MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133376534 · doi:10.11159/ijmem.2014.001

Integration of Quality Function Deployment and Functional Analysis for Eco-design

2013· article· en· W2133376534 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Abdulbaset Alemam, Simon Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Mechatronics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality Function Deployment in Product Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality function deploymentSoftware deploymentFunction (biology)Quality (philosophy)Computer scienceProcess managementSystems engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessEngineeringSoftware engineeringBiologyMarketingPhysicsNew product developmentCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes an eco-design method to systematically generate design concepts for the reduction of environmental impacts. The method is based on the integration of quality function deployment (QFD) and functional analysis (FA) at the early design stage. While QFD provides a framework to reflect the voice of environment in the design planning and evaluations, FA focuses on the functional description of the design to support the generation of design concepts. Particularly, the morphological chart is used to support the synthesis of new design concepts. The integration approach is based on the matrix-based correlation modeling to explicitly capture the links among environmental requirements, engineering metrics, design functions and components. The proposed method consists of four steps. In Step 1, the matrix-based correlation models of the existing design are constructed through QFD and FA. In Step 2, one specific environmental requirement is mapped through the correlation models in order to identify the responsible design functions and components for design generation. Afterwards in Step 3, the identified functions are used to establish the morphological chart to generate possible design solutions (or components) for each function. Then, different design concepts can be synthesized by combining these possible solutions. In Step 4, the generated design concepts can be evaluated via engineering metrics that are relevant to the original environmental requirement. A coffee maker has been selected as an application to demonstrate the proposed 4-step method.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mechanical Engineering and MechatronicsSame topicQuality Function Deployment in Product DesignFrench-language works237,207