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