chapter 3 - shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.inshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/30605/10/10_chapter...
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER THREE
QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT:
LITERATURE SURVEY AND ACADEMIC FINDINGS
Summary: This chapter comprises of literature survey and academic findings pertaining to the topic of discussion. The chapter presents the basic concepts, evolution history and a broad outline of the QFD methodology as employed by the academicians and organizations. This section also presents a comprehensive literature review pertaining to QFD. This literature review is based on a reference bank of more than four hundred QFD and its allied publications. The literature review is extended with thorough description of methodologies adopted, exemplified with an elaborate categorical application analysis of its varied functional areas viz. primary, secondary and tertiary fields; industrial, nonindustrial and service applications; and the methodological progressions. in the end, the chapter concludes with deliberations on the functional limitations of the available QFD models, thus recognizing a need for a comprehensive and integrated QFD Model which is easy to follow and uncomplicated to implement.
3.1 GENESIS: THE HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF QFD
Quality in product development began with attempts to inspect quality into products or
services either in the process domain, the design domain or the customer domain. Use of
concurrent approach in the other design and development domain began when Ishikawa
( 1977), known for Ishikawa diagrams and formalization of quality circles, noticed that
even though parts were being made to print, customers were still unhappy with the
products. Specifications and tolerance limits were stated in the drawings. Measurements
and chemical analysis were being performed. Standards existed for everything and the
standards were being met, but these standards were created without regard to what the
customer wanted.
Ishikawa wrote, "When I ask the designer what is a good car, what is a good refrigerator
or what is a good synthetic fibre, most of them cannot answer. It is obvious that they
cannot produce good products." You simply cannot design a good product or service if
Tius chapter IS supported and based on following published work by the candidate and his supervisor:
• Quahty Funct10n Deployment · A RevieW, Published Proceedings National Conference on Innovations in Engineering & Technology- INVENT 2007. 14- 15 March, 2007, MIET and RTM Nagpur Umvers1ty.
• Quahty Function Deployment - A Comprehensive Literature Rev1ew. South Asian Journal of
Management: SA}M ·An liM-B Journal (Under Review)
28
you do not know what "good" means to a customer. He said that if you don't know what a
good product is, ask your customers. Customers will give you - what Ishikawa called - the
true quality characteristics.
The problem with true quality characteristics is that the designer cannot directly use them.
For example, a customer may want the steering of an automobile to be comfortable. An
engineer cannot write on a drawing, 'make the steering comfortable'. The engineer must
find substitute quality characteristics, dimensions or characteristics of the design that are
correlated with customer desire but have meaning to an engineer. Therefore, Ishikawa said
that the designer must create a map that moves from the world of the customer to the
world of the designer. He used a tree diagram to create such a map and called these maps
'quality tables'. The Kobe Shipyard of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries created the first
quality table in the late 70s. Once the quality table was completed, Ishikawa felt the
designer had a customer-driven definition of a good product or service. This definition or
function of quality could then be deployed into the product development activity. Thus
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) was born. In the words of one of its creators, Yoji
Akao (I 990), QFD was born out of the need to find a way to get the production units to
grasp the notions of quality assurance at the stage of planning, even before going into
production of new goods.
Total Quality Management (TQM) is a management philosophy developed around I 980,
which is based upon the idea that entrepreneurial success can only be achieved through (a)
continuous improvement of all company activities, (b) customer satisfaction (c) decision
making based on research and facts, and (d), employee empowerment (Dean & Evans,
I 994). In practice, TQM consists of a group of qualitative and quantitative methods and
tools to be applied in companies, which focus primarily on customer satisfaction and
continuous quality improvement of all aspects of an organization (Oakland, 1993).
Thus some QFD promoters, like King (I 989), viewed it as a part of Total Quality
Management, more specifically as a sub-system of the quality assurance component of
TQM. Still today, several practitioners continue to view QFD as the key quality
engineering tool to achieve TQM in an organization, since it sets the basis for continuous,
organization-wide, quality improvement and the integration of customer satisfaction in all
company activities (Buchanan 1992). QFD's novelty was in providing a strategic means,
at the product development level, of putting total quality management objectives into
29
practice. QFD is a concept and mechanism for translating voice of customer into product
features. QFD is a tool which integrates the three distinct voices viz. voice of business,
voice of customer and voice of engineer. Please refer Figure 3.1.
VOICE OF
CUSTOMER
VOICE OF
BUSINESS
VOICE OF
ENGINEER
Fig, 3.1: Customer Driven Product Development through QFD
i. Voice of Business (VoB): VoB deals with the organizational requirements and resource
limitations. It is satisfied by generating profits through new and improved products. It is
about designing the right cycle times, thus improving time-to-market and reducing
development rework.
ii. Voice of Customer (VoC): VoC deals with the customer needs and requirements, within
the budget constraints. This gets satisfied by generating perceived value and delivering the
quality and functionality as demanded by the customers.
iii. Voice of Engineer (VoE): VoE deals with the technical requirements and constraints. It
is satisfied by designing a product that is compatible with manufacturing facilities and
endures operating conditions. This enables the transfer of products from design to
manufactunng with minimal production waste.
30
3.2 QFD: CONCEPTS AND PROGRESSIONS
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is an innovative approach bringing quality - as
demanded by the customers - upstream into the product development process. QFD is said
to have been first proposed in Japan by Yoji Akao in 1966 (Cohen, 1995). QFD has been
defined by its originator Yoji Akao (1990) as "a method for developing a design quality
aimed at satisfying the customer and then translating the customer demands into design
targets and major quality assurance points to be used throughout the production phase". It
is a highly effective and structured planning tool to deal with client demands more
systematically and defining what they want precisely to do it right in the very first time.
Quality Function Deployment is "a system to assure that customer needs drive the product
design and production process - an overall concept that provides a means of translating
customer requirements into the appropriate technical requirements for each stage of
product development i.e. marketing strategies, planning, product design and engineering,
prototype evaluation, production process development, production, and sales" (Sullivan,
1986a). Quality Function Deployment is a method for bringing the voice of the customer
into the development process and is being described as a technique to guarantee that
customer needs drive the product design and manufactnring process (Kaulio, 1998).
Traditional QFD provides a House of Quality (HoQ) which relates customer requirements,
and design requirements. QFD is a very useful tool when trying to pick featnres that
provide direct competition to an existing competitor's product while adding featnres that
are shown as a breakthrough opportnnity (Re Velie et al, 1995). A breakthrough
opportunity provides a competitive advantage to the firm relative to the customer
requirements. There are many ways to calculate the values of the customer requirements
and different heuristics to select features depending on the specifics of the problem,
providing flexibility to the modeL QFD can also accommodate projects with large
parameter sets including numerous customer requirements and several associated technical
attributes.
Quality Function Deployment is a concept and mechanism for translating the voice of
customer' into product featnres through various stages of product planning, engineering
and manufactnring (Akao, 1990). However, it did not emerge as a viable and formalized
approach to quality control in planning until 1972 (Govers, 1996 ), when Akao ( 1990)
31
developed a quality control chart previously introduced at the Kobe shipyard of Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries and instituted the QFD quality tables. Together with Shigeru Mizuno,
Akao spent years developing the approach and in 1978 they both became co-editors of the
first book on QFD (Akao & Muzino, 1978), which lead to the rapid increase in QFD
applications in Japan (AS!, 1987). The Toyota organization, as well as other Japanese
companies, bad meanwhile begun to apply QFD (Hauser & Clausing, 1988).
Quality Function Deployment's introduction in USA is usually traced back to the
publication of Quality Function Deployment and CWQC in Japan in Quality Progress by
Kogure & Akao (1983 ). Throughout the I 980s, three people - Sullivan ( 1986b), Clausing
(1988) and King (1989) and two organizations- the American Supplier Institute- AS!
( 1987) and the Growth Opportunity Alliance of Lawrence - GOAL I Quality Productivity
Centre - QPC (Evans & Lindsay, 1996) have learned, developed, promoted, trained and
disseminated, through symposia and publications, the ways of QFD in the USA.
QFD's first industrial applications in the US originated mainly in the automotive industry.
Early users of QFD included the Ford Motor Company, Procter & Gamble and 3M
Corporation, but many other US companies have also adopted it (King, I 989). In Europe,
the first symposium on QFD took place in 1992 in the UK, but companies like Philips
Corporation have been reported to have worked with QFD since 1986 (Rydfords, 1990).
Gustafsson (1993) has also reported QFD applications in several Swedish industries. Since
many companies are reluctant to openly present their experiences with QFD, it is difficult
to know exactly how big is the implementation and popularity of QFD in Europe and the
US (Cohen, I 995). Meanwhile, many authors have advocated it as a planning tool to help
in the management of product/process development, subject to some adaptation to meet
the specific requirements of the concerned industry. However, there are not many
published applications of QFD in the improvement of product development processes,
especially on an industrial level (Holmen & Kristensen, I 996).
A QFD diagram or a House of Quality (Hauser & Clausing, 1988) is a systematic,
graphical method that can highlight the most important technical attributes in terms of
their influence on the customer requirements. A HoQ typically contains information on
what-to-do (customer requirements); how-to-do (technical attributes); relationships
between customer requirements and technical attributes; and benchmarking data compared
to competitors (Schmidt, 1997; Fariborz & Rafael, 2002). Basically, a complete QFD
32
process provides a traceable path to bring the overall customer concerns into the product
development process from conceptual design through to manufacturing. As such, customer
requirements elicitation becomes the starting point of employing QFD technique for
product planning/conceptualisation (Hauser & Clausing, 1988).
3.3 QFD: METHODOLOGY IN NUTSHELL
In QFD approach, the matrix to be built is the Product Planning Matrix, also called House
of Quality due to its house-like shape. Its purpose is to translate important customer
requirements regarding product quality into key end-product control characteristics
(Prasad, 1998). The QFD comprises several different parts or rooms, which are
sequentially filled in order to achieve an actionable translation from requirements into
characteristics (Hauser & Clausing, 1988). A number of closely linked building blocks
make up the complete House of Quality shown in Figure 3.2.
VOICE OF ENGINEER
RELATIONSHIP ROOM
TECHNICAL PRIORITIES ROOM
STRATEGIC PLANNING ROOM
Fig. 3.2 Basic Building Blocks of House of Quality
33
The first room of the House of Quality concerns the Voice of the Customer- a structured
list of requirements concerning the product and its attributes as the customer describes
them also known as needs, or wants together with a measure of the importance customers
attach to each requirement (Govers, 1996). Customers requirements are loose, vague
qualitative statements in the customers' own words, like easy to use or like faster ice
making. They indicate what benefits the customer expects to be fulfilled by the product or
service (Griffin & Hauser, 1993). There are several possible sources of information about
customer requirements: market research data, sales data, customer complaints, retailers,
focus groups, opinion surveys, in-depth interviews etc. After their identification, the
customers requirements are compiled and organized by the QFD team in a hierarchical
structure of primary, secondary and tertiary requirements (Williams, 1987), using quality
tools like Affinity Diagram. The primary (strategic) requirements consist of a small
number of broad needs that provide strategic direction to the development process, which
are, in tum, specified into secondary (tactical) and tertiary (operational) requirements.
These secondary and tertiary requirements indicate the design and engineering solutions
that have to be developed by the QFD team in order to satisfy the strategic requirements
(Cohen, 1995). Finally, based on quantitative market research, relative importance weights
are attached to each customer requirement by the QFD team. The customer and seller
prioritization ratings are usually done at the tertiary level. This procedure establishes
priorities for the product development process and the allocation of the necessary
resources.
The establishment of the voice of the customer is the most critical step in a QFD project.
On one hand, it requires obtaining and expressing what customers require from a product
or service - and not what the company thinks they require - and how important it is for
them. On the other, since these prioritized customer requirements are guiding the whole
development process, a misinterpretation at this stage may seriously compromise the
process outcome (Buchanan, 1992). The sources of information and the tools available for
the identification, structuring and prioritizing of customer requirements, together with
their strengths and weaknesses, have been extensively reviewed in the literature (King,
1989). Nevertheless, the identification of customer requirements and their importance
remains one of the most serious obstacles to a successful QFD application in product
de\'elopment. especially in the manufacturing industry.
34
Once the QFD team has established the customer requirements, the next step is to
understand where the company and its competitors stand in terms of satisfying them in the
marketplace. This is achieved through the Strategic Planning Room (Hauser & Clausing,
1988). Based on qualitative and quantitative market information, the customers'
perception of how the concept or product satisfies their requirements when compared to
other products - Customer Competitive Assessment - is rated and graphically depicted.
This section provides a link between the QFD project and the company's strategic vision
by uncovering market opportunities and identifying priorities for product development or
improvement. Moreover, it helps to build competitive advantage by focusing on the
requirements that customer would like to be better addressed by the market
(Sivaloganathan & Evbuaomwan, !997).
At this stage, the QFD team should have a clear picture of what the customer requires
from the concept or product and how this can be related to the company's strategy. The
team has now to decide how these requirements can be incorporated in the final product,
so that the customer is satisfied. This is achieved by building the Voice of the Engineer
Room. Here, the end-product's engineering characteristics directly related to the customer
requirements are listed. These characteristics are also known as the design requirements,
quality functions, or technical attributes. These are measurable parameters that will be
used to objectively evaluate product quality, since their values will be controlled and
compared with target values. This procedure ensures that the customer requirements are
being met. Since these parameters are often correlated, the QFD team has to specify their
degree of interdependence, if any. This is done in the correlation triangle i.e. Roof of the
House. This helps to determine the effects of changing one product characteristic on the
others, enabling the team to identify and react to synergistic (positive correlation) or trade
off (negative correlation) situations. Trade-off situation often points out design constraints
and should always be solved in the way that favors the customer most (Gustafsson, !993).
The QFD team must now fill the core of the HoQ - the Relationship Room, where the
relationships between each customer requirement and the engineering characteristics, as
well as their intensity, are depicted (Govers, 200!). This is also referred to as Central
Relationship Matrix. Based on in-house expertise, customer surveys or data from
statistical studies and controlled experiments, the team seeks consensus on how much each
engineering characteristic affects each customer requirement (AS!, !987). This task is
35
widely recognized as a highly complex one and represents another crittcal stage in the
QFD building process. On one hand, it shows whether or not the company is adequately
addressing the customer requirements from a technical viewpoint, while on the other, it is
an important project checkpoint. Blank rows in the Relationship Room indicate customer
requirements that are currently not being addressed by any of the engineering
characteristics. This suggests an engineering characteristic may be missing or has to be
modified in the end-product. An empty column indicates either a missing customer
requirement or a waste of resources, since it indicates that there exist a characteristic not
satisfying any of the listed customer requirements (Sullivan, 1988; Bossert, 1991).
The last task in building the QFD is filling the Technical Priorities Room. It starts with a
Technical Competitive Assessment of the end-product's characteristics in the currently
marketed products. In this way, the QFD team can view the competitors and their own
technical perfom1ance level regarding product characteristics directly affecting customer
requirements (Akao 1997; Sivaloganathan & Evbuaomwan, 1997). In-house product
testing usually provides the data necessary for this assessment, which should be expressed
in measurable terms. For each product characteristic, the comparison between the
company's and the competitor's technical performance level is depicted in a graph (Griffin
& Hauser, 1993). The Technical Competitive Assessment (Internal) is then compared with
the Customer Competitive Assessment (External) to determine inconsistencies between
how the customers and the organisation is evaluating existing products.
The Customer and the Technical Competitive Assessments, the Relationship Room and
various Ratings, all contribute to determine the raw weights and priority scores. The raw
weights and priority scores have been the main focus of QFD-related literature because
these contain the most critical information a company needs about its relationships with
customers and competitive position in the marketplace (Johnson & Chvala, \996). These
values represent, in measurable terms, the level of performance for each end-product
characteristic the company has to provide in order to maximize customer satisfaction.
They are often expressed as a percentage, since their absolute values are meaningless.
These performance levels are critical control points to be measured at each stage of the
product development and market introduction processes. These values provide not only an
objective means of assessing requirements compliance, but also specific goals for future
product development (Ciccantell! and Magidson, 1993).
36
3.4 QFD: A COMPREHENSIVE LITERATURE REVIEW
In the 1970s, the drive for perpetual product improvement led Japanese companies to seek
optimization and rationalization in the design of their products and processes. It is in this
context that the QFD method was created and developed. Thus it can be safely said that
QFD was originally proposed, through collecting and analyzing the voice of the customer,
to develop products with higher quality to meet or surpass customer needs and
expectations. By studying the published and available literature the categorical functional
fields ofQFD have been divided into three broad categories:
3.4.1 Functional Areas: These areas are further sub-divided into three categories:
• Primary Functional Field:
o Product Development;
o User Requirement Analysis;
o Quality Improvement and Management;
• Secondary Functional Field:
o Engineering;
o Management sciences;
o Planning;
o Operation Research and Optimization;
o Education;
o Software;
o Expert Systems including AI, ANN and Fuzzy logic.
• Tertiary Functional Field:
o Construction;
o Cost;
o Food;
o Environment;
o Decision Making.
3.4.2 Other Applications:
• Industrial and Non-industnal Applications;
• Service Functions.
3.4.3 Pure QFD: Includes methodologies, progressions, review, extensions, studies and
discussions.
37
3.4.1 Functional Areas: These areas are further sub-divided into three different
hierarchical categories:
a. Primary Functional Field: QFD is a customer-oriented quality management and
product development technique usually applied to products, however later applications are
found in the field of service sector also.
i] Product Development: QFD can be referred to as designed-in quality rather than
traditional inspected-in quality in the sense that it helps a company shift from inspecting
the product's quality to designing quality into the product through customer needs
analysis. Therefore, product design and development is one of the prime functional fields
of QFD as illustrated in the work listed below. There is a wealth of studies in this field
focusing on the design and development of different products and even services as well as
on the different issues in product development and design, such as: Bodell and Russell
(1989) adopted QFD's systems approach to brake design. Lewis and Samuel (1991)
studied and analyzed designing for quality for design, development and manufacturing
engineers in a large automotive company. Griffin (1992) evaluated QFD's use in US firms
as a process for developing products. Gustafsson (1993) in his thesis work QFD and
conjoint analysis key to customer oriented products. Halbleib, Wormington and Street
( 1993) applied QFD to the design of a lithium battery. Cadogan, George and Winkler
( 1994) suggested aircrew helmet design and manufacturing enhancements through the use
of advanced technologies. Nichols and Flanagan (1994) attempted customer-driven
designs through QFD. Anthony and Dirik ( 1995) simplified QFD for high-technology
product development. Geiger and Steger (1995) described a systematic method similar to
QFD employing a neutral test environment to verity the GPP suitability of the generated
product data. Gustafsson ( 1995) designed structured approach comprehensive Quality
Function Deployment. Lockamy and Khurana (1995a) applied QFD and TQM for new
product design. Rahman (1995) discussed product development stages and associated
quality management approaches. Sivaloganathan, Evbuomwan, Jebb and Wynn (1995)
proposed a design system for the future through Design Function Deployment (DFD).
Bergquist and Abeysekera (1996) used QFD as a means for developing usable products.
Govers (1996) argued that QFD is more a process than just a tool for product as well as
production process development. Griffin and Hauser ( 1996) reviewed and analyzed the
literature on Integrating R & D and Marketing. Song, Montoya-Weiss and Schmidt (1997)
38
suggested that techniques such as concurrent engineering and QFD can pave the way to
more effective new product development (NPD). Vonderembse and Raghunathan (1997)
studied tl1e Quality Function Deployment's impact on product development. Schmidt
(1997) developed the process model of 'Integrated Concept Development' (!CoDe). It is
proposed to fill the gap between marketing science and engineering by consequently
relating market orientated concept development and testing to the House of Quality
concept of QFD. Moskowitz and Jae Kim ( 1997) developed a novice-friendly decision
support system prototype for QFD based upon an integrated mathematical programming
formulation and solution approach called QFD Optimizer. Dawson and Askin ( 1999)
optimized new product design using QFD with empirical value functions. Natarajan,
Martz and Kurosaka (1999) applied QFD to internal service system design. Cristiano,
Liker and White Ill (2000 & 2001) studied customer-driven product development through
QFD - its key factor for success and its use in the US and Japan. Govindaraju and Mittal
(2000) enhanced the usability of consumer products through manufacturing. Haapalainen,
Kivisto-Rahnasto and Mattila (2000) applied QFD to ergonomic design of non-powered
hand tools. Shin and Kim (2000) tried complexity reduction of a design problem in QFD
using decomposition. Kumar and Midha (2001) used QFD based methodology for
evaluating a company's PDM requirements for collaborative product development. Fujita
and Nishikawa (200 l) proposes an assessment method for value addition onto products
across their life stages in order to facilitate establishment of the product definition for a
product in a certain life stage under one in another preceding life stage. Lee and Kusiak
(2001) designed priority rule through house of quality. Lowe, Ridgway and Atkinson
(2002) describe the semi-solid metal processing technology of thixoforming, the relevant
QFD techniques and the approach used to develop the tool. Houkes, Vermaas, Dorst and 1.
de Vries (2002) presented an action-theoretical account of use and design and also
employed it to analyze the shortcomings of QFD.
ii] Customer Requirement Analysis: QFD determines product design specifications
(Hows) based on customer needs (Whats) and competitive analysis (Whys), which
represents a customer-driven and market-oriented process for total and complete
satisfaction of the user or customer. Thus, it is quite natural to use QFD in the field of user
requirement analysis, such as: King ( 1987) proposed and supported the methods of
listening to the voice of the customer using the QFD system. Reid Jr. and Hermann (1989)
dtscussed the QFD and the voice of the customer. Denton ( 1990) enhanced
39
competitiveness and customer satisfaction through QFD approach. Klein ( 1990) suggested
new technologies and methods for listening to the voice of the customer. Mazur (1991)
touched upon the voice of the customer analysis and other recent QFD technology.
Koksal, Smith and Smith ( 1992) presented a modem approach for meeting customer
requirements for the textile industry. Shillito (1992) discussed customer oriented product
concept beyond the house of quality. Graessel and Zeidler (1993) utilized QFD in
improvement of customer service. Hales ( 1993) captured and integrated the voice of the
customer into product and process development. Mallon and Mulligan ( 1993) elaborated
on QFD as a very effective system for meeting customers needs. Brown and Harrington
(1994) defined network capabilities using the voice of the customer. Farrell Jr. (1994)
helped business identify and integrate the voice of the customer. Hunter and Landingham
(1994) used QFD for listening to the voice of the customer. Schauerrnan, Manno and
Peachy (1994) talked about the QFD - its implementation and the voice of the customer.
Tottie and Lager (1995) attempted to link the customer to the product development
process as a part of the TQM concept. Maier Mark (1996) describes an approach to system
engineering and design called integrated modeling. Integrated modeling describes the
process of system development as the iteration of models and combines and links existing
methods, including QFD. Rajala and Savolainen (1996) proposed a customer oriented
business process model based on a new statistically extended version of QFD and on the
statistical analysis of the business process variables starting from an IDEFO description of
the business processes. Taylor (1997) expounded the virtues of QFD through Rover
groups drive towards extraordinary customer satisfaction. Goodstein and Butz (1998)
emphasized on the customer value and put it as the centre of any organizational change.
Matzler and Hinterhuber (1998) and TanK C & Shen X X (2000) discussed and suggested
as to how to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano' s
model of customer satisfaction into Quality Function Deployment. Xie, Goh and Wang
( 1998) studied the sensitivity of customer voice in QFD analysis. Chaplin, Bailey, Crosby,
Gorman, Holland, Nawrocki, Pichette and Thota (1999) used QFD to capture the voice of
the customer and translated it into the voice of the provider. Herrmann, Huber, et a!.
(2000) attempted market-driven product and service design by bridging the gap between
customer needs, quality management and customer satisfaction.
40
iii} Quality Management System: For successful product design and development in
compatibility with the customers requirements quality improvement and management
becomes an essential and integral part of the whole system and many publications support
this argument, such as: Wasserman, Gavoor and Adams ( 1989) achieved integrated system
quality through QFD. Frew ( 1992) explained how TQM and QFD go hand in hand for
quality improvement. Gopalakrishnan, Mcintyre and Sprague (1992) implemented internal
quality improvement with the application of HoQ. Lyman ( 1992) talked about the
functional relationship between QFD and VE. Lorenzen, Iqbal and Erz (1993) total quality
and tools of QFD, DoE and SPC. Balthazar and Gargeya ( 1995) discussed computer
supported systems for quality in design through QFD. Smith and Angeli (1995) suggested
adopting total quality strategy through the use of QFD. Zairi and Youssef (1995)
propounded QFD as one of the stepping-stone for TQM and product development. Owlia
and Aspinwall (1998) applied QFD for the improvement of quality in an engineering
department. Shen, Tan and Xie (2000) highlighted benchmarking in QFD for quality
improvement. Govers (200 I) presented how QFD goes beyond just quality management
and achieves holistic improvement.
b. Secondary Functional Field: Apart from the above three popular functions, QFD is
also related to and can thus be applied to other fields. These are termed and categorized as
secondary functional areas of QFD and includes concurrent engineering; management
sciences; planning; operation research; education; software; expert systems including AI,
ANN and Fuzzy logic.
i} Concurrent Engineering: Another popular field of QFD's applications is concurrent or
simultaneous engineering of which QFD process has become an essential and integral part.
Many publications can be found in this field, such as: Krishnaswamy and Elshennawy
(1992) enhanced 'customer product' approach through utilization of QFD, reverse
engineering and virtual reality. Merle Thomas (1996) clearly illustrates how concurrent
engineering in meeting demands embraces supporting subsystems that included CADD,
QFD and Design for Manufacture & Assembly. Dowlatshahi and Ashok (1997) attempted
optimization in concurrent engineering. Sivaloganathan and Evbuomwan (1997) talked
about the QFD technique - its present status and future directions. Tsuda (1997) carried
out concurrent engineering case studies applying QFD models. Harding, Omar and
Popplewell ( 1999) discussed applications of QFD within a concurrent engineering
41
environment. Shih-Wcn Hsiao (2000) addressed a concurrent customer-oriented QFD
based design method for developing a new product. Liu, Noguchi and Zhou (200 I)
successfully attempted requirement acquisition, analysis and synthesis in QFD.
ii} Management Sciences: The use of QFD as a modern management tool has gained
extensive global supports. Many organizations have successfully utilized QFD and
addressed strategic and operational decisions. The related work includes: Sullivan ( 1988)
carried policy management through QFD. Lu, Madu, Kuei and Winokur (1994) integrated
QFD, AHP and benchmarking in strategic marketing. Voss (1994) examines our growing
recognition of the interdependence of a variety of business processes for total innovation
management. Ball ( 1995) proposed that market research techniques needed to be
integrated into QFD. Eureka and Ryan (1995) attempted quality and costs management
through Taguchi Methods and QFD. Witter, Clausing, Laufenberg and De Andrade (1995)
first proposed the integration of reusability - the key to corporate agility with enhanced
Quality Function Deployment. Jagdev, Bradley and Molloy (1997) developed a QFD
based performance measurement tool. Ellis (1998) used QDF as a tool to sharpen
measurement. Fuller ( 1998) detailed out the use of the house of quality in SCM. Lee,
Berts, Lau and Bhattacharya (1998) evaluated Sun Tzu's The Art of War as business and
management strategies for world-class business excellence under QFD methodology.
Kauffmann, Ricks and Shockcor ( 1999) used QFD for research portfolio analysis. Morris
and Morris (1999) introduced QFD in the marketing classroom. Lee and Ko (2000)
implemented Sun Tzu's - Art of business management strategies and built balanced
scorecard with SWOT analysis on QFD methodology. Nagendra and Osborne (2000)
adopted a HoQ approach to professional services marketing. Lee Hansen (2002) enhanced
the effectiveness of human resource and industrial relations professionals where QFD is
used to assess the leveraging power of content knowledge and acquired skills. Bottani and
Rizzi (2006) adopted a fuzzy QFD approach for strategic management of logistics service.
iii] Planning: All of the above reviewed functions of QFD are somehow or the other
related either with engineering or management, however it should be noted that QFD has
also been used as a planning tool. The concepts of QFD are also applicable to general
planning. Few of the works includes: Schubert (1989a) comprehensive tool for planning
and development. Maddux, Amos and Wyskida (1991) suggested organizations can apply
QFD as strategic planning tool. Bardenstein and Gibson (1992) adopted a QFD approach
42
to integrated test planning. Wasserman (1993) prioritized design requirements during the
QFD planning process. Chen and Bullington ( 1993) studied QFD's use by the Department
of Industrial Engineering at Mississippi State as a means of formalizing the process of
strategic research planning. Ferrell and Ferrell (1994) used QFD in business planning.
Lyman, Buesinger and Keating (1994) used QFD in strategic planning. Prasad (1994) used
QFD to product planning optimization. Lu and Kuei ( 1995) adapted QFD approach to
strategic marketing planning. Crowe and Cheng (1996) used QFD in manufacturing
strategic planning. Liu and Zhou (1996) recommended a systematic planning approach to
implementing TQM through QFD technique.
iv} Operation Research I Optimisation: The area of operations research especially
optimization is one of the prime functional fields of QFD. There is a wealth of studies in
this field focusing on these aspects and related issues, as can be deciphered from the work
mentioned below. Franceschini and Rossetto ( 1995) studied the problem of comparing
engineering design requirements in QFD. Colton and Staples (1997) carried out resource
allocation using QFD and softness concepts during preliminary design. Kim and
Moskowitz (1997) used QFD for optimizing product designs. Rajala, Savolainen and
Jagdev (1997) considered three key methodologies within the domain of exploration
methods: QFD, simulation modelling and value analysis. Goh, Xie and Wang (1998) made
a comparative study of the prioritization matrix method and the analytic hierarchy process
technique in QFD. Locascio and Thurston (1998) transformed the house of quality ofQFD
to a multi objective optimization formulation. Park and Kim (1998) computed an optimal
set of design requirements using house of quality. Franceschini and Rupil ( 1999) proposed
methods for rating scales and prioritization in QFD. Shen, Tan, Xie, Goh and Wang
(1999) studied sensitivity of the relationship matrix in QFD. Vairaktarakis (1999)
discussed optimization tools for design and marketing of new/improved products using the
house of quality. Pullman, Moore and Wardell (2002) compared two product design
approaches, QFD and Conjoint Analysis, and viewed them as complementary approaches.
Karsak, Sozer and Alptekin (2003) suggested product planning in QFD using a combined
analytic network process and goal programming approach. Chen and Weng (2006)
adopted an evaluation approach to engineering design in QFD processes using fuzzy goal
programming models. Kahraman and Ertay (2006) developed a fuzzy optimization model
for QFD planning process using analytic network approach.
43
v} Education: Over the years many academicians and scholars have taken advantage of the
versatility of QFD and applied it even in the field of education and research with great
results. Few of the related works are: Murgatroyd (1993) used House of Quality- QFD
for instructional design in distance education. Burgar ( 1994) applied QFD to course design
in higher education. Jaraiedi and Ritz (1994) presented as to the application of QFD and
TQM to engineering education. Ermer ( 1995) made QFD and its application an
educational experience for students and faculty. Motwani et al ( 1996) presented an
example as to how QFD was implemented for improving quality in education. Pitman,
Motwani, Kumar & Cheng (1996) carried out a pilot field study on QFD application in an
educational setting. Comesky (1997) developed and analyzed curriculum with Quality
Function Deployment. Franceschini et a! (1998) applied QFD to industrial training
courses. Kim, Han, Choi and Kim ( 1998) presented a knowledge-based approach for
constructing, classifying and managing HoQ charts in QFD. Koksal and Egitman (1998)
presented a QFD approach to improve industrial engineering (IE) education quality at the
Middle East Technical University. Lam and Zhao (1998) improved the quality of teaching
with the application of QFD. Doyotte, Love and Peterson ( 1999) evaluated the benefits of
using quality-oriented techniques like QFD and Taguchi Methods for the Zeus Mission
Study. Bier and Comesky (2001) used QFD to construct a higher education curriculum.
Chen and Chen (2002) carried out a QFD based Technical Textbook Evaluation. Hwamg
and Teo (2001) translated customers' voices into operations requirements through QFD
application in higher education. Moura and Saraiva (2001) explored tbe development of an
ideal kindergarten through concept engineering and QFD. Lee and Lo (2003) proposed
strategy formulation (SF) framework, including SWOT, BSC and QFD in planning of new
curriculum. Chou (2004) applied QFD techniques to evaluate the quality of service of
undergraduate nursing education in Taiwan from tbe perspective of nursing students.
vi} Software: Software engineering is also a popular area of QFD applications, which can
be found in many publications especially in the work from US and Japan. Some of the the
prominent work are: Betts (1990) integrated QFD with software engineering. Sriraman,
Tosirisuk and Chu (1990) created and designed object-oriented databases with QFD and
Taguchi methods. Zultner (1990) adapted QFD to software development. Sharkey (1991)
generalized approach in adapting QFD for software. Erikkson and McFadden ( 1993)
examined the possibility ofQFD as a tool to improve software quality. Yoshizawa, Akao,
44
Ono and Shindo ( 1993) talked about latest trends of QFD in the Japanese software
industry. Barnett and Raja ( 1995) applied QFD to the software development process.
Kekre, Krishnan and Srinivasan ( 1995) presented QFD as a driver of customer satisfaction
for software products and also studied its implications for design and service support.
Lamia (1995) integrated QFD with object oriented software design methodologies. Sarkis
and Liles ( 1995) used IDEF and QFD to develop an organizational decision support
methodology for the strategic justification of computer-integrated technologies. Haag,
Raja and Schkade ( 1996) propounded the use of QFD in software design and
development. Elboushi and Sherif (1997) puts forward QFD technique as an effective tool
for requirements acquisition and design analysis of a ground software intensive project.
Herzwurm, Schockert and Mellis ( 1997) suggested customer oriented evaluation of QFD
software tools. Karlsson (1997) managed software requirements using QFD. Hallberg,
Johansson and Timpka (1999) described the implementation of a QFD based prototype
computer network service to support occupational therapists in their daily work. Yilmaz
and Chatterjee (1997) discussed about the philosophy of Deming and the quality of
software development in the light of QFD method. Hallberg, Timpka and Eriksson ( 1999)
developed and used a unique medical software quality deployment method. Huang and
Mak (2002) proposed to employ the World Wide Web technology to provide QFD
services on the internet as well as intranet. Tseng and Abdalla (2004) presented a Human
Computer System for Collaborative Design (HCSCD) that provides users with a flexible
virtual collaborative environment for product design and development. Buyukozkan and
Feyzioglu (2005) extend the QFD methodology by introducing a new group decision
making approach that responds better to customer needs in software development.
vii} Expert Systems and Fuzzy Logic including AI & ANN: Taking into account the broad
application areas, fuzzy systems and expert systems have witnessed a number of QFD
applications. This includes all related issues and aspects like AI, ANN, etc. An exhaustive
list is given below: Masud and Dean (1993) used fuzzy sets in QFD. Bahrami (1994)
carried out routine design with information-content and fuzzy QFD. Lee (1995) suggested
methods to incorporate optimization and fuzzy information in QFD. Khoo and Ho ( 1996)
developed a fuzzy QFD system framework. Verma and Knezevic (1996) addressed the
feastbility of system reliability during the conceptual design analysis and evaluation
process by applying a fQFD mechanism for the delineation of a fuzzy target or required
45
value. Zhang, Bode and Ren (1996) suggests a machine learning approach in which a
neural network in QFD automatically determines the data by learning from examples.
Chan and Wu ( 1998) prioritized the technical measures in QFD. Fung, Popplewell and Xie
(1998) devised an intelligent hybrid system for customer requirements analysis and
product attribute. Kalargeros and Gao ( 1998) focused on QFD's simplification and easy
computerization on the basis of fuzzy logic principles. Verma, Chilakapati and Fabrycky
( 1998) present an expert system based extension to the fuzzy QFD methodology. Zhou
( 1998) used fuzzy logic and optimization models for implementing QFD. Bouchereau and
Rowlands (1999a) discussed QFD in conjunction with Artificial Intelligence. Bouchereau
and Rowlands ( l999b) presented an approach that combines Fuzzy Logic and QFD, the
results are highlighted and comparisons with the original QFD results are discussed.
Bouchereau and Rowlands ( 1999c) showed how Fuzzy Logic could be incorporated within
the QFD process to overcome some of its drawbacks. Chan, Kao, and Wu ( 1999)
prioritized customer needs in QFD by fuzzy and entropy methods. Fung and Law (1999)
used fuzzy inference for design targets determination for inter-dependent product
attributes. Rao, N ahm, Shi, Deng and Syamil ( 1999) applied Artificial Intelligence and
Expert Systems in new product development. Temponi, Yen and Tiao (1999) developed a
fuzzy logic-based heuristic inference scheme to reason about the implicit relationships
between requirements. Kim, Moskowitz, Dhingra and Evans (2000a) integrated
formulation and solution approach to Quality Function Deployment (QFD) in a crisp or
fuzzy way using multi-attribute value theory combined with fuzzy regression and fuzzy
optimization theory. Lopez-Gonzalez (2001) wrote about the methodology for building
fuzzy expert systems (FES) with spreadsheet to QFD of the target costing. Sohn and Choi
(200 I) aimed to develop a fuzzy QFD model in order to convey fuzzy relationship
between customers needs and design specification for reliability in the context of SCM.
Vanegas and Labib (200la) derived optimum targets through a fuzzy QFD model.
Vanegas Labib (200lb) application ofNew Fuzzy Weighted Average (NFWA) method to
engineering design evaluation. Chen and Weng (2003) formulated a fuzzy QFD model is
to determine the fulfillment level of each design attributes for maximizing the customer
satisfactJOn under the resource limitation and the considerations of technical difficulty and
market competition. Myint (2003) provides a methodology for the development of
Intelligent Quality Function Deployment (IQFD) application in the discrete parts,
assembly environment. Yang, Shou, Dulaimi and Low (2003) presents fuzzy set theory
46
that is integrated into HoQ to capture the inherent impreciseness and vagueness of design
relevant inputs and facilitate the analysis of design-relevant QFD information. Han, Kim
and Choi (2004) suggests a linear partial ordering approach for assessing the knowledge
from participants and prioritizing engineering characteristics. Karsak (2004) presents a
fuzzy multiple objective programming approach that incorporates imprecise and subjective
information inherent in the QFD planning process to determine the level of fulfillment of
design requirements. Fung, Chen and Tang (2005) used fuzzy weighted average method in
the fuzzy expected value operator in order to rank technical attributes in fuzzy QFD. Yan,
Khoo and Chen (2005) have demonstrated the prototype QFD-enabled product
conceptualization system's effectiveness in design knowledge acquisition, representation
and organization at an early stage of NPD. Bevilacqua, Ciarapica and Giacchetta (2006)
made supplier selection through Fuzzy QFD. Chakraborty and Dey (2006) made a QFD
based expert system for non-traditional machining processes selection.
c. Tertiary Functional Field: QFD's functions had also been expanded and utilized to
few more fields termed as tertiary functional areas such as construction; cost; food;
environment; and decision making.
i] Construction and Housing: One of the late entry as a popular sector of QFD
applications is field of construction, housing and infrastructure development. There are
few examples of QFD implementation in the construction management literature.
Armacost, Mullens, Componation and Swart (1994) used a statistical framework based on
AHP for rating customer requirements in QFD utilized for housing application. Huovila
and Seren (1998) carried out construction projects through customer-oriented QFD
methods. Abdul Rahman, Kwan and Woods (1999) applied QFD in designing a low-cost
housing. Kamara, Anumba and Evbuomwan (1999) innovated a new approach in
processing client requirements in construction. Kamara and Anumba (2000) processed
customers requirements for concurrent life-cycle design and construction. Dikrnen,
Birgonul and Kiziltas (2005) elaborated on the use of QFD in construction industry for
determining the best marketing strategy.
ii] Cost: QFD's area of application had also been expanded and utilized to the field of
finance and cost especially in conjunction with Target Costing. The other includes:
Raynor ( 1994) formalized the quest for cost-effective customer delight mcorporating and
implementmg the basics of QFD. Hales and Staley (1995) integrated Target Costing and
47
QFD for successful new product development. Bode and Fung ( 1998) proposed approach
enables designers to optimize product development resources towards customer
satisfaction and conduct analytical investigations to facilitate decision making in POD.
Partovi (1999) applied QFD approach to strategic capital budgeting. Tang, Fung, Xu and
Wang (2002) deals with fuzzy formulation combined with a genetic-based interactive
approach to QFD planning taking into consideration the financial factors and uncertainties
in the product design process.
iii} Food: A lot of literature is available as far as development and improvement of food
products is concerned. A few of them are: Charteris (1993) utilized QFD as a quality
engineering technology for the food industry. Dalen (1996) assured eating quality of meat
through QFD. Bech, Hansen and Wienberg (1997) applied QFD in translation of consumer
needs into sensory attributes measurable by descriptive sensory analysis. Viaene and
Januszewska (1999) discussed QFD as applied to chocolate industry. Costa, Dekker and
Jongen (2000) carried out a detailed review of QFD in the food industry. Benner,
Linnemann, Jongen and Folstar (2003) tried to answer the question - can QFD be used to
develop food products. Benner, Geerts, Linnemann, Jongen, Folstar and Cnossen (2003)
presented a conceptual model based on the QFD method to gather and disseminate
information essential for successful product development.
iv} Environment: The available papers and publication suggest the recent introduction of
QFD in the field of environmental friendly designs. Other related work includes: Halog,
Schultmann and Rentz (2001) used modified version of QFD for techoique selection for
optimum environmental performance improvement. Madu, Madu and Kuei (2002)
presented a hierarchic framework with AHP and QFD for environmentally conscious
design. Zhou and Schoenung (2004) presented a new approach for environmental impact
assessment in a multi-attribute framework by using a modified QFD for CRTs and LCDs.
v] Decision Making: The above mentioned applications of QFD demonstrate its multi
function usefulness, and a number of studies also suggest QFD has been highly effective
in structured decision making, too. Some of these studies are: Chang ( 1989) discussed an
integrated total quality information system involving the QFD process. Berglund ( 1993)
suggests that QFD can work as a critical tool for environmental decision making. Wolfe
( 1994) worked on the development of the city of quality through hypertext-based group
decision support system by QFD for strategic planning of large-scale system development
4R
projects. Leung ( 1997) improved technical information services by QFD approach. Tan,
Xie and Chia ( 1998) suggested QFD and its use in designing information technology
systems. Ho, Lai and Chang ( 1999) integrated group decision making approach to QFD.
Delano, Parnell, Smith and Vance (2000) carried out a R & D case study and decision
analysis through QFD. Kim, Jang, Lee and Cho (2000) suggested a method based on a
product development system that identifies the degree of flexibility required (a-value), and
accounts for and incorporates the a-value in making IT investments. Chin, Pun, Leung
and Lau (200 I) carried out a case study as to how QFD approach can be used for
improving technical library and information services. Chuang (200 I) combined the AHP
and QFD for a location decision from a requirement perspective. Edgeman and Hensler
(2006) deployed sustainable solutions through QFD paradigm.
3-4.2 Other Applications: The initially recorded industrial applications of QFD were in
the shipbuilding and automobiles industries. Early applications of QFD also focused on
other industries like electronics and software. The fast development of QFD has resulted
many of its applications to industrial and non-industrial sector. Later on, QFD has also
been introduced to the service sector of all kinds and it can be safely said that it is hard to
find a sector to which QFD has not yet been applied. Actually, there seems to be no
definite boundary for QFD's potential fields of applications.
a. Industrial and Non-industrial Applications: Cohen (1988) gave an application
perspective ofQFD from digital equipment corporation. Rodriguez Soria (1989) explained
use of QFD in the development of a new medical device. Schubert (1989b) integrated
reliability throughout development process with QFD. Chi (1990) applied QFD techniques
to aerospace supportability. Karbhari, Henshaw and Wilkins (1991) explained the role of
scale effects and QFD in integrated design for composites. Brown ( 1992) used networked
QFD for SATWG. Dean ( 1992) applied QFD for large systems. Frank and Green (1992)
adopted a team approach to design with QFD. Gilmore (1992) identified QFD's variables,
outcomes, their relationships, and guideline for practitioners in the American automotive
industry. Kealin and Klein (1992) explained as to how QFD saved a company - the
Renaissance Spirometry System. Maduri ( 1992) used QFD in heavy industry. Mann and
Halbleib (1992) stated the application of QFD to a national security issue. O'Neal and
LaFief (1992) presented QFD process as a mechanism for leadership role in marketing
process. Weiss and Butler ( 1992) stated use of QFD in liquid rocket engine power cycle
49
selection. Tessler, Wada and Klein (1993) applied QFD to the residential serv1ces of
Pacific Gas and Electric (P G & E) Company. Ansari and Modarress (1994) discussed the
role of suppliers and QFD. Jacobs, Reed and Dean (1994) applied QFD for large space
systems. Jacques, Ryan and Cleghorn (1994) applied QFD in rehabilitation engineering.
Kathawala and Motwani (1994) implemented QFD as a systems approach. LaSala (1994)
identified profiling system requirements with QFD. Philips, Sander and Govers (1994)
carried out a case study on the policy formulation by use of QFD techniques. Stubbs and
Diaz (1994) studied the impact of QFD utilization in the development of a non-destructive
damage detection system for aerospace structures. Jacobs, Luke and Reed (I 995) used
QFD as a framework for process measurement. Johnson (1995) evaluated the viability of
on-going product oriented internal R&D projects through QFD. Ghahramani and
Houshyar (1996) through their work benchmarked the application of QFD in rapid
prototyping. Johansson and Timpka (1996) used QFD for requirements engineering in
system development methods. Khawaja and Benjamin (1996) proposed a QFD framework
for effective transfer of AM/FM/GIS information technologies to small communities.
Logan and Radcliffe ( 1997) explored the potential for use of a house of quality matrix
technique in rehabilitation engineering. Mrad (1997) characterized and selected an
industrial workstation using QFD. Yeung and Lau (1997) studies QFD application in the
intelligent framework to produce quality plastic components. Beckwith and Hunter
Zaworski ( 1998) applied QFD in passive pedestrian detection at unsignalized crossings.
Dagersten, Heywood and Chatwin (1998) successfully attempted batch process control
using QFD matrices and simulation. Kwon and Han (1999) developed economical
reliability test method of using QFD. Tse (1999) developed methodology to implement
QFD in an electronic manufacturing company. Zhang, Wang and Zhang (1999) adopted a
life cycle approach or environmentally conscious manufacturing by integrating LCA and
LCC into QFD matrices. Sohn ( 1999) reviewed QFD as applied to local traffic accident
reduction. Chan (2000) proposed QFD implementation framework for beautiful enterprise.
Ho (2000) presented an application of QFD in satellite operation training. Yang, Parsaei
and Leep (2000) evaluated robotic safety using QFD. Ph eng and Yeap (200 I) explored
QFD's application in designing and building projects. Shen, Tan and Xie (2001)
implemented QFD based on linguistic data. Guedez, Mondelo, Hernandez and Mosquera
(200 I) aimed to improve the ergonomic design of containers that will be used in flexible
manufacturing systems (FMS). Marsot (2005) gives a brief review of the problems of
50
integrating ergonomics at the design stage and applied QFD to the design of a boning
knife. Partovi (2006) presented a strategic solution to the facility location problem which
incorporated both external and mtemal criteria in the decision-making process.
b. Service Sector Application: Bersbach and Wahl (1990) applied QFD to a defense
contract and reported excellent results. Kaneko (1991) implemented QFD in the service
industry. Hofmeister (1992 & 1995) explains the use of QFD in the service and
administrative environment. Stamm G (1992) detailed out customer demanded quality
from service planning to service design. Behara and Chase ( 1993) worked out quality
service in design through Service QFD. Dickinson (1995) achieved success through QFD.
Ghobadian and Terry (1995) propounded as to how A1italia- An Italian Airline improves
its service quality through QFD. Belhe and Kusiak (1996) studied design process and the
house of quality. Einspruch, Einspruch and Omachonu (1996) applied QFD to
rehabilitation services. Radharamanan and Godoy (1996) used QFD in a health care
system to deploy the voices of the customers. Trappey, Trappey and Hwang (1996)
computerized QFD approach for retail services. Adiano (1998) debated regarding the
competitive edge lawyers achieved by the use of QFD. Ermer & Kniper (1998) delighted
the customer with QFD for quality service design. Han, Kim, Choi and Kim (1998)
suggest a method based on QFD to determine the development priority of information
system. Jeong and Oh ( 1998) extended QFD framework for service quality and customer
satisfaction in the hospitality industry. Park and Kim (I 998) utilize a new integrative
decision model for determination of an optimal set of design requirements using HoQ.
Johnson, Dube and Renaghan (1999) adapted the QFD approach to extended service
transactions. Partovi and Epperly (1999) innovated QFD approach to task organization in
peace keeping force design. Chaplin and Teminko (2000) worked out process
improvements and cost reductions in customer-driven healthcare. Pun, Chin and Lau
(2000) tried out service quality deployment through QFD and Hoshin methodology.
3.4.3 Pure QFD: The prevtous studies suggest that initially QFD was difficult for
practitioners to adopt and apply and was treated more of an art than science. This was
owing to its loosely defined and badly structured form. However, over the years many
methodological progressions in its framework have made QFD more acceptable and
operational. Numerous quantttative and qualitative methods have been suggested to be
51
•'"""' T 21 B49 I '
authors and practitioners are listed below: Sullivan (1986b) used QFD with the seven
stages in company-wide quality control. Aswad (1989) adopted a systems approach
through Quality Function Deployment. McElroy ( 1989) used QFD for building the house
of quality. Adams and Gavoor (1990) discussed QFD's promise and reality. Nakui (1991)
analyzed comprehensive QFD system. Stocker ( 1991) used QFD to identify customer
needs. Pandey ( 1992) studied the implementation and enhancements possible with QFD.
Bah ill and Chapman ( 1993) wrote a tutorial on Quality Function Deployment. Hrones,
Jedrey Jr. and Zaaf ( 1993) defined global requirements with distributed QFD. Adiano and
Roth (1994) created and introduced Dynamic QFD. Reed, Jacobs and Dean (1994) talked
about QFD and its implementation considerations for the engineering manager. Scheurell
(1994) took us beyond the QFD house of quality by using the downstream matrices.
Mazur (1994) reviewed QFD and its use outside North America i.e. in Europe, the Pacific
Rim, South America, and beyond. Glushkovsky, Florescu, Hershkovits and Sipper (1995)
used QFD with questionnaires. Lockamy and Khurana (1995b) made a case study. Lyman
and Richter (1995) correlated QFD and personality type: The key to team energy and
effectiveness. Franceschini and Rossetto (1998) discussed as to how QFD and its use can
be improved. Ginn, Jones, Rahnejat and Zairi (1998) propagated the QFD/FMEA
interface. Prasad (1998) reviewed QFD and related deployment techniques. Bouchereau
and Rowlands (2000a) discussed the compatible methods and techniques to help QFD.
Bouchereau and Rowlands (2000b) explained QFD and explored its hidden potential.
Reich (2000) improved the rationale capture capability ofQFD. Martins and Elaine (2001)
made an empirical study in the UK. Chan and Wu (2002a & 2002b) reviewed the available
literature on QFD. Luiz, et al (2002) merged two QFD models into one. Fung, Chen and
Tang (2006) estimated the functional relationships for QFD under uncertainties.
3.5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this literature review, we have presented the study of QFD usage all over the world. It
includes an elaborate review of QFD's chronological evolution and a categorical
functional analysis of QFD's fields. Its application to industry and services; and
methodological development to facilitate the reference needs of QFD practitioners,
scholars and academic investigators. The academic exercise conducted has a references
bank of 350 - 400 cited publications. On the basis of published and available literature,
52
case studies and research publications, it can be safely concluded that, there exists
noteworthy discrepancy in the application of QFD in different countries, and hence in the
reported benefits of QFD, not only amongst the countries but also among the
establishments within the same country. The Post-1990 literature and publications
mentioned helps us in approving how the application of this significant tool is adapting to
the maturity of user organizations and ever-evolving market conditions. To a large extent,
this body of work in the form of literature review achieves the targeted objective in
comprehensiveness of its reporting and suitability of classification that serves the interest
of QFD scholars, engineers, product designers and developers.
3.5.1 Need for a Systematic and Comprehensive QFD Model: From the analysis of the
literature published so far on the Product Development and Quality Function Deployment,
both at an industrial and a scientific research level, three main conclusions can be drawn:
o Within the limited amount of literature available, most of the relevant information has
been published only in the form of scientific working papers, theses and reports.
o Researchers in product design and development arena are probably still not much
aware of the main ideas of QFD, its methodology and its potential for product
development and R&D has still not been exploited.
o Up to date, there are very few, if any, structured accounts of the applications of QFD
in India for product or process development, either at an academic or at an industrial level.
In the literature, different authors build different QFD models that contain different
elements and employ different scales to measure the relevant concepts, which may puzzle
the practitioners as to which QFD models should be used. Although many studies on QFD
have been done and a lot of QFD applications have been reported, there are, as per our
knowledge, very few completely full-blown and comprehensive QFD cases reported or
examples published.
QFD is a complex and time-consuming process that involves many concepts to
understand, much information to collect and many computations to perform. There exists a
pressing need for systematic and operational approach to QFD to help resolve this
problem. A comprehensive description of all the pertinent components and elements of
QFD is called for. The incumbent model should be able to unify various components and
elements of the process and hence avoid arbitrariness and incomprehensibility associated
with the present methodologies. The available and published QFD models, although quite
53
elaborate and united in nature, admittedly makes two major exclusions: one is the
interrelationships amongst the customer requirements and the engineering characteristics;
and the other being the factoring-in of these interrelationship values for the computation of
various importance weights and scores. Since these two parts involve certain degree of
difficulties, they are usually omitted to make the models easier to apply. There is a need
for thorough discussion regarding the problems associated with the two omitted parts, and
some suggestions regarding possible approaches for directly incorporating them into the
relevant calculations within a potentially enlarged QFD model.
The commonly used correlation concepts - whether of requirements or characteristics - are
subjective so the 'enhanced version' should be able to address the twin issues of various
'interrelationships' within the QFD process and their 'incorporation' in the several weights
and scores quantification process. All information required, computations involved and
feasible methods are to be clearly explained for providing an applicable framework for
practitioners to perform comprehensive analysis without confusions and difficulties. A
complete and operational description of the QFD process will facilitate its wide
applications. A full-example illustrating all the concepts, information collected,
computation and implementation steps will undoubtedly be helpful. Our thesis, especially
the product-case presented, is a sincere attempt towards such a purpose. The next section
discusses development of the Customer Driven Product Development - Quality Function
Deployment Model (CDPD-QFD).
54