Concurrent multifunction deployment (CMFD)

Brad, Stelian

doi:10.1080/00207540701564599

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the proposed approach seems more related to the subject of “concurrent innovation”, since its focus is mainly on innovation process and its parameters. In fact, the proposed approach is somehow similar to the developed framework of Brad (2009) regarding the concept of concurrent engineering. While Brad's framework was developed for the product design phases, the proposed approach of this study is developed for innovation process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact researchers such as Ho and Lin (2009) tried to use QFD and concurrent engineering subjects together, but not in an integrative framework. Brad (2009) proposed an integrated framework called “concurrent multifunction deployment” for simultaneous consideration of product design, innovation and evaluation over product design process. According to Brad (2004), classical form of QFD is no longer suitable for analyzing product design and development and complex issues should be taken into account during the planning phase.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prioritization of innovation factors by the integration of concurrent function deployment and P diagram with a case study in Sepahan Industry Group

Shahin

Bakhshi²

2013

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this research is to propose a new model for the integration of concurrent function deployment (CFD) and parameter (P) diagram in order to prioritize innovation factors.Design/methodology/approachEach of the approaches of CFD and P diagram and their features has been demonstrated and according to their common features, an integrated model has been designed in two phases. It has been examined in Sepahan Industrial Group, of which the major product is API gas pipeline network demanded by Isfahan Province Gas Organization. A questionnaire has been designed and delivered to four major units of Isfahan Province Gas Organization.Findings“Hydrostatic test” and “number of close end branch pipes” with the average values of 4.78 and 3.31 have been found as the first and last priorities of importance to customers, respectively. The output of the first phase includes “equipments” as the first priority of control factors, and “changing market or customers wants” as the first priority of noise factors. The results of the second phase show that “fault‐free product” and “successful innovation outcomes” are, respectively, recognized as first priorities of response factors. Finally, “successful innovation outcomes” has been determined as the first priority of response factors.Research limitations/implicationsThe matrixes of the two phases could become larger if the number of factors in the P diagram increases, and therefore, filling and analyzing the matrixes might become time consuming and difficult.Originality/valueThe proposed integrated model can be effective for almost all organizations that aim to meet the dynamic needs of markets and customers and intend to incorporate innovation in their products and services. By the new approach, determination and prioritization of innovation factors can be done based on customers' viewpoint, while in the traditional approaches this was done only from the viewpoint of engineers and designers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritization of innovation factors by the integration of concurrent function deployment and P diagram with a case study in Sepahan Industry Group

Shahin

Bakhshi²

2013

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies present methodological refinements of the QFD method (e.g., Brad, 2009;Chaudhuri & Bhattacharyya, 2009;Hoyle & Chen, 2009;Iranmanesh & Thomson, 2008;Ji, Jin, Wang, & Chen, 2014), often by developing ways for using fuzzy logic in combination with QFD (e.g., Bai & Kwong, 2003;Chen, Fung, & Tang, 2005;Chen & Ngai, 2008;Fung, Tang, Tu, & Wang, 2002;Karsak, 2004). These studies are typically based on simulation of results and perhaps showing an illustrative example application.…”

Section: Quality Function Deploymentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Cost Management during Product Development: A Review and Comparison of Different Literatures

Wouters¹,

Morales²,

Grollmuss³

et al. 2016

Advances in Management Accounting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. ABSTRACT Purpose À The paper provides an overview of research published in the innovation and operations management (IOM) literature on 15 methods for cost management in new product development, and it provides a comparison to an earlier review of the management accounting (MA) literature (Wouters & Morales, 2014). Methodology/approach À This structured literature search covers papers published in 23 journals in IOM in the period 1990À2014.Findings À The search yielded a sample of 208 unique papers with 275 results (one paper could refer to multiple cost management methods). The top 3 methods are modular design, component commonality, and Advances in Management Accounting, Volume 26, 139À274Originality/value À This review of research on methods for cost management published outside the MA literature provides an overview for MA researchers. It highlights key differences between both literatures in their research of the same cost management methods.

show abstract

“…Prasad highlighted the importance of concurrent approach in QFD for the first time (Brad, 2009). Prasad (1998) has also proposed the primary concept of CFD.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing the C-shaped QFD 3D Matrix for service applications with a case study in banking services

Shahin

Iraj

Shahrestani

2018

IJQRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop the C-shaped quality function deployment (QFD) 3D Matrix for service applications. Design/methodology/approach The C-shaped QFD 3D Matrix proposed by Vezzetti et al. (2016) has been developed for simultaneous analysis of the relationships among three sets of factors of customer requirements, service design characteristics and service performance indicators. The three sets of factors have been determined and based on their interrelationships, 3D and concurrent houses of quality have been formed. Then, service design characteristics and service performance indicators have been prioritized. The obtained priorities have been also compared with traditional concurrent model of QFD. Findings The findings obtained from the traditional and developed approach seem different, implying that applying the C-shaped QFD 3D Matrix provides a more real perspective of concurrent engineering and the results in different set of priorities of service factors. Research limitations/implications The case study was limited to banking services. If the developed approach is used in other institutes, the prioritization of service design characteristics and service performance indicators might be changed. Originality/value Compared to Vezzetti et al. (2016) who proposed the C-shaped QFD 3D Matrix for analyzing interrelationships among two customers and a provider, or two providers and a customer, in this paper, the C-shaped QFD 3D Matrix has been developed for analyzing interrelationships among three sets of factors of customer requirements, service design characteristics and service performance indicators.

show abstract

Concurrent multifunction deployment (CMFD)

Cited by 10 publications

References 27 publications

Prioritization of innovation factors by the integration of concurrent function deployment and P diagram with a case study in Sepahan Industry Group

Prioritization of innovation factors by the integration of concurrent function deployment and P diagram with a case study in Sepahan Industry Group

Methods for Cost Management during Product Development: A Review and Comparison of Different Literatures

Developing the C-shaped QFD 3D Matrix for service applications with a case study in banking services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About