Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

Using integrated quality function deployment and theory of innovation

problem solving approach for ergonomic product design
Fanglan Zhang a,b,⇑, Minglang Yang a, Weidong Liu a
a
College of Art and Design, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao 066004, China
b
School of Mechatronics Engineering, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 20 December 2012
Received in revised form 17 July 2014
Accepted 21 July 2014
Available online 1 August 2014
Keywords:
Theory of innovation problem solving (TRIZ)
House of Quality (HoQ)
Quality function deployment (QFD)
Ergonomic product innovative design
Customer satisfaction needs (CSNs)
Fuzzy group decision-making
A multidisciplinary approach integrating method of identification of customer satisfaction needs (CSNs),
the House of Quality (HoQ) chart of quality function deployment (QFD), theory of innovation problem
solving (TRIZ) and fuzzy group decision-making theory for ergonomic product innovative design and
evaluation in the early design stages was proposed. An integrated model and the approach procedures
consists of four steps. In step 1, identification of CSNs is based on a data source triangulation approach,
questionnaire survey, 5-point liner numeric rating scale, factor analysis, and Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
statistic are utilized to guarantee that the CSNs are complete and reliable. In step 2, a correlation matrix is
built to identify the critical ergonomic design areas and the key problems are established by analysis of
the negative relationships obtained from interrelationship half-matrix at the roof of the HoQ. In step 3, to
solve the problems, TRIZ main tools and contradiction analysis are utilized. Several innovative alterna-
tives are generated by combining appropriate Inventive Principles of TRIZ, the critical ergonomic design
areas and the ergonomic design principles. In step 4, a general and easy fuzzy group decision-making
method for evaluating of the best design alternatives is presented. A case study of the integrated kitchen
stove innovative design and evaluation is conducted to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed
approach.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction products. An ergonomic product may be expressed through the

Product design is a critical factor during the early phase of new
product development (Crawford, 1997, Chapter 4). Enhancing cus-
tomer satisfaction and providing innovative products become cru-
cial strategies for success. Product designers normally focus on
functionality, quality and cost, which have long been the most
important factor in product design. However, in recent years,
research in ergonomics and design aesthetics has illuminated that
product functionality, quality and cost may not be the main deter-
minant of customer satisfaction but that other design elements
such as safety, comfort (Vink, Overbeeke, & Desmet, 2005,
Chapter 4), usability and pleasurable appeal (Jordan, 1998,
Chapter 3, 2000), emotion (Nagamachi, 2002), attractiveness and
individuation (Liu, 2003) also play an important role. The focus
of ergonomics is to study the role of humans in the safe and effi-
cient operation of complex industrial systems and the application
of ergonomic principles and anthropometric data to the design of
⇑ Corresponding author at: College of Art and Design, Yanshan University,
Qinhuangdao 066004, China. Tel.: +86 018633526082.
E-mail address: fanglanzhang@163.com (F. Zhang).
elements of safety, comfort, easiness, size, etc. With regard to
design aesthetics, it may refer to the objective features of a stimu-
lus such as shape, color, tone and texture (Postrel, 2003, Chapter 5;
Schifferstein & Hekkert, 2007, Chapter 2) or to the subjective reac-
tion like attractiveness to the specific product features.
Customers have been pursuing ergonomically well-designed
and aesthetic product. The reason for customers shifts is that ergo-
nomic product design based on anthropometric dimensions and
ergonomic principles may prevent the risk of occupational injuries
(Sperling et al., 1993) and ergonomically well-designed product
also offer comfortable use and high pleasure to the customers
(Motamedzade, Choobineh, Mououdi, & Arghamj, 2007). Through
experiments, Sonderegger and Sauer (2010), reported that per-
ceived usability was positively influenced by the design aesthetics
of the product. Design aesthetics is an important tool to attracts
customers and gain their attentions. Product designers should thus
provide ergonomic and aesthetic expertise to ergonomic product
design problem through innovative methods and tools.
With regard to the design mehods for new product develop-
ment, quality function deployment (QFD) is an important method-
ological approach to increase customer satisfaction and reduce the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.07.019
0360-8352/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74
product costs and development cycle time. Proposed by Akao
(1997, Chapter 1), QFD was originally developed at Mitsubishi’s
Kobe shipyards in 1972. According to House of Quality (HoQ) chart,
the most recognized and widely used form of QFD, voice of
customer can be availably and entirely translated into engineering
characteristics. QFD has been successfully applied by industries
around the world (Bergman, 1994, Chapter 3; Geuma, Kwak, &
Yongtae Park, 2012; Vezzetti, Moos, & Kretli, 2011).
In addition, originally proposed by Altshuller, the theory of
innovation problem solving (TRIZ) solves technical problems and
provides innovative product structures by employing a knowledge
base built from the analyses of approximately 2.5 million invention
patents. The TRIZ approach has applied to numerous design
problem-solving such as therapy bike design proposal for cerebral
palsy children (Lin & Luh, 2009), vacuum cleaner design (Russo,
Regazzoni, & Montecchi, 2011), five cooling device concept
solutions to overcome the interface conflicts (Wessel, Tom, &
Vaneker, 2011), and Technology Forecasting of washing machine
(Solomani, Hua, Shi, & Wang, 2004). In each of these cases TRIZ
is used as problem solving tool in order to provide solutions
for innovative product design. Besides, designers provided
eco-friendly solutions to product design problem through TRIZ
methods to help implement eco-friendly designs. Fresner et al.
(2010), used TRIZ in cleaner production to minimize industrial
waste and emissions by increasing the efficiency of the use of
materials and energy. Pelt and Hey (2011), compared the BetaMax
by Sony Corporation with the Video Home System (VHS) by Japan
Victory Corporation to exemplify technologically superior products
failing to become a success. Several TRIZ specialists, as a result,
have made efforts to integrate TRIZ with other design methods
and tools. Alan Van Pelt addressed the application of TRIZ together
with Human-Centered Design (HCD). Others have proposed
integration with the Neuro Linguistic Programming to understand
customers (Mann, 2002, Chapter 5) or the Kano model (Hashim &
Dawal, 2012). Hipple (2006) interprets many consumer products
from the perspective of the TRIZ methodology and Mann (2002,
Chapter 2) provides an extension of the classical 9-Windows tool
to include consideration of behavior, capability, and beliefs, values,
and identity. Known as an innovative idea generation tool, TRIZ
was prevailed and accepted in worldwide corporations such as
Philips, Samsung, Siemens and Motorola.
Moreover, several alternatives of ergonomic product innovative
design are generated in the early design stages. The method for
evaluating of the best design alternatives is critical to success in
new product development. Recently, Multi-Criteria Group
Decision-Making (MCGDM) method is used in many real-world
decision-making situations in various kinds of engineering and
management fields (Hatami-Marbini & Tavana, 2011; Mojtahedi,
Mousavi, & Makui, 2010; Vahdani, Meysam Mousavi, Tavakkoli-
Moghaddam, & Hashemi, 2013). Selecting of design alternatives
is a MCGDM problem which involves many factors of both
customer needs and business constraints. In the early design
stages, evaluation of design alternatives is difficult to precisely
express by crisp data because the information available is usually
subjective or imprecise. So, it is more appropriate to present the
data by fuzzy numbers instead of crisp numbers (Buyuközkan,
Arsenyan, & Ruan, 2012; Geng, Chu, & Zhang, 2010).
Despite of many success stories on both QFD and TRIZ applica-
tions, all of them implementation are not without problems. QFD is
effective to indicate what problems to solve in order to satisfy cus-
tomer needs, but does not necessarily offer a guide on how to gen-
erate solutions for the problem identified. With regard to
overcome this challenge, TRIZ is one of the effective tool, However,
TRIZ specialists are in doubt whether the problem or contradiction
to be solved is the right one. Accordingly, a method of integrated
QFD and TRIZ at product design stage for generating innovative
61
alternatives is proposed. Besides, evaluating of ergonomic design
alternatives is formulated as MCGDM problem and the evaluation
criteria of alternatives have subjective perceptions. Therefore,
fuzzy group decision-making method is proposed for the ergo-
nomic design alternatives evaluation to ensure a more efficient
and rational decision process. In this paper, we put forward a mul-
tidisciplinary approach integrating identification of customer satis-
faction needs (CSNs), HoQ chart of QFD, TRIZ and fuzzy group
decision-making theory for ergonomic product innovative design
and evaluation in the early design stages.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Quality function deployment (QFD)
2.1.1. The House of Quality (HoQ) chart of QFD
Quality function deployment (QFD) is a method for developing a
design quality aimed at satisfying the customer and then translat-
ing the consumer needs into design targets and major quality
assurance points to be used throughout the production stage.
The primary chart used in QFD is the House of Quality (HoQ).
According to the HoQ, customer needs are translated into engi-
neering characteristics, and subsequently into part or component
characteristics, the process operations, and production require-
ments associated with the manufacturing process. Therefore, accu-
racy of customer needs input is critical for applying the HoQ with
success. Toyota halved their design costs and reduced development
time by a third after use QFD (Hauser and Clausing, 1988, Chapter
4). Marsot (2005) used the HoQ to design a boning knife.
Haapalainen (1999/2000) evaluated pruning shears using the
HoQ. Kuijt-evers, Morel, Eikelenberg, and Vink (2009), applied
QFD as a design approach to ensure comfort in screwdriver design.
Lo, Tseng, and Chu (2010), advanced One-step QFD for concept
generation of computer mice design. The SOFRAGRAF Company
has used QFD for the design of hand tools, staplers, nailing
machines, etc. with success. In each of these cases QFD is success-
fully used as the tool that illustrates the translation of customer
needs into product design characteristics in order to increase cus-
tomer satisfaction (Lai, Xie, Tan, & Yang, 2008; Raharjo,
Brombacher, & Xie, 2008).
The procedures of the traditional HoQ chart of QFD are divided
into the following six steps (Fig. 1).
Step 1: Identifying the customers.
Step 2: Determining customer needs.
Fig. 1. QFD procedures model.
62 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74

Step 3: Determining relative importance of the needs.
Step 4: Competition benchmarking.
Step 5: Translating customer needs into measurable engineering
characteristics.
Step 6: Setting engineering targets for the design.
matrix and 40 inventive principles. The procedure of the contradic-
tion analysis and elimination is shown in Fig. 3.
2.2.3. Defects of TRIZ
TRIZ is a knowledge base tools, but it has 3 defects as follows:

2.1.2. Defects of the traditional QFD (1) Defects 1: The traditional TRIZ is not involved the method to
The HoQ chart of QFD in its traditional form presents many establish the key problems for innovation.
limitations on its implementation. It has 5 defects as follows: (2) Defects 2: Using TRIZ for solving problems, the implementa-
tion process still needs the designers’ knowledge, experience
(1) Defects 1: Matrix size is too large, increasing the computa- and level.
tional complexity and time consuming. (3) The traditional TRIZ does not provide an objective method
(2) Defects 2: Completeness and effectiveness of the customer for alternatives evaluation.
needs cannot be guaranteed.
(3) Defects 3: Relying on individual engineers to determine the 2.3. Fuzzy decision theory with linguistic variables
product engineering characteristics have strong subjectivity.
(4) Defects 4: The traditional QFD method is not involved in 2.3.1. A concept of trapezoidal fuzzy number
specific ways and means to solve the innovative problem.
(5) Defects 5: The traditional QFD is not involved the method for
e ¼ ða1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a4 Þ, its membership
Definition 1. A trapezoidal fuzzy number A
alternatives evaluation.
function is defined by
8
2.2. Theory of innovation problem solving (TRIZ) >
> 0; x 6 a1
>
>
>
< ðx  a1 Þ=ða2  a1 Þ;
> a1 < x < a2
2.2.1. Main tools leA ðxÞ ¼ 1; a2 6 x 6 a3 ð1Þ
The key of TRIZ is the realization that contradictions can be >
>
> ðx  a4 Þ=ða3  a4 Þ;
> a3 < x < a4
methodically resolved by using innovative solutions, which is >
>
:
contained many useful tools. The main tools of TRIZ include 40 0; x P a4
Inventive Principles, the Contradiction Matrix, and the Separation
Principles. 40 Inventive Principles (Table 1) are used to guide the e ¼ ða1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a4 Þ, its defuzzification
Definition 2. For a trapezoidal fuzzy number A
TRIZ specialists in developing useful concepts of solution for value is defined to be
inventive situation, and they are distributed (up to 4 most likely
inventive principles for solving the design problems) among the b ¼ ða1 þ a2 þ a3 þ a4 Þ=4 ð2Þ
cells of a 39  39 matrix, called contradiction matrix (Fig. 2) that From Fig. 4, if the left area Da1ca2 + Da2cdb is equal to the right area
identifies 39 engineering parameters (Table 2) most frequently Da3ea4 + Da3edb, then
involved in design process. The Separation Principle includes 4
types with numbers corresponding to 40 Inventive Principles as ð1Þða2  a1 Þ=2 þ ðb  a2 Þð1Þ ¼ ða3  bÞð1Þ þ ð1Þða4  a3Þ=2 ) b
shown in Table 3. The main tools of TRIZ are simple and easy to
¼ ða1 þ a2 þ a3 þ a4 Þ=4
use. Each tool provides effective solutions for product innovation.
Therefore, the defuzzification value of the trapezoidal fuzzy number
2.2.2. Contradiction analysis and elimination is established by b = (a1 + a2 + a3 + a4)/4.
Contradiction analysis is a process for identifying, formulating
the specific contradictions, which are transformed into the TRIZ 2.3.2. Linguistic variables and fuzzy number
genetic contradictions relying on 39 engineering parameters. The linguistic weighting variables and the linguistic rating vari-
Moreover, analysis of contradictions type is the key to use appro- ables are shown in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
priate inventive tool. There are two types of contradiction: physical
contradiction and technical contradiction. The physical contradic- 2.3.3. Fuzzy Delphi method
tion describes antipodal characteristics requirements for the prob- The Fuzzy Delphi method includes the following steps.
lem. It can be solved by Separation principles and 40 inventive
principles. The technical contradiction is generated when two sys- Step 1: Experts Ei, i = 1,   , n, provide the possible realization
ðiÞ
tem parameters oppose each other, an improvement in one leading rating of a certain event: the pessimistic rating a1 ; the most
ðiÞ ðiÞ ðiÞ
to a deterioration of the other. It can be solved by contradiction plausible rating (a2 ; a3 ), and the optimistic rating a4 . The

Table 1
40 Inventive principles.

1. Segmentation 11. Beforehand cushioning 21. Skipping 31. Porous materials

2. Taking out 12. Equipotentiality 22. ‘‘Blessing in disguise’’ or ‘‘Turn Lemons into Lemonade’’ 32. Color changes
3. Local quality 13. ‘‘The other way round’’ 23. Feedback 33. Homogeneity
4. Asymmetry 14. Spheroidality – curvature 24. ‘‘Intermediary’’ 34. Discarding and recovering
5. Merging 15. Dynamics 25. Self-service 35. Parameter changes
6. Universality 16. Partial or excessive actions 26. Copying 36. Phase transitions
7. ‘‘Nested doll’’ 17. Another dimension 27. Cheap short-living objects 37. Thermal expansion
8. Anti-weight 18. Mechanical vibration 28. Mechanics substitution 38. Strong oxidants
9. Preliminary anti-action 19. Periodic action 29. Pneumatics and hydraulics 39. Inert atmosphere
10. Preliminary action 20. Continuity of useful action 30. Flexible shells and thin films 40. Composite materials
 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74 63

Fig. 2. The part of the contradiction matrix.

rating given by each expert Ei are presented in the form of a Table 2

trapezoidal fuzzy number 39 Engineering parameters.

1. Weight of moving object 21. Power

e ðiÞ ¼ ðaðiÞ ; aðiÞ ; aðiÞ ; aðiÞ Þ; i ¼ 1;    ; n:;
A ð3Þ 2. Weight of stationary object 22. Loss of Energy
1 2 3 4
3. Length of moving object 23. Loss of substance
4. Length of stationary object 24. Loss of Information
e m of all A
Step 2: First, the mean A e ðiÞ is computed. This requires 5. Area of moving object 25. Loss of Time
ðiÞ ðiÞ ðiÞ ðiÞ 6. Area of stationary object 26. Quantity of substance/the
computation of the mean of alla1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a4 ; i = 1,   , n. Hence
matter
7. Volume of moving object 27. Reliability
e m ¼ ðam1 ; am2 ; am3 ; am4 Þ
A 8. Volume of stationary object 28. Measurement accuracy
! 9. Speed 29. Manufacturing precision
1X n
ðiÞ 1
Xn
ðiÞ 1
Xn
ðiÞ 1
Xn
ðiÞ
10. Force 30. External harm affects the object
¼ a1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a ð4Þ 11. Stress or pressure 31. Object-generated harmful
n i¼1 n i¼1 n i¼1 n i¼1 4 factors
12. Shape 32. Ease of manufacture
Then for each expert Ei the differences 13. Stability of the object’s 33. Ease of operation
composition
  14. Strength 34. Ease of repair
ðiÞ ðiÞ ðiÞ ðiÞ
am1  a1 ; am1  a2 ; am1  a3 ; am1  a4 15. Duration of action by a moving 35. Adaptability or versatility
! object
1X n
ðiÞ ðiÞ 1
Xn
ðiÞ ðiÞ 1
Xn
ðiÞ ðiÞ 1
Xn
ðiÞ ðiÞ 16. Duration of action by a stationary 36. Device complexity
¼ a1  a1 ; a1  a1 ; a1  a1 ; a  a1
n i¼1 n i¼1 n i¼1 n i¼1 1 object
17. Temperature 37. Difficulty of detecting and
ð5Þ measuring
18. Illumination intensity 38. Extent of automation
are found and sent back to the expert Ei for reexamination. 19. Use of energy by moving object 39. Productivity
20. Use of energy by stationary object

Step 3: Each expert Ei presents a revised trapezoidal fuzzy

number

 
e ðiÞ ¼ bðiÞ ; bðiÞ ; bðiÞ ; bðiÞ ; i ¼ 1;    ; n:
B ð6Þ Step 4: At a later time, the same process may reexamine the rat-
1 2 3 4
ings, if there is important information available due to new
e m is cal-
This process starting with Step 2 is repeated. The average B discoveries.
ðiÞ ðiÞ ðiÞ ðiÞ
culated by formula (4) with the differences that now a1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a4
ðiÞ ðiÞ ðiÞ ðiÞ
are substituted correspondingly by b1 ; b2 ; b3 ; b4 : 2.4. Ergonomic product design principles and evaluation
If it still necessary new trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
e ðiÞ ¼ ðcðiÞ ; cðiÞ ; cðiÞ ; cðiÞ Þ are presented, and their average C
C e m is 2.4.1. The ergonomic design principles
1 2 3 4
calculated. The process could be repeated again and again until Over the last decades, functionality of a product has long been
to successive means A em; B e m ; . . . become reasonably close (we
em; C the most important factor in designing a product. However, once
can define the distance of two fuzzy numbers, di 6 0:2). appropriate functionality is satisfied, the user has tendency to need
64 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74

Table 3 Table 5
Separation Principles corresponding to 40 inventive principles. Linguistic variables for the ratings.

Types The number of 40 inventive Linguistic term Membership function

principles
Very poor (VP) (0, 0, 1, 2)
1. Separation of opposite requirements 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 13, 17, 24, 26, 30 Poor (P) (1, 2, 2, 3)
in space Medium poor (MP) (2, 3, 4, 5)
2. Separation of opposite requirements 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, Fair (F) (4, 5, 5, 6)
in time 34, 37 Medium good (MG) (5, 6, 7, 8)
3. Separation within a whole and its 12, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40 Good (G) (7, 8, 8, 9)
parts Very good (VG) (8, 9, 10, 10)
4. Separation upon condition 1, 7, 25, 27, 5, 22, 23, 33, 6, 8, 14, 25,
35, 13

Design Principles (Seva, Gosiaco, Santos, & Pangilinan, 2011), as

shown in Table 6.

2.4.2. Ergonomic design alternatives evaluation

Identifying accurate criteria and applying logical method are
keys to a successful alternatives evaluation process. From the
extensive review of ergonomics literature (Dul et al., 2012; Laios
& Giannatsis, 2010; Wellings, Williams, & Tennant, 2010), the ergo-
nomic design alternative criteria are established as shown in
Table 7. However, these criteria usually cannot concretely quantify
and with fuzziness. Therefore, evaluating ergonomic design alter-
natives by fuzzy group decision-making is considerately.

3. An multidisciplinary approach

The HoQ chart of QFD in its traditional form presents many

defects (Sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.3) on its implementation. A combi-
nation of both can compensate for their defects. Besides, how to
identify customer needs accurately and extensively and evaluation
design alternatives are not yet mentioned in both of the method.
Therefore, we put forward a multidisciplinary approach integrating
identification of customer satisfaction needs (CSNs), HoQ chart of
Fig. 3. The procedure of the contradiction analysis and elimination. QFD, TRIZ and fuzzy group decision-making theory at ergonomic
product design stage. An integrated model for ergonomic product
innovative design is shown in Fig. 5.
The proposed integrated model for ergonomic product design
c d
1 consists of four steps.

(1) Identification of customer satisfaction needs (CSNs).

(2) Construction of the HoQ chart of QFD for identifying the key
problems and the critical areas for innovation.
(3) Using the TRIZ main tools and contradiction analysis to gen-
0
erate the innovative design alternatives.
a1 a2 b a3 a4
(4) Application of fuzzy group decision-making theory for the
Fig. 4. The defuzzification value of the trapezoidal fuzzy number.
alternatives evaluation and selecting the best design
alternative.

These steps are presented in detail as follows:

Table 4
Linguistic variables for the importance weight. 3.1. Identification of the CSNs
Linguistic term Membership function
Very low (VL) (0, 0, 0.1, 0.2)
The first step involves identification of the CSNs. To guarantee
Low (L) (0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3) the completeness of the CSNs and enhance the validity of the study
Medium low (ML) (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5) results, a data source triangulation approach is used, including
Medium (M) (0.4, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6) questionnaire, expert interviews and the extensive review of ergo-
Medium high (MH) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8)
nomics literature. The conceptual model of the data source trian-
High (H) (0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9)
Very high (VH) (0.8, 0.9, 1, 1) gulation approach for collecting initial CSNs descriptors is shown
in Fig. 6.
With regard to the initial CSNs descriptors, pre-screening includ-
ing grouping/eliminating/combining procedure is performed by
something more beyond the functionality. In this sense, ergonomic ergonomists based on such criteria as relevancy, dependency,
usability recently considered more important than the functional- redundancy, and similarity. As a result, the initial CSNs are obtained.
ity in the product design. In order to capture the usability, a prod- To gain reliable CSNs, questionnaire consists of full set of
uct must be designed by adapting some or all of the Ergonomic pre-screened list of the initial CSNs are employed. 5-point liner
 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74 65

Table 6
The ergonomic design principles.

Principles
1. Product size fits in with body dimensions and environmental space
dimensions
2. Product form fits in with Human physiological structure and curve
3. Product color in accord with human cognitive psychology
4. Product interface correspondence with human cognitive behavior
5. User interacts with the product operating system intelligently
Fig. 6. The conceptual model of the data source triangulation approach for
collecting initial CSNs descriptors.

Table 7
The ergonomic design alternative criteria.
including ergonomic interactive needs, ergonomic affective needs
Criteria Item and ergonomic performance needs. Factor Analysis with varimax
1. Ergonomic interaction 1.1 Safety rotation was utilized for classifying the initial CSNs.
1.2 Dimension To gain reliable data about customer needs with respect to cus-
1.3 Comfort
tomer satisfaction, a large number of questionnaire survey are
1.4 Save effort
1.5 Easy to use employed. Questionnaire consists of full set of pre-screened list
of the initial CSNs. 5-point liner numeric rating scale is utilized
2. Ergonomic emotion 2.1 Aesthetics
2.2 Style to measure the relative importance of each CSN as shown in
2.3 Semantics Fig. 7. The internal consistency reliability of CSNs is tested with
2.4 Attraction Cronbach’s coefficient alpha statistic. Analysis of Cronbach’s coeffi-
2.5 Easy to learn cient alpha was conducted using statistical analysis package (SAS
2.6 Maintenance
v.9.1). The cutoff thresholds were 0.7 of Cronbach’s coefficient
3. Ergonomic performance 3.1 Efficiency alpha and 0.4 of item-total correlation coefficient. If item-total cor-
3.2 Effectiveness
3.3 Function
relations of CSNs are below the cutoff threshold of 0.4, they are
3.4 Environmental protection unreliable and therefore would be removed. As a result, according
3.5 Save energy to the mean score, standard deviation and item-total correlations
of CSNs, the final CSNs are identified.

numeric rating scale is utilized to measure the relative importance 3.2. Construction of the HoQ chart of QFD
of each CSN as shown in Fig. 7. From the result of questionnaire
survey, the initial CSNs were analyzed and classified into meaning- The second step involves construction of the HoQ chart of QFD,
ful categories to be related to customer satisfaction dimensions as shown in Fig. 8, for identifying the key problems and the critical

Fig. 5. An integrated model for ergonomic product design.

66 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74

Fig. 7. Example of questionnaire for CSNs.

Fig. 8. Construction of the HoQ chart of QFD.

design areas for innovation. Information about product design

characteristics (PDCs) can be obtained from the final CSNs. CNs-
PDCs correlation matrix is built. The correlation between the PDCs
and CSNs are evaluated by using rating scale (0-1-3-5) which is
corresponded to four relationship levels (i.e. no, weak, moderate,
and strong relationships). Design priorities of PDCs are represented
by the overall importance score of each product design character-
Fig. 9. The traditional ceiling rage hood and gas hob.
istics related to customer needs, which is calculated by the follow-
ing equation: 3.3. Generation of design alternatives using TRIZ

X The third step involves using the TRIZ main tools and contradic-
Sj ¼ C i Pij
i¼1
where Sj is the overall importance score of the jth product design
characteristic, Ci is the importance score of ith customer needs, Pij
is score of the impact of the jth design characteristics on the ith cus-
tomer needs of the jth product design characteristic.
The roof of the HoQ is used to identify interrelationships in
PDCs. The symbol ‘‘+’’, ‘‘’’ represents positive and negative rela-
tionships. Improving one PDC and causing deterioration in the
other PDC represents negative relationship. Improving one PDC
and causing improvement in the other PDC represents positive
relationship. As a result, the key innovative problems from the neg-
ative relationship of PDCs and the critical design areas from the
design priorities of PDCs are established.
ð7Þ
tion analysis to generate design alternatives.
The contradictions derived from the HOQ are formulated. By
contradiction analysis of TRIZ, the type of contradiction is firstly
established in this step. Within a PDC itself, where two mutually
opposite requirements exist, is defined as a physical contradiction
which can be resolved by using separation principles. The negative
relationships between the pairs of PDCs which can be translated
into two of the 39 engineering parameters are described as techni-
cal contradiction which can be resolved by using contradiction
matrix. Next, applying separation principles solves physical contra-
diction and using contradiction matrix solves technical contradic-
tion. As a result, some recommended inventive principles in 40
inventive principles are identified.
For specific products and practice problems, the most effective
solutions from the recommended inventive principles are selected.
 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74 67

Fig. 10. The HoQ for rage hood and gas hob innovative design.

According to solution concept proposal, design priority of PDC and 3.4. Alternatives evaluation and selection using fuzzy group decision-
ergonomic design principles, the innovative idea of ergonomic prod- making theory
uct design are generated. Generate innovative product design in
terms of solution concept proposal, design priority of PDC and ergo-
The fourth step involves application of fuzzy group decision-
nomic design principles. The alternatives are expressed by sketch,
making theory. The algorithm for our proposed method is intro-
and the three-dimensional (3D) model is built by using computer-
duced as follows:
aided design software like Coreldraw, Rhino, 3DS Max and others.
68 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74

Table 8 (2) Calculate the mean of fuzzy rating and weighting, and trans-
Initial CSNs descriptors related to use rage hood and gas hob. fer linguistic terms to trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.
Initial CSNs descriptors (3) Construct fuzzy decision matrix by normalizing the mean of
1. Strong suction 29. Fit for different pots fuzzy rating for all of the alternatives.
2. Low noise 30. Automatic cleaning (4) Aggregate the fuzzy evaluations by A e i ¼ ½~ ~ j t ,
xij   ½x
3. Gas combustion and energy saving 31. Add useful function i = 1,   , m, j = 1,   , n, i.e.,
4. Provide the required fire size 32. Reasonable structure of the
function system 2 3
2 3 ~x11 ~x12    ~x1n
5. Be safe 33. Intelligent control e1
A 6 ~x 7
6. Avoid the user’s head inadvertently 34. Be silent 6 . 7 6 21 ~x22    ~x2n 7
6 . 7¼6 . .. 7
bumping the hood 4 . 5 6 . .. .. 7
7. Easy to clean surface oil 35. Suction fumes rate 100% 4 . . . . 5
8. Oil box is easy to disassemble 36. Control panel is easy to use
em
A
~xm1 ~xm2    ~xmn
9. Oil box is easy to clean 37. Provide comfort 2 3 2 3 ð8Þ
10. Strong stove fire 38. Avoid error use x
~1 ~x11  x
~ 1 þ ~x12  x
~ 2 þ    þ ~x1n  x
~n
11. The key is easy to clean and maintain 39. No fatigue 6x 7 6 ~n 7
6 ~ 2 7 6 ~x21  x ~ 1 þ ~x22  x
~ 2 þ    þ ~x2n  x 7
12. The ignition switch is easy to use 40. Pleasant use 6 . 7¼6 . 7
13. The key is easy to use 41. The burner is universal 6 . 7 6 . 7
4 . 5 4 . 5
14. Save space 42. Provide leakage protection
15. Provide secure voice alarm 43. Provide the only gas imports x
~n ~xm1  x ~ 1 þ ~xm2  x
~ 2 þ    þ ~xmn  x~n
16. Superior quality 44. High thermal efficiency, grater
than 50% where ~xij denote fuzzy rating of i alternative at j criteria, x ~ j denote
17. Strong and durability 45. Provide flameout protection fuzzy weighting of j criteria.
device (1) Ranking fuzzy number A e i , i = 1,   , m. The defuzzification
18. Beautiful appearance 46. Provide fine detail
value of the trapezoidal fuzzy number is used to rank the
19. Be advanced 47. Noise is not greater than 74 dB
20. Stylish 48. Amount of wind as large as
design alternatives orderings.
possible In addition, a committee of three decision-makers including
21. Individuation 49. Pressure of wind as large as ergonomics expert, industrial designer and engineer (denoted by
possible D1, D2 and D3) has been formed to select the best ergonomic design
22. Be decorative 50. Reasonable scale
alternative.
23. Color is matching with kitchen style 51. Be unique
24. Streamlined appearance 52. Be distinct
25. Pleasant color 53. Elegance 4. Case study
26. Good shape 54. Operation fun
27. Provide timing 55. Comfortable height control
28. Provide play music 56. Keys are comfortable to use The traditional ceiling rage hood and gas hob for household, as
shown in Figs. 9 and 10, exist some design deficiencies. For exam-
ple, it is not completely suck fumes, not safe to use, not save space,
etc. Besides, ergonomics studies show that the Chinese women
who are exposed to cooking oil fumes (COFs) at home suffer from
(1) Fuzzy Delphi method to adjust the consensus condition. The high risks of lung cancer (Li et al.,1994), respiratory diseases
linguistic weighting variables are utilized for evaluating the (Svendsen, Sjaastad, & Sivertsen, 2003), cervical intraepithelial
importance of the criteria. The linguistic rating variables are neoplasm and bladder cancer (Tai-An et al.,1999). Because of Sev-
used to assess the rating of alternatives with respect to each eral mutagenic and carcinogenic compounds have been identified
criterion. Then, to adjust the fuzzy rating and weighting, the in COFs (Vainiotalo & Matveinen, 1993)which are produced and
importance weight of the linguistic criteria and the rating of released into the environment when food is fried, stir-fried, or
the three decision-makers under linguistic criteria are grilled using cooking oil at high temperatures. To reduce the risk
obtained by using fuzzy Delphi method. of working in kitchen, two measures are taken into consideration.

Table 9
Pre-screening of CSN.

No. CSNs Definition From

1 Strong suction The product provides good effect of suction fumes and capabilities 1/35/48/49
2 Comfort The hood noise as low as possible; the product is comfort to use 2/34/37/39/47/55/56
3 Fire effectiveness The product has high fire intensity; fire size adjustable; capable of full combustion and save energy 3/4/10/44
4 Safety The product provides safe operation, safe use and related safety devices 5/6/15/38/42/43/45
5 Maintenance The product is easy to maintain/clean/repair 7/8/911
6 Easy to use The product provides simple operation 12/13/36
7 Save space The product has proper volume; match with the kitchen environment; place in reasonable way; save space 14/50
8 Durability The product provide superiority quality and fine detail; Strong materials 16/17
9 Beautiful appearance The product has beautiful appearance 18/26
10 Individuation The product is different and highlights features 21
11 Be streamline The product outline with streamlined curves 24
12 Decoration The product has decorative pattern and material 22
13 Nice color The product has harmonious and nice color 25/23
14 Time display The product has auxiliary function of time display 27
15 Play music The product has auxiliary function of play music 28
16 Universal design The burner fits for different pot; has proper size and form 29/41
17 Style harmony The product style is match with kitchen cabinets and other objects 19/20
18 Multifunction The product has variety of useful functions 31/32
19 Intelligent operation Intelligent control panels; automation systems 30/33/40/54
20 Uniqueness The product is outstanding, prominent and unique 51/52
21 Meticulous process The materials and process has high degree of detail 46
 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74 69

Table 10
Factor matrix from the result of Factor Analysis (factor loadings >0.4 are shown).

Initial CSNs Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

Beautiful appearance 0.782
Nice color 0.779
Style harmony 0.773
Decoration 0.773
Individuation 0.755
Be streamline 0.713
Uniqueness 0.700
Universal design 0.678
Save space 0.653
Intelligent Operation 0.629
Easy to use 0.547
Comfort 0.542
Maintenance 0.513
Safety 0.457
Time display 0.651
Play music 0.618
Meticulous process 0.403 0.587
Multifunction 0.535
Strong suction 0.501
Durability 0.426
Fire effectiveness 0.422 0.415

Table 11
Classification of initial CSNs.

Dimension Initial CSNs

Ergonomic interactive needs Universal design, Save space, Intelligent operation, Easy to use, Comfort, Maintenance, Safety
Ergonomic affective needs Beautiful appearance, Nice color, Style harmony, Decoration, Individuation, Be streamline, Uniqueness, Meticulous process
Ergonomic performance needs Strong suction, Fire effectiveness, Multifunction, Time display, Play music, Durability

Table 12
Result of test for internal consistency reliability.

Dimension Rank The initial CSNs 50 participants Item-Total Correlation Alpha if Item deleted Alpha with all items
Mean SD
Ergonomic interactive needs 2 Safety 4.16 0.49 0.584 0.784 0.807
5 Easy to use 4.04 0.94 0.625 0.805
6 Comfort 4.02 1.07 0.553 0.721
7 Maintenance 3.90 0.58 0.699 0.762
9 Intelligent operation 3.18 1.02 0.604 0.801
10 Save space 3.02 0.92 0.530 0.797
11 Universal design 2.98 0.97 0.537 0.749
Ergonomic affective needs 12 Beautiful appearance 2.92 0.75 0.382 0.822 0.873
13 Nice color 2.70 0.79 0.765 0.764
14 Meticulous process 2.60 0.94 0.609 0.852
15 Style harmony 4.52 1.09 0.512 0.835
16 Decoration 4.30 0.96 0.316 0.891
17 Individuation 4.26 1.02 0.304 0.877
19 Be streamline 3.96 1.10 0.257 0.884
21 Uniqueness 4.16 1.26 0.355 0.895
Ergonomic performance needs 1 Strong suction 4.04 0.43 0.489 0.711 0.765
3 Fire effectiveness 4.02 0.64 0.482 0.737
4 Durability 3.90 0.83 0.579 0.749
8 Multifunction 3.18 1.05 0.602 0.736
18 Time display 3.02 1.06 0.217 0.794
20 Play music 2.98 1.37 0.256 0.781

Firstly, changing the Chinese kitchen fried and stir-fried cooking
habits can be reduced COFs. Lastly, developing good ergonomic
design on rage hood and gas hob which are the core products for
cooking in Chinese kitchen can be created the environmental
health kitchen. The last one is the aim of our study. Therefore,
the traditional rage hood and gas hob are selected for ergonomic
innovative design and evaluation to demonstrate the feasibility
of the proposed multidisciplinary method.
We use our proposed method to redesign the traditional ceiling
rage hood and gas hob and the detailed procedures are addressed
as follows:
Step 1: Identification of CSNs for using rage hood and gas hob
By application of the triangulation approach, including
questionnaire, expert interviews and the extensive review of
70 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74

ergonomics literature, a total of 56 customer satisfaction descrip- Table 13

tors related to customer satisfaction in using rage hood and gas Final list of CSNs and priority.

hob were initially collected, as shown in Table 8. Dimension Rank CSNs Priority
Pre-screening procedure including eliminating, combining, and Ergonomic interactive needs 2 Safety 4.38
translating 56 descriptors to customer satisfaction attributes was 5 Easy to use 4.16
performed by ergonomists in light of Ergonomics knowledge. As 6 Comfort 4.04
a result, a total of 21 CSNs were defined as shown in Table 9. 7 Maintenance 4.02
9 Intelligent operation 3.90
A total of 50 participants volunteered to participate in the ques- 10 Save space 3.18
tionnaire for evaluating the priority of 21 CSNs. The relative impor- 11 Universal design 3.02
tance ratings of CSNs are obtained by using 5-point liner numeric Ergonomic affective needs 12 Beautiful appearance 2.98
rating scale. Factor Analysis with varimax rotation was utilized 13 Nice color 2.92
for classifying 21 initial CSNs. As a result, the initial CSNs could 14 Meticulous process 2.70
be classified into 6 factors with criterion of eigenvalues greater 15 Style harmony 2.60
than 1. After Factor Analysis with varimax rotation, the initial CSNs Ergonomic performance needs 1 Strong suction 4.52
were derived and the factor loadings were shown in Table 10. As a 3 Fire effectiveness 4.30
4 Durability 4.26
result, 21 initial CSNs were classified into three customer satisfac-
8 Multifunction 3.96
tion dimensions as shown in Table 11. Table 12 shows the mean
score and standard deviation of each CSNs and the result of inter-
nal consistency reliability test with Cronbach coefficient alpha and
item-total correlation coefficient, which were conducted using SAS
Table 14
v.9.1. Identification of PDCs.
From the result of item-total correlation coefficient, all CSNs
CSNs PDCs
were also above the cutoff threshold of 0.4, except for the CSNs
(Decoration, Individuation, Be streamline, Uniqueness, Time dis- Safety ? 1. Alarm device
play and Play music) which were below the threshold. The result Easy to use ? 2. Key structure
indicated that these CSNs were unreliable and therefore would 3. Key shape
be removed. Finally, 15 CSNs were identified as shown in Table 13. Comfort ? 4. Distance between the rage hood and user’s
head
Step 2: Construction of the HoQ chart of QFD 5. Height of worktops
6. Position of the control panel

15 CSNs were translated into 25 PDCs by designers, as shown in Maintenance ? 7. Surface smoothness
8. Oil box structure and shape
Table 14.
The HoQ for rage hood and gas hob innovative design was built Intelligent operation ? 9. Intelligent key
as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Save space ? 10. Volume
In light of the interrelationships between PDCs at the roof of 11. Structure
HoQ, we can get three pairs of negative relationships as shown in Universal design ? 12.Panel material
Table 15. As a result, three specific contradictions, namely, the Beautiful appearance ? 13. Whole shape
key innovative problems were established, describing as follows: 14. Whole size
(1) How to eliminate contradiction between ‘‘20. Distance between Nice color ? 15. Color
the suction outlet and the burner’’ and ‘‘4. Distance between the Meticulous process ? 16. Chamfering
rage hood and user’s head’’? (2) How to eliminate contradiction 17. Seam
between ‘‘25. Function system’’ and ‘‘14. Whole size’’? (3) How to 18. Connecting piece
eliminate contradiction between ‘‘24. Functional space allocation’’ Style harmony ? 19. Point and line process
and ‘‘11. Structure’’? Strong suction ? 20. Distance between the suction outlet and
From the rank of PDCs in Figs. 9 and 10, the design priority the burner
should go to ‘‘25. Function system’’, ‘‘24. Functional space alloca- 21. Hood suction outlet structure
tion’’, ‘‘21. Hood suction outlet structure’’, ‘‘23. Burner structure’’, Fire effectiveness ? 22.Burner structure
‘‘14. Whole size’’, and ‘‘6. Position of the control panel’’, which were Durability ? 23. Material and Process
identified to be the six critical design area of rage hood and gas
Multifunction ? 24. Functional space allocation
hob. 25. Function system

Step 3: Generation of the innovative design alternatives using

the TRIZ main tools.
The three specific contradictions were translated into TRIZ
genetic contradictions by using 39 engineering parameters as
shown in Table 16.
For the first TRIZ genetic contradiction, the length of stationary
object should be long to avoid user’s head inadvertently bumping
the hood, but it also should be short to ensure strong suction.
The length of stationary object should have two mutually exclusive
properties: long and short, belonging to physical contradiction.
Therefore, the Separation Principles about separation in space
was used to solve this physical contradiction. The number of the
recommended Inventive Principles are: No.1, No.2, No.3, No.7,
No.13, No.17, No.24, No.26, No.30 (Table 3). For the actual problem,
the ‘‘No.13: the other way round’’ was firstly selected. The up
exhaust hood structure was changed into the down one. Due to
the cabinet is under the gas hob worktop, we proposed to nest
the down exhausting hood structure in the cabinet by using the
‘‘No.7: nested doll’’. Then, the ‘‘No.17: another dimension’’ was uti-
lized for moving the position of suction outlet from the horizontal
down to the vertical side or ring. As a result, the first pair of TRIZ
genetic contradiction was eliminated.
For the second TRIZ genetic contradiction, if the reliability
(function system) is increased, the Length of stationary object
(whole size) would be deteriorated. So it was identified to technical
contradiction. For the third TRIZ genetic contradiction, if ease of
operation (functional space allocation) is improved, the structure
 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74 71

Table 15
The negative relationships of PDCs.

The negative relationships

The first pair ‘‘20. Distance between the suction outlet and the burner’’ and ‘‘4. Distance between the rage hood and user’s head’’
The second pair ‘‘25. Function system’’ and ‘‘14. Whole size’’
The third pair ‘‘24. Functional space allocation’’ and ‘‘11. Structure’’

Table 16
The specific contradictions were translated into TRIZ genetic contradictions.

The specific contradictions Corresponding to 39 engineering parameters TRIZ genetic contradictions

(1) Solve contradiction between ‘‘20. Distance between the suction outlet Distance between the ? 4. Length of (1) Solve contradiction in ‘‘4. Length of
and the burner’’ and ‘‘4. Distance between the rage hood and user’s suction outlet and the stationary stationary object’’
head’’ burner object
Distance between the ? 4. Length of
rage hood and user’s stationary
head object
(2) Solve contradiction between ‘‘25. Function system’’ and ‘‘14. Whole size’’ Function system ? 27. Reliability (2) Solve contradiction between ‘‘27.
Whole size ? 4. Length of Reliability’’ and ‘‘4. Length of stationary
stationary object’’
object
(3) Solve contradiction between ‘‘24. Functional space allocation’’ and ‘‘11. Functional space ? 33. Ease of (3) Solve contradiction between ‘‘33.
Structure’’ allocation operation Ease of operation’’ and ‘‘32. Ease of
Structure ? 32. Ease of manufacture’’
manufacture

(ease of manufacture) would be deteriorated. So it was also identi- We use fuzzy Delphi method to adjust the fuzzy rating and
fied to technical contradiction. Therefore, the two pairs of technical weighting by every expert to achieve the consensus condition,
contradictions were solved by using the Contradiction Matrix as which obtain the importance weight of the linguistic criteria and
shown in Fig. 11. In the recommended Inventive Principles: the rating of the three decision-makers under linguistic criteria,
No.15, No.28, No.29, No.11, the ‘‘No.28: mechanics substitution’’ it is shown as Tables 17 and 18, respectively. Calculate the mean
was selected to propose increasing disinfection system and micro- of fuzzy rating and weighting, and transfer linguistic terms to posi-
wave cooking system. In the recommended Inventive Principles: tive trapezoidal fuzzy numbers; it is listed in the last column of
No.2, No.5, No.12, the ‘‘No.5: merging’’ was selected to advise Tables 17 and 18. Construct fuzzy decision matrix by normalizing
assembling all function systems. As a result, the second and third the mean of fuzzy rating for three alternatives, it is shown in
pairs of TRIZ genetic contradiction were eliminated. Table 19.
In summary, the whole innovative concepts of integrated Aggregate the fuzzy evaluations by A e i ¼ ½~ ~ j t , i = 1,   , m,
xij   ½x
kitchen stove with gas hob, range hood, cabinet, disinfection sys- j = 1,   , n, i.e.,
tem, microwave cooking system and the vertical side or ring suc-
2 3 2 3
tion outlet are generated. In addition, the ergonomic design e1
A ð0:66;0:76;0:78:0:88Þ ð0:67;0:77;0:78;0:88Þ ð0:72;0:82;0:90;0:94Þ
6e 7 6
principles (Section 2.4) and the six critical design area are taken 6 A 2 7 6 ð0:64;0:74;0:74;0:84Þ ð0:57;0:67;0:73;0:83Þ ð0:66;0:76;0:78;0:88Þ 7
7
6 7¼6 7
consideration. Finally, by drawing sketch and using the com- 6 e 7 4 ð0:68;0:78;0:82;0:90Þ ð0:75;0:85;0:90;0:95Þ ð0:74;0:84;0:94;0:96Þ 5
4 A3 5
puter-aided design software of Rhino 5.0, four ergonomic design e4
A ð0:56;0:66;0:70;0:80Þ 0:50;0:60;0:65;0:75Þ 0:56;0:66;0:70;0:80Þ
alternatives of the integrated kitchen stove were shown in 2 3
2 3 ð1:39;1:90;2:04;2:35Þ
0:73;0:83;0:87;0:93Þ 6 7
Fig. 12 (A1), (A2), (A3), (A4). 6 7 6 ð1:28;1:70;1:86;2:27Þ 7
4 0:53;0:63;0:67;0:77Þ 5 ¼ 6 7
4 ð1:46;1:91;2:20;2:50Þ 5
Step 4: Alternatives evaluation and selection using fuzzy deci- 0:77;0:87;0:93;0:97Þ
ð1:11;1:50;1:70;2:10Þ
sion theory.
e1; A
Therefore, we get Aggregate fuzzy number A e2; A
e3; A
e 4 for the four
We use our proposed evaluation method to selected the best
ergonomic design alternatives of the integrated kitchen stove
alternatives.
respectively,
e 1 ¼ ½ð1:39; 1:90; 2:04; 2:35Þ;
A e 2 ¼ ½ð1:28; 1:70; 1:86; 2:27Þ
A
e 3 ¼ ½ð1:46; 1:91; 2:20; 1:70Þ;
A e 4 ¼ ½ð1:11; 1:50; 1:70; 2:10Þ
A
e 1; A
Hence, we can defuzzify A e2; A
e3; A
e 4 as in the following:

e 1 ¼ ð1:39 þ 1:90 þ 2:04 þ 2:35Þ=4 ¼ 1:90;

A

e 1 ¼ ð1:28 þ 1:70 þ 1:86 þ 2:27Þ=4 ¼ 1:77;

A

e 1 ¼ ð1:46 þ 1:91 þ 2:20 þ 1:70Þ=4 ¼ 2:02;

A

e 1 ¼ ð1:11 þ 1:50 þ 1:70 þ 2:10Þ=4 ¼ 1:60

A
Fig. 11. The contradiction matrix.
72 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74

Fig. 12. Four ergonomic design alternatives of the integrated kitchen stove.

explosion derived from sucking flames. (2) The open lateral groove
Table 17 suction outlet which is easy to clean is developed. (3) The control
The importance weight of the linguistic criteria and its mean. panel is located on the table and touch-key is employed for easy
Criteria D1 D2 D3 Mean to use and maintain. (4) Large capacity oil box design is located
Ergonomic interaction VH H H (0.73, 0.83, 0.87, 0.93)
in the lower cabinet for easy to disassemble and clean. (5) The
Ergonomic emotion H M MH (0.53, 0.63, 0.67, 0.77) lower part of the cabinet adding embedded disinfection cabinet
Ergonomic performance VH VH VH (0.77, 0.87, 0.93, 0.97) and microwave cooking function module are developed to achieve
the versatility of the integrated kitchen stove, saving space in the
kitchen. Summarily, the alternative A3 reflects a good ergonomic
Therefore, the ordering of the four ergonomic design alternatives of interaction, ergonomic emotions and ergonomic performance, well
the integrated kitchen stove is A e3 > A
e1 > A
e2 > A
e 4 : A3 is the best
matching with the kitchen environment.
choice for all of the alternatives.
Comparing with the traditional ceiling rage hood and gas hob,
the new design A3 has five aspects improvement: (1) the side suc- 5. Discussion
tion and down exhausting structure is utilized to ensure low noise
and high efficiency of sucking fumes. Keeping safe distance The integrated model for combining identification of the CSNs,
between the suction outlet and stove flames avoids the risk of the HoQ of QFD, TRIZ and fuzzy group decision-making was
 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74 73

Table 18
The ratings of criteria item for the four ergonomic design alternatives of the integrated kitchen stove.

Criteria Items Four ergonomic design alternatives

A1 A2 A3 A4
Ergonomic interaction Safety MG F MG F
Dimension G G G G
Comfort G G VG MG
Save effort G G VG MG
Easy to use G G VG G
Mean (6.60, 7.60, 7.80, 8.80) (6.40, 7.40, 7.40, 8.40) (6.80, 7.80, 8.20, 9.00) (5.60, 6.60, 7.00, 8.00)
Ergonomic emotion Aesthetics G MG G F
Style G G VG F
Semantics G G G G
Attraction G MG VG MG
Easy to learn MG MG G MG
Maintenance G MG VG MG
Mean (6.67, 7.67, 7.83, 8.83) (5.67, 6.67, 7.33, 8.33) (7.50, 8.50, 9.00, 9.50) (5.00, 6.00, 6.50, 7.50)
Ergonomic performance Efficiency VG MG VG MG
Effectiveness VG G VG MG
Function G G VG F
Environmental protection VG G VG G
Save energy MG G MG G
Mean (7.20, 8.20, 9.00, 9.40) (6.60, 7.60, 7.80, 8.80) (7.40, 8.40, 9.40, 9.60) (5.60, 6.60, 7.00, 8.00)

Table 19 innovative process and the fuzzy group decision-making method

Normalizing the ratings of criteria item for the four ergonomic design alternatives of provides scientific decision-making process in order to avoid
the integrated kitchen stove.
selecting the wrong alternative and wasting time and costs. There-
Ergonomic Ergonomic emotion Ergonomic fore, the proposed methodology can enhance the product’s quality
interaction performance and accelerate the innovative cycle and increase customer satisfac-
A1 (0.66, 0.76, 0.78.0.88) (0.67, 0.77, 0.78, (0.72, 0.82, 0.90, 0.94) tion index. The feasibility of the proposed methodology is demon-
0.88) strated by the case of the integrated kitchen stove innovative
A2 (0.64, 0.74, 0.74, (0.57, 0.67, 0.73, (0.66, 0.76, 0.78, 0.88)
design. Therefore, the method has great significance for product
0.84) 0.83)
A3 (0.68, 0.78, 0.82, (0.75, 0.85, 0.90, (0.74, 0.84, 0.94, 0.96) innovation and provides theoretical guidance to other ergonomic
0.90) 0.95) product for innovation.
A4 (0.56, 0.66, 0.70, 0.80) (0.50, 0.60, 0.65, 0.75) (0.56, 0.66, 0.70, 0.80)

6. Conclusion

proposed in ergonomic product design. And the whole process is

In this paper, we put forward an integrated model and a multi-
involved in four steps: (1) Identification of the CSNs by using the
disciplinary approach integrating identification of customer satis-
data source triangulation approach and statistical analysis. (2)
faction needs (CSNs), HoQ chart of QFD, TRIZ and fuzzy group
Establishment of the critical ergonomic design areas and the key
decision-making theory for ergonomic product innovative design
problems by constructing the HoQ of QFD. (3) Several alternatives
and evaluation in the early design stages. The proposed approach
are generated by application of TRIZ. (4) Alternatives evaluation for
comprises of four steps. In step 1, we develop a method of identi-
selecting the best one by using the fuzzy group decision-making
fication of CSNs based on a data source triangulation approach,
method. The proposed methodology makes up for deficiencies of
questionnaire survey, 5-point liner numeric rating scale, factor
QFD and TRIZ and ensures integrity of ergonomic product innova-
analysis, and Cronbach’s coefficient alpha statistic for guaranteeing
tive design and evaluation in design stage.
the completeness and reliability of the CSNs. In step 2, we establish
The CSNs are completed and reliable because the method for
the critical ergonomic design areas and the key problems by con-
identification of CSNs is based on a data source triangulation
structing the HoQ of QFD. In step 3, TRIZ main tools and contradic-
approach and statistical analysis. For ergonomic product innova-
tion analysis are utilized to solve the problems. Several innovative
tion, the critical ergonomic design areas and the key problems
alternatives are generated by combining appropriate Inventive
are obtained by using the HoQ of QFD. In construction of the
Principles of TRIZ, the critical ergonomic design areas and the ergo-
HoQ, the CSNs are translated into PDCs for constructing CSNs-PDCs
nomic design principles. In step 4, we present a general and easy
correlation matrix, which is used to identify the critical ergonomic
fuzzy group decision-making method for evaluating of the best
design areas for innovation. The key problems for innovative
design alternatives. The alternative with the highest score is finally
design are obtained by analyzing interrelationship of PDCs in the
chosen.
roof of the HoQ. To solve the problems, the main tools of TRIZ
The strength of our approach is the ability to improve the prod-
including 40 Inventive Principles, the Contradiction Matrix, and
uct design process by integrating a number of methods to give a
the Separation Principles and contradiction analysis are utilized.
better product design. The innovative design of an integrated
The innovative concepts are generated by combining the solution
kitchen stove verifies the feasibility and validity of the proposed
of the recommended Inventive Principles of TRIZ, the critical ergo-
methodology.
nomic design areas and the ergonomic design principles. As a
result, several alternatives of ergonomic innovative design are gen-
erated. Then, we have constructed a general and easy fuzzy group Acknowledgements
decision-making method for choosing the best alternative. The
best alternative is based on the CSNs and TRIZ provides objective The authors would like to thank all of the anonymous referees
and specific innovative method for conflicts elimination in for the comments and suggestions, which have helped to improve
74 F. Zhang et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 76 (2014) 60–74
the paper. In addition, the authors would like to thank the National
Natural Science Council of the Republic of China, for financially
supporting this research under Contract No. 71161018.
References
Akao, Y. (1997). Quality function deployment: Integrating customer requirements into
product design. Taylor & Francis.
Bergman, B. K. B. (1994). Quality from customer needs to customer satisfaction.
London: McGraw-Hill.
Buyuközkan, G., Arsenyan, J., & Ruan, D. (2012). Logistics tool selection with two-
phase fuzzy multi criteria decision making: A case study for personal digital
assistant selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 142–153.
Crawford, C. M. (1997). New products management (5th ed.). Boston: Richard D.
Irwin Inc.
Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayond, P., Falzone, P., Marrasf, W. S., et al. (2012). A
strategy for human factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and
profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), 377–395.
Fresner, J., Jantschgi, J., Birkel, S., Bärnthaler, J., & Krenn, C. (2010). The theory of
inventive problem solving (TRIZ) as option generation tool within cleaner
production projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(2), 128–136.
Geng, X. L., Chu, X. N., & Zhang, Z. F. (2010). A new integrated design concept
evaluation approach based on vague sets. Expert Systems with Applications, 37,
6629–6638.
Geuma, Y. J., Kwak, R., & Yongtae Park, Y. T. (2012). Modularizing services: A
modified HoQ approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 62, 579–590.
Haapalainen, M., Kivistoä-rahansto, J., & Mattila, M. (2000). Ergonomic design of
non-powered hand tools: an application of quality function deployment (QFD).
Occupational Ergonomics, 2(3), 179–189.
Hashim, A. M., & Dawal, S. Z. M. (2012). Kano model and QFD integration approach
for ergonomic design improvement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
57(9), 22–32.
Hatami-Marbini, A., & Tavana, M. (2011). An extension of the Electre I method for
group decision-making under a fuzzy environment. Omega, 39, 373–386.
Hauser, J. R., & Clausing, D. (1988). The House of Quality. Harvard Business Review.
Hipple, J. (2006). The use of TRIZ principles in consumer product design. In
Proceeding of the Altshuller Institute’s TRIZCON. WI USA: Milwaukee.
Jordan, P. W. (1998). Human factors for pleasure in product use. Applied Ergonomics,
29, 25–33.
Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new
human factors. London: Taylor and Francis.
Kuijt-evers, L. F. M., Morel, K. P. N., Eikelenberg, N. L. W., & Vink, P. (2009).
Application of the QFD as a design approach to ensure comfort in using hand
tools: Can the design team complete the House of Quality appropriately?
Applied Ergonomics, 40, 519–526.
Lai, X., Xie, M., Tan, K. C., & Yang, B. (2008). Ranking of customer requirements in a
competitive environment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 54, 202–214.
Laios, L., & Giannatsis, J. (2010). Ergonomic evaluation and redesign of children
bicycles based on anthropometric data. Applied Ergonomics, 41, 428–435.
Li, S., Pan, D., & Wang, G. (1994). Analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in
cooking oil fumes. Archives of Environmental Health, 49(2), 119–122.
Lin, C. C., & Luh, D. B. (2009). A vision-oriented approach for innovative product
design. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 23, 191–200.
Liu, Y. L. (2003). Engineering aesthetics and aesthetic ergonomics: theoretical
foundations and a dual-process research methodology. Ergonomics, 46,
1273–1292.
Lo, C. H., Tseng, K. C., & Chu, C. H. (2010). One-step QFD based 3D morphological
charts for concept generation of product variant design. Expert Systems with
Applications, 37, 7351–7363.
Mann, D. L. (2002). Hands-on systematic innovation. Ieper, Belgium: CREAX Press.
Marsot, J. (2005). QFD: a methodological tool for integration of ergonomics at the
design stage. Applied Ergonomics, 36, 185–192.
Mojtahedi, S. M. H., Mousavi, S. M., & Makui, A. (2010). Project risk identification
and assessment simultaneously using multi-attribute group decision making
technique. Safety Science, 48(4), 499–507.
Motamedzade, M., Choobineh, A., Mououdi, M. A., & Arghamj, S. (2007).
Ergonomic design of carpet weaving hand tools. Industrial Ergonomics, 37,
581–587.
Nagamachi, M. (2002). Kansei engineering as a powerful consumer-oriented
technology for product development. Applied Ergonomics, 33, 289–294.
Pelt, A. V., & Hey, J. (2011). Using TRIZ and human-centered design for consumer
product development. Engineering Procedia, 9, 688–693.
Postrel, V. (2003). The substance of style: How the rise of aesthetic value is remarking
commerce, culture, and consciousness. New York: Harper Collins.
Raharjo, H., Brombacher, A. C., & Xie, M. (2008). Dealing with subjectivity in early
product design phase: A systematic approach to exploit quality function
deployment potentials. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 55, 253–278.
Russo, D., Regazzoni, D., & Montecchi, T. (2011). Eco-design with TRIZ laws of
evolution. Engineering Procedia, 9, 311–322.
Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Product experience. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Science.
Seva, R. R., Gosiaco, K. G. T., Santos, M. C. E. D., & Pangilinan, D. M. L. (2011). Product
design enhancement using apparent usability and affective quality. Applied
Ergonomics, 42, 511–517.
Solomani, C., Hua, Z. S., Shi, Q., & Wang, W. (2004). TRIZ technology forecasting as
QFD input within the NPD activity. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering,
2004(17), 284–287.
Sonderegger, A., & Sauer, J. (2010). The influence of design aesthetics in usability
testing: Effects on user performance and perceived usability. Applied
Ergonomics, 41, 403–410.
Sperling, L., Dahlman, S., Wikstrom, L., Kilbom, A., & Kadefors, R. (1993). A cube
model for the classification of work with hand tools and the formulation of
functional requirements. Applied Ergonomics, 24(3), 212–220.
Svendsen, K., Sjaastad, A. K., & Sivertsen, I. (2003). Respiratory symptoms in kitchen
workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 43(4), 436–439.
Tai-An, C., Wu, P., Liao, S. Y., Li-Fang, W., & Ying, C. K. (1999). Mutagenicity and
aromatic amine content of fumes from heated cooking oils produced in Taiwan.
Food and Chemical Toxicology, 37(2), 125–134.
Vahdani, B., Meysam Mousavi, S., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., & Hashemi, H. (2013).
A new design of the elimination and choice translating reality method for
multi-criteria group decision-making in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment.
Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37, 1781–1799.
Vainiotalo, S., & Matveinen, K. (1993). Cooking fumes as a hygienic problem in the
food and catering industries. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal,
54(7), 376–382.
Vezzetti, E., Moos, S., & Kretli, S. (2011). A product lifecycle management
methodology for supporting knowledge reuse in the consumer packed goods
domain. Computer-Aided Design, 43, 1902–1911.
Vink, P., Overbeeke, C. J., & Desmet, P. M. A. (2005). Comfort and design: principles
and good practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Wellings, T., Williams, M., & Tennant, C. (2010). Understanding customers’ holistic
perception of switches in automotive human-machine interfaces. Applied
Ergonomics, 41, 8–17.
Wessel, W. W., Tom, H. J., & Vaneker (2011). TRIZ based interface conflict resolving
strategies for modular product architectures. Procedia Engineering, 9, 30–39.
Fanglan Zhang, born in 1980, is currently an associate professor in Yanshan Uni-
versity, China. She is currently a Ph. D. candidate in School of Mechatronics Engi-
neering, Nanchang University, China. Her research interests include theory of
innovative product design, industrial engineering, ergonomics. Tel.: +86
018633526082; E-mail: fanglanzhang@163.com.
Minglang Yang, born in 1949, is currently a professor in Nanchang University,
China. His main research interests include theory of innovative product design,
industrial engineering, ergonomics. Tel.:+86 013870982988; E-mail: yan-
gml1949@163.com.
Weidong Liu, born in 1962, is currently a professor in Nanchang University, China.
His main research interests include quality engineering and reliability engineering.
E-mail: Liuwd@ncu.edu.cn.