi (2010), an integrated AHP
and PROMETHEE II approach is proposed to efficiently rank technical requirements accord-
ing to customer needs. In particular, the relative importance of criteria is evaluated by
means of AHP, while PROMETHEE II is used as a ranking technique.
QFD. Nahm, Ishikawa, and Inoue (2013) (as also in Nahm (2013a and 2013b)) proposed
two sets of new rating methods to determine the relative importance ratings (CPR) and
the competitive priority ratings (CSR) of CRs in the QFD process in the case of customers’
incomplete or uncertain perceptions. The CPR method is based on a partial ordering of CRs.
The CSR method firstly constructs the CS model based on competitive benchmarking anal-
ysis, and then evaluates the performance quality of the company product using CS and
uncertainty measures.
QFD + Pugh. In Hoyle and Chen (2007) as well as Hoyle and Chen (2009), the application
of combined QFD and Pugh is discussed. Limitations to both these methods are listed. To
overcome these limitations, a modified version of QFD, that is, Product Attribute Functional
Deployment (PAFD), is proposed. The same authors report some approaches based on
fuzzy set theory, which are used to handle uncertainty in consumer importance assessment
in QFD. Nevertheless, these approaches are unable to manage uncertainty in technical
requirements, or to overcome limitations on preference aggregation. A limitation of the
Pugh Matrix for conceptual design selection is related to the capability of introducing only
designers’ viewpoints, without including customer demand or enterprise profitability. The
proposed PAFD method is capable of including relationships and qualitative interactions
among product design attributes, including quantitative assessments for decision actions.
QFD + CA. In Li and Wu (2011), a method for measuring the variety of customer needs
within the framework of product family design is performed by integrating Conjoint Anal-
ysis and QFD.
FUZZY-AHP. In Nepal, Yadav, and Murat (2010), a fuzzy AHP model for determining the
relative importance of CS in target planning is proposed. In particular, CS attributes are
included at the early design planning stages in an automotive industry. This approach
provides a systematic and analytical model for handling subjective and imprecise data in
complex environments.
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 15

FUZZY-QFD + TRIZ. In Sharif Ullah et al. (2016), a CAD-TRIZ-based method is proposed to

generate and virtually prototype design alternatives. Hence, a questionnaire is proposed to
customers who are required to provide their preferences among virtual alternatives. Nine
fundamental human needs are proposed, so that the TRIZ-CAD alternatives have to fulfil at
least one of these needs. FUZZY-QFD is finally applied to perform group decision-making.
A case study related to the definition of a car’s external shape is proposed to show the
applicability of the proposed method.
FUZZY-QFD. In Yang, Ong, and Nee (2013), the integration of automotive remanufactur-
ing design in the initial design stages is performed by means of fuzzy-QFD. In particular,
fuzzy set theory is used to manage vague information involved in QFD. Besides, two other
modifications have been operated on the proposed QFD: the expansion of the conven-
tional scope of the customers to remanufacturers, environmental concerns, cost factors,
and product users, to be transformed into engineering attributes, and the development
of a hierarchic structure of requirements and the evaluation of the relative weights. These
modifications allow opinions to be gathered from several decision-makers, strengthening
the decisional approach.

3.4. Conceptual design: alternative selection

The majority of applications of selection of automotive design alternatives are performed
by the QFD alone or coupled with TRIZ, AHP, or TOPSIS. The others here analysed used AHP
and AD methods (Table 4, column related to ‘alternative design selection’).
QFD + MAUT. In Borjesson, Fancher, and Sellgren (2014), an MAUT-based method for effi-
ciently selecting standard original engines equipment is proposed, by calculating utility
scores and considering known costs. Hence, QFD is applied as a selection method.
QFD. As an example, in Cagno and Trucco (2007), a green QFD is proposed for the design
of an engine oil system. The method aims at including green aspects in the early design
phases.
AHP. In Koganti et al. (2007), AHP is applied for the selection of a car front-end component
design, integrating aspects of design for assembly. In Xu, Moon, and Baek (2012), the AHP
method is applied to the selection of a transmission case in a Korean automotive industry.
As specified in this paper, in the enterprises the evaluation of alternatives is performed by
means of financially based methods, such as the net present value, the inner rate of return,
and the payback period. In these methods, the criteria show trade-offs, and the preference
for a criterion differs from one person to another. Hence, the AHP offers a framework for
aggregating all criteria and performing effective decision-making.
AD. In Shi and Mocko (2013), AD is used to generate design alternatives and select the
most suitable design for a car seat.
QFD + TRIZ + AHP. In Vinodh, Kamala, and Jayakrishna (2014), the integration of a modi-
fied QFD, TRIZ, and AHP is proposed for designing, evaluating, and selecting design alterna-
tives of an overflow valve, designed in an Indian automotive company. The modified QFD
provides information on the sustainability of each proposed design. TRIZ is used to pro-
pose novel alternatives and to overcome design conflicts. Finally, AHP is used as a selection
technique.
FUZZY-TOPSIS. In Yang, Ong, and Nee (2016), an FUZZY-TOPSIS method is applied to
evaluate and compare three design alternatives for alternators, with the requirement of
facilitating the remanufacturing process.
16 C. RENZI ET AL.

3.5. Detail design: material selection

Several applications of AHP, ANP, PROMETHEE, and TOPSIS, alone or combined, address
the selection of materials in automotive industry applications (see the column related to
‘material selection’ in Table 4). In the following, each contribution is analysed in terms of
design problem and the method adopted.
AHP. In Hambali et al. (2010), an AHP-based systematic method to select the most suit-
able polymeric composite material for an automotive bumper beam is proposed. With this
aim, six materials have been considered and twelve sub-criteria. In the early design stages of
a vehicle, only ill-defined attributes and data from investigations on CS are handled. Hence,
AHP is proposed as a structured approach to solve such complex problems, providing a map
of the relative importance of each criterion to the goal or objective. As reported in Ham-
bali et al. (2009), the Pugh method does not require a measure of the importance of each
criterion and does not allow for a coupled decision. Hence, the final result could be impre-
cise. In Ahmed Ali et al. (2015), the best composite material for automotive components is
selected by means of the AHP method. Similarly, in Al-Oqla et al. (2016), an application of
AHP is proposed for selecting the most suitable natural fibres for automotive applications.
Townsend and Urbanic (2012) proposed a modular approach to integrate additive man-
ufacturing and machining, in the design and manufacturing domains. The aim is to increase
value for end-users and manufacturers. AHP is applied to select between fused deposition
modelling and computer numerical control (CNC) machining for manufacturing a V6 engine
section sand casting pattern.
FUZZY-AHP. In Chandrasekar, Raja, and Marimuthu (2014), an MCDM application is
proposed for selecting the most suitable material for an automobile torsion bar. In par-
ticular, the FUZZY-AHP is adopted for including uncertainty due to the lack of material
data. Despite other methods for selecting materials, which are seldom able to catch the
imprecision of the linguistic assessment, this approach seems to be effective in handling
uncertainties in the early design phases.
TOPSIS. In Davoodi et al. (2011), TOPSIS is used for the selection of a biocomposite mate-
rial for a car bumper beam. Waigaonkar, Babu, and Prabhakaran (2008) applied TOPSIS to
rank different resins, in order to provide a guide for selecting the most suitable resin from
a given database. Application of resin selection for a rotationally moulded automotive fuel
tank is proposed as a case study.
FUZZY-AHP + PROMETHEE. In Ilangkumaran et al. (2013), PROMETHEE is efficiently com-
bined with Fuzzy-AHP to select the most suitable material for an automobile damper. In
particular, Fuzzy-AHP is applied to find criteria weights; PROMETHEE I is applied to design
the leaving and entering flows, whereas PROMETHEE II is used as a ranking method for
selecting the material.
FUZZY-Delphi AHP. In Kazemi, Homayouni, and Jahangiri (2015), the Fuzzy-Delphi AHP
is proposed to select material for a car interior dashboard. This method is aimed at taking
account of decision-makers’ judgements and reducing uncertainty and vagueness. Fuzzy
methodology has been adopted to overcome the drawbacks of the Delphi method, such
as the low convergence of expert opinions, the high cost of administration, as well as the
probable elimination of opinions of some customers.
PROMETHEE II. In Maity and Chakraborty (2013), the PROMETHEE II ranking method is
used to select material for engine bearings.
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 17

AHP + TRIZ. A conceptual design selection by means of an AHP method has been pro-
posed by Mansor et al. (2013) for the selection of the most suitable reinforced polymer
composite material for an automotive brake lever. The search is refined in a successive
study by Mansor et al. (2014a), in which TRIZ, morphological charts, and AHP are applied.
In this context, TRIZ is used for generating design alternatives to provide an effective
systematic approach for identifying novel conceptual products and opportunities. As in
Sapuan et al. (2011), in Ahmed Ali et al. (2015), AHP is applied for the selection of the
proper composite fibre for an automotive brake lever. TRIZ is applied to generate design
alternatives.
TOPSIS. Mansor et al. (2014b) used the TOPSIS method for selecting optimal materials for
an automotive bumper beam.
AHP + QFD. Mayyas et al. (2011) compared two methods for the selection of materials
for the body in white, namely AHP and QFD. Comparative results show the superiority of
QFD in including the customer needs in the analysis. Besides, unlike AHP, in QFD no scal-
ing is defined, to judge criteria and alternatives. Hence, the scaling can be subjective. This
drawback can be overcome by adopting a (1–10) scale like the one adopted in the AHP
method.
PUGH method is applied in Mustafa et al. (2014) for the selection of the most suitable
eco-aware friction material for car components as brake pads.
ANP + PROMETHEE. In Peng and Xiao (2013), the material selection for journal bearings
is performed by means of combined ANP and PROMETHEE methods. ANP is used to elim-
inate interdependencies among the attributes, and to determine the attribute weights.
The outranking methods such as PROMETHEE, which is used here to rank alternatives, and
ELECTRE avoid compensation effects that are typical of value measurement methods. In
this paper, the PROMETHEE method is chosen in place of ELECTRE due to its minor com-
putational requirement and because it offers more preference functions to select. In this
paper, a significant comparison between MADM methods and the Ashby charts (Ashby
and Cebon 1993) for material selection is proposed. MADM approaches are said to be more
advantageous because there is no need to know any physical relations of material prop-
erties for their application, and the ranking of alternatives can be performed regardless
of the number of attributes associated with them. Moreover, MADM approaches require
minor computational time. Besides, verbal judgements can be considered by means of
fuzzy techniques.
FUZZY-TOPSIS. In Yang et al. (forthcoming), Fuzzy-TOPSIS is adopted to evaluate the
performance of the candidate materials for the design of an engine block and an intake
manifold, according to re-manufacturability criteria.

3.6. Detail design: manufacturing process selection

Applications related to the process selection problem in the detail design phase, reported
in Table 4 (column related to ‘manufacturing process selection’), are described in the
following.
QFD + Pugh. In Fernandes et al. (2008), a combined QFD and Pugh method is pro-
posed. QFD is used to translate customer needs into technical requirements, starting from
the voice of the customer, while the Pugh matrix is used for selecting the most suitable
technology to join metal pieces in a car manufacturing company.
18 C. RENZI ET AL.

FUZZY-AHP. In Monitto, Pappalardo, and Tolio (2002), the most suitable automated
manufacturing system selection for an automotive gear lever is performed by means of
FUZZY-AHP. In this context, the fuzzy set theory is used both for managing uncertainty
and to handle productivity/flexibility issues. In Hambali et al. (2009), FUZZY-AHP is used
for selecting the most suitable composite manufacturing process for manufacturing auto-
motive bumper beams. The application of AHP is carried out by means of the Expert Choice
software.
AD. Axiomatic design seems to be adopted in complex design contexts, as in Hou, Wen,
and Han (2008), in which an integrated assembly and welding system for producing the
handle of a motorcycle has been proposed. The application of AD leads to an increase in the
system quality and efficiency, together with a significant reduction in design complexity.
TOPSIS. In Park and Lee (2007), TOPSIS is used to evaluate the optimal assembly laser
welding system for an automobile side panel. In this context, TOPSIS is revealed to be useful
as a process equipment selection technique in which product requirements and capabilities
have been compared to find the most suitable welding technique in each sub-assembly.
QFD, fuzzy linear regression, and zero-one GP. In Perçin and Min (2013), a combined QFD,
fuzzy linear regression, and Zero-one GP is used for machine selection purposes, in a Turk-
ish steel automobile parts manufacturer. While QFD addresses the problems related to the
inclusion of customer needs and technical requirements, fuzzy linear regression is used to
handle imprecise or unclear causal relationships. Finally, the selection technique adopted
is a Zero-one GP.
AHP. In Srinivasan et al. (2014), AHP is used to select a suitable machining process to
perform an engraving operation on a gear face. Alternative processes are Laser Beam
Machining (LBM), Ultrasonic Machining (USM), Electric Discharge Machining (EDM), Elec-
trochemical Machining (ECM), and Electron Beam Machining (EBM). Five criteria are used,
namely: material removal rate (MRR), surface finish, depth damage, tolerance, and toxic-
ity. In Rahim and Maidin (2014), an AHP-based framework for assessing the factors which
mostly influence additive manufacturing is proposed.

4. Discussion and limitations

The literature review enabled us to find matches between decision-making methods and
automotive design problems. As a first result, a problem–method–literature references
database has been provided. The database, built for each design phase, clearly shows which
methods are used in specific automotive design problems in each design phase. As a sec-
ond result, hybrid methods have been shown, together with their specific applications. The
aim here is to point out which drawbacks of a method could be overcome by a smart combi-
nation of the method with other methods. With the purpose of showing these peculiarities
for each design phase and correlated design problems, the following remarks can be made.
In the planning phase (Table 4), uncertainty in automotive design problems is tackled
by means of AD alone or in combination with fuzzy sets in order to express the correla-
tions among requirements and design parameters in a linguistic form. QFD is also used for
handling planning problems related to uncertainties, often combined with fuzzy sets for
managing linguistic judgements, or the MoI (Law 1994) for finding a compromise design
taking into account the designer’s preferences in an uncertain context.
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 19

Design problems in planning related to product requirements are mostly tackled by

means of QFD. To overcome some limitations of QFD, auxiliary methods/improvements are
used, namely:

• AHP and vector matrix algebra, to help select the most suitable ECs;
• FMEA, to include quality control;
• Design constraints, for analysing the feasibility of a design solution; and
• Translation of needs into product requirements, starting from the very early stage of the
Voice of the Customer.

Other methods are used to generate (AD) or select (ANP and TOPSIS) design alternatives.
GP is used to include cost and quality optimisation.
Customer needs design problems are tackled mainly by means of QFD, often combined
with other methods, such as:

• Fuzzy, to handle uncertainties related to the assessment of customers’ requirements;

• CA, for measuring the variety of customer needs within the framework of product family
design; and
• New rating methods, to include the CS model, based on the competitive benchmark-
ing analysis; then evaluate the performance quality of the company product using
customers’ satisfaction and uncertainty measures.

Other methods include:

• AHP, to manage customer needs by including them in product requirements, or to

determine the relative importance of CS in target planning;
• ANP, for handling interdependencies between alternatives.

Conceptual design alternatives are selected mainly by means of AHP and QFD. Other
methods are combined to cover specific aspects. For example, TRIZ or AD is used to gener-
ate design alternatives or to overcome design conflicts, QFD for evaluating purposes, and
AHP or TOPSIS for selecting them.
Most of the contributions to the solution of the material selection problem in automotive
design are dedicated to the selection of the most suitable material for a specific application.
Hence, as expected, selection methods are mainly used for this purpose. In particular, AHP is
widely adopted as a selection method, alone or combined with TRIZ, for generating alterna-
tives. A combination of AHP and QFD has been found, aimed at overcoming the drawback
of a subjective scale in QFD. Another combination is related to FUZZY-AHP (or sometimes
ANP) and PROMETHEE. The former is applied to find criteria weights, while PROMETHEE II is
used as a ranking method for selecting material. In the case of interdependencies among
the attributes, and to determine the attribute weights, ANP is used in the place of AHP.
TOPSIS (or FUZZY-TOPSIS) is used as a material selection method, as well.
As for manufacturing process selection, again, AHP is mostly used, alone or combined
with fuzzy sets. Examples of applications of TOPSIS and GP as selection methods are pro-
vided. Before the selection phases, QFD is used to address problems related to the inclusion
of customer needs and technical requirements.
20 C. RENZI ET AL.

5. Conclusions
The present review aims at providing a common background for designers focused on the
selection of decision support methods for automotive industry design problems. Although
the correlation between design problems and decision-making methods has already been
discussed in the literature, a solid demonstration of it is not trivial to find. With this purpose,
the paper firstly proposed a classification of the most commonly used decision-making
methods in engineering, extending former reviews. Even if most of the mentioned methods
are well known to decision-making scholars, such classification recalls the DPS methods in
addition to the well-known MCDM and PSM methods. DPS methods are characterised by
addressing engineering design problems related to the very early design stages.
Then, the review matches the design techniques to the typical design phases of a sys-
tematic engineering design process and maps their application to the automotive industry.
In analysing the papers, some difficulties arose in the effort to report precise guidelines
for the designer, in the use of decision-making methods in the automotive design field. This
is especially due to the following:

(1) Often the conclusions of the authors are not objectified by a comparison with other
methods. Hence it is difficult to define clear guidelines for the method. Sometimes it is
possible to define the drawbacks and the advantages of the specific method adopted
in relation to another, similar, method.
(2) The proposed methodologies are applied with illustrative examples in which complex
design cases are streamlined in a simpler model to be analysed (e.g. diesel engine (Wei,
Juan-Li, and Xiao-Tun 2010)). From the authors’ viewpoint, complex design problems
need to be tackled in a more structured way, by means of more than one decision-
making method. This is revealed also by several authors who use more than one
method (in cascade or concurrently), in order to properly find a suitable solution for
their problem (Table 3).

However, the analysis performed on the database provides several data related to the
applications of decision-making methods to specific automotive design problems. Some
advantages should be pointed out.

(1) Detailing the results of the classification into specific automotive problems provided
clear suggestions for researchers/practitioners who need to ‘quickly’ select a decision-
making method for a specific automotive design problem.

Table 5. Role of AHP in hybrid forms.

Form of AHP used Role of AHP in hybrid forms Reference
Fuzzy AHP For including uncertainty due to the lack of Chandrasekar, Raja, and Marimuthu (2014)
material data
Fuzzy-AHP + PROMETHEE To find criteria weights in a subsequent Ilangkumaran et al. (2013)
alternative selection
AHP + QFD To calculate the fundamental importance Wei, Juan-Li, and Xiao-Tun (2010)
degree of customer requirements
AHP + TRIZ For selecting alternatives generated by the Mansor et al. (2013, 2014)
TRIZ method
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 21

Table 6. Role of QFD in hybrid forms.

Form of QFD used Role of QFD in hybrid forms Reference (e.g.)
QFD + Fuzzy set theory For including uncertainty in consumer Hoyle and Chen (2007, 2009)Yang,
importance assessment in QFD Ong, and Nee (2013)
QFD + MAUT For determining the proper level of detail for Borjesson, Fancher, and Sellgren (2014)
the process, in order to limit the cost of the
entire product, while MAUT is used to score
the performance of the products
QFD + AHP To overcome limitations related to the House of Jikar et al. (2007)
Quality. In particular, AHP and vector matrix
algebra are used to improve the original
QFD, to help select the most suitable ECs
QFD and AHP Comparative results show the superiority of Mayyas et al. (2011)
QFD in including customer needs in the
analysis. Besides, unlike AHP, in QFD no
scaling is defined, to judge criteria and
alternatives. Hence, the scaling can be
subjective. This drawback can be overcome
by adopting a (1–10) scale like the one
adopted in the AHP method

(2) The possibility to choose more than one method for a specific design problem area
seems to be a weakness of the proposed classification. If for the same problem (e.g.
managing product requirements) more than one method has the same occurrence of
use, the user can understand why one is used instead of another, as explained in Section
3. To this aim, as a further guide for researchers, in Tables 5 and 6 the role of the two
most widely used methods in the automotive design, namely AHP and QFD, has been
reported, highlighting their role in hybrid forms.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Cristina Renzi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1629-0036

References
Ahmed Ali, B. A., S. M. Sapuan, E. S. Zainudin, and M. Othman. 2015. “Implementation of the Expert
Decision System for Environmental Assessment in Composite Materials Selection for Automotive
Components.” Journal of Cleaner Production 107: 557–567.
Allen, J. K., and F. Mistree. 1997. “Decision-Based Design: Where Should We Go from Here?” Notes of
1997 decision-based design workshop.
Al-Oqla, F. M., S. M. Sapuan, M. R. Ishak, and A. A. Nuraini. 2016. “A Decision-Making Model for
Selecting the Most Appropriate Natural Fiber–Polypropylene-Based Composites for Automotive
Applications.” Journal of Composite Materials 50 (4): 543–556.
Altshuller, G. S. 1984. Creativity as an Exact Science. New York: Gordon and Breach.
Altshuller, G. S. 1999. TRIZ The Innovation Algorithm; Systematic Innovation and Technical Creativity.
Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Center.
Ashby, M. F., and D. Cebon. 1993. “Materials Selection in Mechanical Design.” Le Journal de Physique
IV 3 (C7): C7-1–C7-9.
22 C. RENZI ET AL.

Behzadian, M., R. Samizadeh, and J. Nazemi. 2010. “Decision Making in House of Quality: A Hybrid AHP-
PROMETHEE Approach.” In IEEM2010 – IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and
engineering management, art. no. 5674213, 930–934.
Belton, V., and T. J. Stewart. 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Boston:
Kluwer Academic.
Björnfot, A., and E. N. Bakken. 2013. “Quality Function Deployment (QFD) with a Human Touch.” In
21st annual conference of the international group for lean construction 2013, IGLC 2013, 375–384.
Borjesson, F., R. Fancher, and U. Sellgren. 2014. “On a Methodology for Component Selection in Mod-
ular Branding: An Industrial Pilot Study.” Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications 22 (2):
93–105.
Büyüközkan, G., O. Feyzioğlu, and D. Ruan. 2007. “Fuzzy Group Decision-Making to Multiple Prefer-
ence Formats in Quality Function Deployment.” Computers in Industry 58 (5): 392–402.
Cagno, E., and P. Trucco. 2007. “Integrated Green and Quality Function Deployment.” International
Journal of Product Lifecycle Management 2 (1): 64–83.
Cebi, S., and C. Kahraman. 2010. “Indicator Design for Passenger car Using Fuzzy Axiomatic Design
Principles.” Expert Systems with Applications 37 (9): 6470–6491.
Cebi, S., and C. Kahraman. 2014. “Design Evaluation Model for Display Designs of Automobiles.”
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 26 (2): 961–973.
Chandrasekar, V. S., K. Raja, and P. Marimuthu. 2014. “Composite Material Selection Using Multi Criteria
Decision Making for Automobile Torsion bar.” Applied Mechanics and Materials 573: 649–654.
Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: John Wiley.
Chen, L. H., and C. N. Chen. 2014. “Normalisation Models for Prioritising Design Requirements for Qual-
ity Function Deployment Processes.” International Journal of Production Research 52 (2): 299–313.
Chen, W., C. Hoyle, and H. J. Wassenaar. 2013. Decision-Based Design: Integrating Consumer Preferences
into Engineering Design. London: Springer-Verlag.
Chen, Y. Z., and E. W. T. Ngai. 2008. “A Fuzzy QFD Program Modelling Approach Using the Method of
Imprecision.” International Journal of Production Research 46 (24): 6823–6840.
Davoodi, M. M., S. M. Sapuan, D. Ahmad, A. Aidy, A. Khalina, and M. Jonoobi. 2011. “Concept Selection
of car Bumper Beam with Developed Hybrid bio-Composite Material.” Materials and Design 32 (10):
4857–4865.
Earl, C., J. Johnson, and C. Eckert. 2005. “Complexity.” In Design Process Improvement: A Review of
Current Practice, edited by J. Clarkson and C. Eckert, 174–197. London: Springer.
Fang, J., Y. Gao, G. Sun, C. Xu, and Q. Li. 2015. “Multiobjective Robust Design Optimization of Fatigue
Life for a Truck Cab.” Reliability Engineering and System Safety 135: 1–8.
Fernandes, M. M., A. C. Rosati, D. G. Neto, F. K. Goto, H. Maciel Jr., and J. F. Mologni. 2008. “Quality
Function Deployment (QFD) and Pugh Matrix on Innovative Concept Selection: An Application in
Automotive Sector.” SAE technical papers.
Franssen, M. 2005. “Arrow’s Theorem, Multi-Criteria Decision Problems and Multi-Attribute Prefer-
ences in Engineering Design.” Research in Engineering Design 16: 42–56.
Friend, J. 1989. “The Strategic Choice Approach.” In Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Prob-
lem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, edited by J. Rosenhead, 71–100.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Ginn, D., and M. Zairi. 2005. “Best Practice QFD Application: An Internal/External Benchmarking
Approach Based on Ford Motors’ Experience.” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Manage-
ment 22 (1): 38–58.
Goncalves-Coelho, A. M., and A. J. F. Mourao. 2007. “Axiomatic Design as Support for Decision-Making
in a Design for Manufacturing Context: A Case Study.” International Journal of Production Economics
109: 81–89.
Guo, J., J. Hu, and Y. Zhao. 2010. “Research on Customer Requirements Model based on α-cuts Fuzzy
Weighted Average Method.” Paper presented at the proceedings – 2010 IEEE 17th international
conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, IE and EM2010, 884–887.
Hambali, A., S. M. Sapuan, N. Ismail, and Y. Nukman. 2009. “Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process
in the Design Concept Selection of Automotive Composite Bumper Beam During the Conceptual
Design Stage.” Scientific Research and Essays 4 (4): 198–211.
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 23

Hambali, A., S. M. Sapuan, N. Ismail, and Y. Nukman. 2010. “Material Selection of Polymeric Composite
Automotive Bumper Beam Using Analytical Hierarchy Process.” Journal of Central South University
of Technology (English Edition) 17 (2): 244–256.
Harris, R. 1998. Introduction to Decision Making. VirtualSalt. http://www.virtualsalt.com/crebook5.htm.
He, Y., X. Tang, and W. Chang. 2010. “Technical Decomposition Approach of Critical to Quality Char-
acteristics for Product Design for Six Sigma.” Quality and Reliability Engineering International 26 (4):
325–339.
Hou, L., Z. Wen, and D. Han. 2008. “Axiomatic Design of an Integrated Automatic Welding System for
the Handle of Motorcycle.” Paper presented at the 2007 IEEE international conference on control
and automation, ICCA, 1245–1249.
Hoyle, C., and W. Chen. 2007. “Next Generation QFD: Decision-based Product Attribute Function
Deployment.” Paper presented at the proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th international conference
on engineering design, DS 42.
Hoyle, C. J., and W. Chen. 2009. “Product Attribute Function Deployment (PAFD) for Decision-Based
Conceptual Design.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 56 (2): 271–284.
Hwang, C. L., and K. L. Yoon. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New
York: Springer.
Ilangkumaran, M., A. Avenash, V. Balakrishnan, S. Barath Kumar, and M. Boopathi Raja. 2013. “Material
Selection Using Hybrid MCDM Approach for Automobile Bumper.” International Journal of Industrial
and Systems Engineering 14 (1): 20–39.
Iranmanesh, S. H., M. H. Mokhtarani, and H. Rastegar. 2015. “A New Approach for Prioritising Engineer-
ing Characteristics in Quality Function Deployment.” International Journal of Industrial and Systems
Engineering 19 (4): 547–565.
Jänsch, J., T. Sauer, S. Walter, and H. Birkhofer. 2003. “The Transfer of User-suitable Design Methods.”
ICED 2003 international conference on engineering design, Stockholm, August.
Jetter, A. 2006. “Elicitation-extracting Knowledge From Expert.” In Knowledge Integration: The Practice
of Knowledge Management in Small and Medium Enterprises, edited by A. Jetter, J. Kraaijenbrink, H.
Schroder, and F. Wijnhoven, 65–76. Physica-Verlag HD. doi:10.1007/3-7908-1681-7_5.
Jiang, X. Y., X. Y. Sun, S. J. Wang, and W. S. Wang. 2010. “A New Method of Quality Control for new
Product Development.” Applied Mechanics and Materials 29: 2386–2391.
Jikar, V. K., E. A. Cudney, E. D. Smith, K. M. Ragsdell, and K. Paryani. 2007. “Quantitatively Augmented
QFD-HOQ (No. 2007-01-3705).” SAE technical paper.
Kazemi, S., S. M. Homayouni, and J. Jahangiri. 2015. “A Fuzzy Delphi-Analytical Hierarchy Process
Approach for Ranking of Effective Material Selection Criteria.” Advances in Materials Science and
Engineering 2015: 12. art. no. 845346.
Kharrat, A., S. Dhouib, H. Chabchoub, and B. Aouni. 2011. “Decision-maker’s Preferences Modelling in
the Engineering Design Through the Interactive Goal-Programming.” International Journal of Data
Analysis Techniques and Strategies 3 (1): 85–104.
Koganti, R., M. Zaluzec, M. Chen, and F. M. Defersha. 2007. “Design for Assembly: An AHP Approach for
Automotive Front end Component Design Evaluation (No. 2007-01-0522).” SAE technical paper.
Kohli, R., H. Wadhwa, and J. Christian. 2006. “Integrating Conjoint Analysis and Engineering Design.”
https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/researcharchive/articles/2278.
Krishnamurty, S. 2006. “Normative Decision Analysis in Engineering Design.” Decision Making in
Engineering Design 4 (4): 21–33.
Law, W. S., and E. K. Antonsson. 1994. “Implementing the Method of Imprecision: An Engineering
Design Example.” In Proceedings of the third IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE
‘94) (June 1994), vol. 1, IEEE, 358–363. Invited paper.
Leary, M., and C. Burvill. 2007. “Enhancing the Quality Function Deployment Conceptual Design Tool.”
Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME 129 (7): 701–708.
Lewis, K. E., W. Chen, and L. C. Schmidt. 2006. Decision Making in Engineering Design. New York: ASME
Press.
Li, Y.-L., J.-F. Tang, Y. Pu, and J.-M. Yao. 2007. “Sorting Algorithm of Customer Requirements in Quality
Function Deployment.” Jisuanji Jicheng Zhizao Xitong/Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems,
CIMS 13 (6): 1196–1203+1240.
24 C. RENZI ET AL.

Li, B., and F. Wu. 2011. “Analyzing the Variety of Customer Needs for Product Family Design by
Integrating Conjoint Analysis and Quality Function Deployment.” Proceedings of the 2011 2nd
International Conference on Digital Manufacturing and Automation, ICDMA 2011, art. no. 6051830,
203–206.
Macharis, C., J. Springael, K. De Brucker, and A. Verbeke. 2004. “PROMETHEE and AHP: The Design
of Operational Synergies in Multicriteria Analysis: Strengthening PROMETHEE with Ideas of AHP.”
European Journal of Operational Research 153 (2): 307–317. ISSN 0377-2217.
Madadi, N., and K. Y. Wong. 2013. “A Deterministic Aggregate Production Planning Model Considering
Quality of Products.” IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, Vol. 46, No. 1, p.
012015. IOP.
Maity, S. R., and S. Chakraborty. 2013. “A Decision Making Approach for Bearing Material Selection.”
International Journal of Computational Materials Science and Surface Engineering 5 (4): 289–303.
Malak, R. J., J. M. Aughenbaugh, and C. J. J. Paredis. 2009. “Multi-attribute Utility Analysis in set-Based
Conceptual Design.” Computer Aided Design 41 (3): 214–227.
Mansor, M. R., S. M. Sapuan, E. S. Zainudin, A. A. Nuraini, and A. Hambali. 2013. “Hybrid Natural and
Glass Fibers Reinforced Polymer Composites Material Selection Using Analytical Hierarchy Process
for Automotive Brake Lever Design.” Materials and Design 51: 484–492.
Mansor, M. R., S. M. Sapuan, E. S. Zainudin, A. A. Nuraini, and A. Hambali. 2014a. “Conceptual
Design of Kenaf Fiber Polymer Composite Automotive Parking Brake Lever Using Integrated
TRIZ-Morphological Chart-Analytic Hierarchy Process Method.” Materials and Design 54: 473–482.
Mansor, M. R., S. M. Sapuan, A. Hambali, E. S. Zainudin, and A. A. Nuraini. 2014b. “Materials Selection of
Hybrid Bio-Composites Thermoset Matrix for Automotive Bumper Beam Applicationusing Topsis
Method.” Advances in Environmental Biology 8 (8): 3138–3442.
Mardani, A., A. Jusoh, and E. K. Zavadkas. 2015. “Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Techniques
and Applications – Two Decades Review From 1994 to 2014.” Expert Systems with Applications 42
(8): 4126–4148.
Mardani, A., E. K. Zavadskas, K. Govindan, A. Amat Senin, and A. Jusoh. 2016. “VIKOR Technique: A Sys-
tematic Review of the State of the art Literature on Methodologies and Applications.” Sustainability
8 (1): 37 .
Mardani, A., E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Khalifah, A. Jusoh, and K. M. Nor. 2015. “Multiple Criteria Decision-
Making Techniques in Transportation Systems: A Systematic Review of the State of the art Litera-
ture.” Transport 31: 1–27.
Matthews, P., Bayesian networks for design (2006) Design Computing and Cognition ‘06, 223–241.
Mayyas, A. T., and M. A. Omar. 2012. “Eco-material Selection Assisted with Decision-Making Tools,
Guided by Product’s Attributes; Functionality and Manufacturability.” International Journal of Mate-
rials and Structural Integrity 6 (2–4): 190–219.
Mayyas, A., Q. Shen, A. Mayyas, M. Abdelhamid, D. Shan, A. Qattawi, and M. Omar. 2011. “Using Quality
Function Deployment and Analytical Hierarchy Process for Material Selection of Body-in-White.”
Materials and Design 32 (5): 2771–2782.
Mingers, J., and J. Rosenhead. 2004. “Problem Structuring Methods in Action.” European Journal of
Operational Research 152 (3): 530–554.
Monitto, M., P. Pappalardo, and T. Tolio. 2002. “A new Fuzzy AHP Method for the Evaluation of
Automated Manufacturing Systems.” CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology 51 (1): 395–398.
Montagna, F. 2011. “Decision-aiding Tools in Innovative Product Development Contexts.” Research in
Engineering Design 22 (2): 63–86.
Montelisciani, G., D. Gabelloni, G. Fantoni, E. G. Calgaro, and C. Taviani. 2014. “Ordering the Chaos: A
Guided Translation of Needs Into Product Requirements.” Procedia CIRP 21: 403–408.
Mustafa, A., M. F. B. Abdollah, N. Ismail, H. Amiruddin, and N. Umehara. 2014. “Materials Selection for
eco-Aware Lightweight Friction Material.” Mechanics and Industry 15 (4): 279–285.
Nahm, Y. 2013a. “New Competitive Priority Rating Method of Customer Requirements for Customer-
Oriented Product Design.” International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing 14 (8):
1377–1385.
Nahm, Y.-E. 2013b. “A Novel Approach to Prioritize Customer Requirements in QFD Based on Cus-
tomer Satisfaction Function for Customer-Oriented Product Design.” Journal of Mechanical Science
and Technology 27 (12): 3765–3777.
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 25

Nahm, Y.-E., H. Ishikawa, and M. Inoue. 2013. “New Rating Methods to Prioritize Customer Require-
ments in QFD with Incomplete Customer Preferences.” International Journal of Advanced Manufac-
turing Technology 65 (9–12): 1587–1604.
Nepal, B. P., O. P. Yadav, and M. D. Johnson. 2014. “Multistate Belief Probabilities-Based Prioritiza-
tion Framework for Customer Satisfaction Attributes in Product Development.” IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 44 (6), art. no. 6658881: 728–743.
Nepal, B., O. P. Yadav, and A. Murat. 2010. “A Fuzzy-AHP Approach to Prioritization of CS Attributes
in Target Planning for Automotive Product Development.” Expert Systems with Applications 37 (10):
6775–6786.
Opricovic, S. 1998. “Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems.” Faculty of Civil Engineer-
ing, Belgrade 2 (1): 5–21.
Otto, K. N., and E. K. Antonsson. 1993. “The Method of Imprecision Compared to Utility Theory for
Design Selection Problems.” Design Theory and Methodology – DTM’93, 167–173.
Pahl, G., and W. Beitz. 1996. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. 2nd ed. edited by K. Wallace,
L. Blessing, and F. Baurt, trans, 125–143. London: Springer-Verlag .
Pang, J., X. Liu, and G. Liu. 2012. “An Integrated Approach to Determinate Design Quality Targets in
new Products Development Process.” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology 44
(2): 290–296.
Park, H. S., and G. B. Lee. 2007. “Development of Digital Laser Welding System for Automobile Side
Panels.” International Journal of Automotive Technology 8 (1): 83–91.
Patidar, A. 2010. “Application of Design for six Sigma Methodologies to Design Automotive HVAC
System.” SAE technical papers.
Peng, A.-H., and X.-M. Xiao. 2013. “Material Selection Using PROMETHEE Combined with Analytic
Network Process Under Hybrid Environment.” Materials and Design 47: 643–652.
Perçin, S., and H. Min. 2013. “Optimal Machine Tools Selection Using Quality Function Deployment
and Fuzzy Multiple Objective Decision Making Approach.” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems
24 (1): 163–174.
Pugh, S. 1981. “Concept Selection: A Method That Works.” In Proceedings of the International Confer-
ence on Engineering Design ICED, Rome, Italy.
Rahim, S. L., and S. Maidin. 2014. “Feasibility Study of Additive Manufacturing Technology Implemen-
tation in Malaysian Automotive Industry Using Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Applied Mechanics and
Materials 465: 715–719. Trans Tech Publications.
Rajan, V. N. 1996. “A Framework for Concurrent Assembly Design and Planning.” In Proceedings of the
First Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, Houston,
TX, December 4–7, 1996.
Reich, Y. 2010. “My Method is Better!.” Research in Engineering Design 21 (3): 137–142.
Reich, Y. 2013. “Designing Science.” Research in Engineering Design 24 (3): 215–218.
Renzi, C., F. Leali, M. Cavazzuti, and A. O. Andrisano. 2014. “A Review on Artificial Intelligence Appli-
cations to the Optimal Design of Dedicated and Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems.” The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 72 (1–4): 403–418.
Rosenhead, J. 1989. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Problem Structuring Methods for Com-
plexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Chichester: Wiley.
Rosenhead, J., and J. Mingers. 2001. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Chichester:
Wiley.
Roy, B. 1991. “The Outranking Approach and the Foundations of ELECTRE Methods.” Theory and
Decision 31 (1): 49–73.
Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. L. 2004. “Fundamentals of the Analytic Network Process – Dependence and Feedback in
Decision-Making with a Single Network.” Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 13 (2):
129–157.
Sapuan, S. M., J. Y. Kho, E. S. Zainudin, Z. Leman, B. A. Ali, and A. Hambali. 2011. “Materials Selection for
Natural Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites Using Analytical Hierarchy Process.” Indian Journal
of Engineering & Materials Sciences 18 (4): 255–267.
Sharif Ullah, A. M. M., M. Sato, M. Watanabe, and M. M. Rashid. 2016. “Integrating CAD, TRIZ, and
Customer Needs.” International Journal of Automation Technology 10 (2): 132–143.
26 C. RENZI ET AL.

Shi, Z., and G. Mocko. 2013. “Knowledge Base Representation for Axiomatic Design through Ontolo-
gies.” In ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Infor-
mation in Engineering Conference, V02BT02A016–V02BT02A016. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
Srinivasan, S., L. Srivatsan, R. Sathyanarayan, and B. Vijaya Ramnath. 2014. “MCDM Model for Selection
of Optimum Machining Process.” Materials Science Forum 773–774: 348–354.
Subic, A., F. Schiavone, M. Leary, and J. Miller. 2008. “A Systematic Approach to Sustainable Design of
Car Seat Assembly using the Modified Quality Function Deployment Method.” FISITA World Auto-
motive Congress 2008, Congress Proceedings – Mobility Concepts, Man Machine Interface, Process
Challenges, Virtual Reality, 1, 370–377.
Suh, N. P. 1990. The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press.
Suh, N. P. 1998. “Axiomatic Design Theory for Systems.” Research in Engineering Design 10 (4): 189–209.
Townsend, V., and J. Urbanic. 2012. “Relating Additive and Subtractive Processes in a Teleological and
Modular Approach.” Rapid Prototyping Journal 18 (4): 324–338.
Ulrich, K. T., and S. D. Eppinger. 2008. Product Design and Development, 4th ed. Singapore: Irwin
McGraw-Hill.
Vinodh, S., V. Kamala, and K. Jayakrishna. 2014. “Integration of ECQFD, TRIZ, and AHP for Innovative
and Sustainable Product Development.” Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (11–12): 2758–2770.
Von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern. 2007. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Waigaonkar, S., B. J. C. Babu, and R. T. D. Prabhakaran. 2008. “A New Approach for Resin Selection in
Rotational Molding.” Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 27 (10): 1021–1037.
Wei, X., W. Juan-Li, and W. Xiao-Tun. 2010. “Product Concept Generation and Evaluation Based on QFD
and Rough Set Theory.” In 2010 International Conference on Information Management, Innovation
Management and Industrial Engineering (ICIII), IEEE, Vol. 2, 244–247.
Xu, T., D. H. Moon, and S. G. Baek. 2012. “A SimulatStudy Integrated with Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) in an Automotive Manufacturing System.” Simulation 88 (4): 450–463.
Yang, S. S., N. Nasr, S. K. Ong, and A. Y. C. Nee. Forthcoming. “Designing Automotive Prod-
ucts for Remanufacturing From Material Selection Perspective.” Journal of Cleaner Production.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.121.
Yang, S., S. K. Ong, and A. Y. C. Nee. 2013. “Design for Remanufacturing-A Fuzzy-QFD Approach.” In
Re-engineering Manufacturing for Sustainability, edited by Günther Seliger, Holger Kohl, and Jürgen
Mallon, 655–661. Singapore: Springer .
Yang, S. S., S. K. Ong, and A. Y. C. Nee. 2016. “A Decision Support Tool for Product Design for
Remanufacturing.” Procedia CIRP 40: 144–149.
Zahedi, F. 1986. “The Analytic Hierarchy Process – a Survey of the Method and its Applications.”
Interfaces 16 (4): 96–108.
Zavadskas, E. K., Z. Turskis, and S. Kildienė. 2014. “State of art Surveys of Overviews on MCDM/MADM
Methods.” Technological and Economic Development of Economy 20 (1): 165–179.