Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Quality Function Deployment for Offshore Renewable Energies

被引:13
作者
Garcia-Orozco, Selef [1 ]
Vargas-Gutierrez, Gregorio [2 ]
Ordonez-Sanchez, Stephanie [3 ]
Silva, Rodolfo [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Fac Ingn, Mexico City 04510, Mexico
[2] Ctr Invest & Estudios Avanzados IPN, Unidad Saltillo, Saltillo 25900, Mexico
[3] Univ Strathclyde, Dept Mech & Aerosp Engn, Glasgow City G1 1XJ, Scotland
[4] Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
关键词
quality function deployment (QFD); multi-criteria decision making (MCDM); house of quality (HoQ); offshore renewable energy (ORE); FUZZY; DESIGN; AHP; MANAGEMENT; PROMETHEE; TOPSIS; MODEL; VIKOR;
D O I
10.3390/en16186533
中图分类号
TE [石油、天然气工业]; TK [能源与动力工程];
学科分类号
0807 ; 0820 ;
摘要
Quality function deployment (QFD) is now used in various fields, such as product development, design, manufacturing, planning, and quality management services, as a planning tool to achieve customer requirements and needs while improving performance and sustainability concerns. This paper presents a systematic literature review of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodologies integrated into QFD over the last year. In 2022, 56 research papers on planning strategies, the supply chain, and product development using QFD were published. Other fields such as energy, academia, and environment have also shown considerable interest in the integration of MCDM methodologies in QFD to improve decision-making processes. This research shows that the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solutions (TOPSIS) methodologies are mainly used to rank customer requirements and weigh their importance in the house of quality (HoQ) structure. The use of fuzzy logic has been incorporated into the correlation matrix to evaluate the relationships between customer requirements and technical requirements. Methodologies such as decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) and fuzzy cognitive maps are implemented to deal with contradictions, and they have also been used to rank engineering characteristics. In the field of energy and renewable technologies, only few studies related to the integration of MCDM methodologies in QFD were found, but it is forecasted that their use will be used more often as they offer improvements and benefits in the ocean energy sector.
引用
收藏
页数:21
相关论文
共 111 条
[1]   A new hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for location selection of sustainable offshore wind energy stations: A case study [J].
Abdel-Basset, Mohamed ;
Gamal, Abduallah ;
Chakrabortty, Ripon K. ;
Ryan, Michael .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2021, 280
[2]  
Alinezhad A., 2019, New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM), P115
[3]  
Alinezhad A., 2019, New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM), V277, P103
[4]  
Alinezhad A., 2019, New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-15009-9
[5]  
Alinezhad A., 2019, New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM), P29
[6]   A novel belief-based QFD-AHP model in interval type-2 fuzzy environment for lean after-sales service in automotive industry [J].
Baskir, Mukerrem Bahar .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEAN SIX SIGMA, 2023, 14 (03) :653-678
[7]   PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications [J].
Behzadian, Majid ;
Kazemadeh, R. B. ;
Albadvi, A. ;
Aghdasi, M. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2010, 200 (01) :198-215
[8]   Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A review of approaches for the sustainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies [J].
Campos-Guzman, Veronica ;
Socorro Garcia-Cascales, M. ;
Espinosa, Nieves ;
Urbina, Antonio .
RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2019, 104 :343-366
[9]   An in-depth review of theory of the TOPSIS method: An experimental analysis [J].
Celikbilek, Yakup ;
Tuysuz, Fatih .
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT ANALYTICS, 2020, 7 (02) :281-300
[10]  
Chakraborty S, 2022, Decision Analytics Journal, V2, P100021, DOI [10.1016/j.dajour.2021.100021, 10.1016/j.dajour.2021.100021, DOI 10.1016/J.DAJOUR.2021.100021]