Evaluation and selection in product design for mass customization: A knowledge decision support approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass customization has been identified as a competitive strategy by an increasing number of companies. Family-based product design is an efficient and effective means to realize sufficient product variety, while satisfying a range of customer demands in support for mass customization. This paper presents a knowledge decision support approach to product family design evaluation and selection for mass customization process. Here, product family design is viewed as a selection problem with the following stages: product family (design alternatives) generation, product family design evaluation, and selection for customization. The fundamental issues underlying product family design for mass customization are discussed. Then, a knowledge support framework and its relevant technologies are developed for module-based product family design for mass customization. A systematic fuzzy clustering and ranking model is proposed and discussed in detail. This model supports the imprecision inherent in decision making with fuzzy customers' preference relations and uses fuzzy analysis techniques for evaluation and selection. A neural network technique is also adopted to adjust the membership function to enhance the model. The focus of this paper is on the development of a knowledge-intensive support scheme and a comprehensive systematic fuzzy clustering and ranking methodology for product family design evaluation and selection. A case study and the scenario of knowledge support for power supply family evaluation, selection, and customization are provided for illustration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".