Integrating customer's preferences in the QFD planning process using a combined benchmarking and imprecise goal programming model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quality function deployment (QFD) is a customer‐oriented design tool for developing new or improved products to achieve higher customer satisfaction by integrating various functions of an organization. The engineering characteristics (ECs) affecting the product performances are designed to match the customer attributes (CAs). However, from the viewpoint of the QFD team, product design processes are performed in imprecise environments, and more than one factor must be taken into account in determining the target levels of ECs, especially the limited resources and increased market competition. This paper presents an imprecise goal programming (GP) approach to determine the optimum target levels of ECs in QFD for maximizing customer satisfaction under resource limitation and considerations of market competition. Based on benchmarking data of CAs, the concept of satisfaction functions is utilized to formulate explicitly the customer's preferences and to integrate the competitive analysis of target market into the modelling and solution process. In addition, the relationships linking CAs and ECs and the ECs to each other are integrated by functional relationships. The proposed approach will be illustrated through a car door design example.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it