Application of fuzzy QFD for enabling sustainability

Figures & data

Figure 1 Methodology.

Table 1 SDDs and their related SAs.

Decision domain	Related sustainability attributes
SDD1-financial health	SA1-profitability
	SA2-liquidity
	SA3-solvency
SDD2-economic performance	SA4-share profitability
	SA5-contribution to gross domestic product
	SA6-market share performance
SDD3-potential financial benefits	SA7-National/International subsidies
	SA8-technological improvements
SDD4-trading opportunities	SA9-vulnerability of company's trade network
	SA10-risk exposure by the network
SDD5-air resources	SA11-air quality effects
	SA12-global warming
	SA13-stratospheric ozone depletion
SDD6-water resources	SA14-water usage
	SA15-release of water effluents and pollutants
SDD7-land resources	SA16-land usage and transformation
	SA17-direct and indirect releases of soil pollutants
SDD8-mineral and energy resources	SA18-contribution to depletion of non-renewable energy resource
	SA19-contribution to depletion of energy resources
SDD9-internal human resources	SA20-job opportunities
	SA21-employment compensation
	SA22-health and safety practices
	SA23-research and development
SDD10-macro social performance	SA24-macroeconomic welfare
	SA25-trading opportunities
	SA26-monitoring
	SA27-legislation
	SA28-enforcement

Table 2 Importance weights and corresponding fuzzy numbers for rating SPMs.

Importance weight (w i )	Fuzzy number
Very high (VH)	(0.7; 1; 1)
High (H)	(0.5; 0.7; 1)
Low (L)	(0; 0.3; 0.5)
Very low (VL)	(0; 0; 0.3)

Table 3 Degree of relationship, the graphic symbol and the corresponding fuzzy numbers used in the relationship matrix.

Degree of relationship	Graphic symbol	Fuzzy number
Strong (S)	•	(0.7; 1; 1)
Medium (M)	○	(0.3; 0.5; 0.7)
Weak (W)	Δ	(0; 0; 0.3)

Table 4 Degree of correlation, the graphic symbol and the corresponding fuzzy numbers used in the correlation matrix.

Degree of correlation	Graphic symbol	Fuzzy number
Strong positive (SP)	•	(0.3; 0.5; 0.7)
Positive (P)	○	(0; 0.3; 0.5)
Negative (N)		( − 0.5; − 0.3; 0)
Strong negative (SN)		( − 0.7; − 0.5; − 0.3)

Figure 2 Developed HOQ between SPMs and SAs.

Figure 3 Developed HOQ between SAs and SEs.

Figure 4 Format of the questionnaire used for validation.

Table 5 Responses of the expert.

Question number	Question	Response in Likert's scale of range (0–10) (0-not at all, 5-partially and 10-completely)
1	The prioritised SPMs have been shown to you. To what extent, do you believe the prioritisation is reliable?	9
2	The highly prioritised SDD is potential financial benefits. To what extent, do you believe that the prioritisation is reliable?	9
3	The highly prioritised SA is technological improvements. To what extent, do you believe the prioritisation is reliable?	9
4	The highly prioritised SE is EC production. To what extent, do you believe the prioritisation is reliable?	8
5	To what extent, do you believe that the SAs, SDDs and SEs would enable leanness in your organisation?	9
6	To what extent, do you believe that the fuzzy QFD application would enable improvement in sustainable manufacturing practices in your organisation?	9