Professional Documents
Culture Documents
September 2005
The working papers are produced by the Bradford University School of Management and are to be circulated for
discussion purposes only. Their contents should be considered to be preliminary. The papers are expected to be
published in due course, in a revised form and should not be quoted without the author’s permission.
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
3
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
1. DEPLOYING THE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER iii) ‘Counterpart Characteristics’ (the voice of the
THROUGH QFD customer expressed in technical language).
Karabatsos,(1988) quotes Larry Sullivan (chairman
iv) ‘Product Quality Deployment’ (the activity
of the American Suppliers Institute) as stating in
required to translate the voice of the customer
1986 that QFD is the ‘mechanism to deploy
into technical requirements).
customer desires vertically and horizontally
throughout the company’. At a fundamental v) ‘Deployment of the Quality Function’ (the
quality process level QFD can also be seen as a activity required to assure that customer
‘positive’ quality improvement approach as required quality is achieved).
opposed to a (traditional) ‘negative’ quality vi) ‘Quality Tables’ (the series of matrices used to
improvement approach to deliver customer translate the voice of the customer into final
satisfaction (Ford Motor Company 1983), see Fig. product characteristics)
1 (Ford Motor Company 1983)
The six key terms of QFD described by Sullivan,
For a more detailed baseline definition, Sullivan, (1986) can be further simplified as follows;
(1986) proposes that there are six key terms
associated with QFD, which are as follows; i) a ‘concept’ for translating customer wants into
the product,
i) ‘Quality Function Deployment’ (an overall
concept that translates customer requirements ii) a requirement to understand ‘what’ the
into appropriate technical requirements for customer ‘wants’
each stage of product development and iii) the requirement to identify ‘how’ to
production). technically deliver the what the customer
ii) ‘Voice of the Customer’ (the customers’ wants,
requirements as expressed in their own terms).
4
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
iv) the requirement for a ‘team’ to carry out the suggests three areas where tools can be used,
‘translation’ of whats into hows, which are;
v) the requirement for a ‘team’ required to i) ‘collecting various levels of numeric and non-
‘deliver’ the hows into the product, numeric information.’
vi) the requirement for ‘charts’ that facilitate the ii) ‘structuring the information in order to
translation of whats and hows into the understand aspects of process and problems.’
product. In even simpler terms, this can be
iii) ‘using the information to identify and select
distilled down to just one ‘concept’ of QFD
information and plan for specific actions.’
with four key ‘requirements’ of; customer
‘whats’ (or wants), technical ‘hows’, ‘team(s)’
The definition of quality tools and the three areas
and ‘matrices’. This can be taken a step further
of use as described above by Straker, (1995) helps
by proposing that the first requirement of
outline the fundamental basis of any quality tool
‘customer whats’ needs the second
including QFD as defined already by Sullivan,
requirement of ‘technical hows’ to translate
(1988), Barlow, (1995) and Clausing, (1994).
itself into the product, this second
However, according to Straker, (1995) who lists
requirement in turn needs the third
some 33 individual tools in a relationship diagram
requirement of ‘teams’ to translate itself into
with their information uses, it is apparent that not
the product, and finally this third requirement
all tools are suitable for all three areas of use, or
needs ‘matrices’ to translate its decisions into
are of equal use. Asaka and Ozeki, (1988) list
the product. This systematic trace from
some 15 individual quality tool types, while
customer subjectiveness, to technical
Nickols, (1996) lists just three suites of tool types.
objectiveness, to team decision making with
It is clear then that the interpretation of what
the aid of matrices into product characteristics
constitutes an tool , a tool type, or a suite of tools
is a fundamental basis for QFD.
is largely dependent on the perspective the various
authors and the application of the tool(s) in
2. THE QUALITY TOOL OF QFD
question. Nickols, (1996) considers the question of
QFD is often referred to as a ‘tool’ in broad terms
tools in terms of its ‘problem solving’ capability,
Reynolds, (1992), and in more specific terms; a
and proposes his three tool types in terms of;
‘competitive tool’ Kathawala and Motwani, (1994,
a ‘communication tool’ Fowler, (1991), a ‘Repair Tools’ for technical trouble shooting
‘marketing tool’ Potter, (1994), a ‘design tool’ ‘Improvement Tools’ such as Kaizen, continuous
Slinger, (1992), a ‘planning tool’ Sullivan, (1988), improvement, TQM and re-engineering
McElroy, (1989), and a ‘quality tool’ Ealey, (1987.
This last reference of, ‘quality tool’, perhaps best ‘Engineering Tools’ for design or solution
summarises all the tool references, and needs a engineering from scratch.
definition in itself to better understand the basic
roots of QFD. Straker, (1995) describes quality 3. THE MATRIX DIAGRAM OF QFD
tools as: Asaka and Ozeki, (1988) describe matrix diagrams
as a method to ‘show the relationships between
‘structured activities that contribute towards results and causes, or between objectives and
increasing or maintaining business quality’. methods, when each of these consists of two or
more elements or factors’. Asaka and Ozeki,
By ‘structured activities’, Straker, (1995) means (1988) continue by stating that ‘various symbols
repeatable and using a defined set of rules, by are used to indicate the presence and degree of
‘contribute’, he means add value, by ‘increasing or strength of a relationship between two sets of
maintaining’ it is meant for use in all areas of essential items’. Asaka and Ozeki, (1988) propose
quality improvement, and for ‘business quality’ it some four key benefits of using matrix diagrams
means that the company benefits from the quality with symbols as follows;
tool use. In simple terms Straker, (1995) suggests i) The use of symbols makes it visually clear
that quality tools are both serious and valuable whether or not a problem is localised (symbols
ways of doing business. Straker, (1995) also appear isolated) or more broad ranging
proposes that tools can be used at either the (symbols in rows or columns).
organisational level or (structuring the way people
work together), or at an individual level (helping ii) It possible to show the problem as a whole,
people and groups solve problems and tasks in and view all the various relationships between
their everyday business). Straker, (1995) finally the various at once
5
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
iii) By testing and evaluating each relationship complicated then a series of ‘lists’ and
intersection of the essential factors it becomes ‘relationship matrices’ Clausing, 1994) agrees with
easier to discuss the problem at finer levels of the term rooms, but adds they can also be
detail. referred to as ‘cells’ and adds that the QFD matrix
diagram comprises of 8 such rooms (or cells)
iv) A matrix makes it possible to look at specific
which in turn contains 20 steps in completing the
combinations, determine essential factors and
‘Basic QFD’ matrix. The American Suppliers
develop an effective strategy for solving the
Institute (ASI), (1992) also refer to 10 ‘analytical
problem.
steps’ for studying the completed house of quality
at the product planning level.
Asaka and Ozeki refer to four different types of
matrix as follows;
The eight rooms Clausing, (1994) describe are
i) ‘L-type’, a two dimensional pairing of rows and effectively the same basic rooms Ford Motor
columns. Company use for instance in their House of
ii) ‘T-type’, a three dimensional matrix comprising Quality charts at a planning level, but Ford,
of two ‘L-type’ matrices. (1994) go further by adding a ninth’ ‘Quality
Plan’ room’, (excluding the Relationship Matrix)
iii) ‘Y-type’, a combination of 3 ‘L-type’ matrices. which is a key strategic aspect of the QFD process
iv) ‘X-type’, a combination of 4 ‘L-type’ matrices. within the Company. For an example of the 9
rooms and Relationships matrix format used in a
4. SOME BASIC MECHANICS OF THE QFD PROCESS Ford ‘CFE-QFD’ Phase 1 HOQ see Fig. 2 (Ford,
The House of Quality Mechanics Within QFD 1994).
To begin explaining the mechanics, Kim and Ooi,
(1991) argue that ‘QFD is a set of planning and Fig. 3 (Ford, 1994) shows the subtle difference
scheduling routines that has proven effective in that a Ford ‘Quick-QFD’ Phase 1 Matrix exhibits,
producing high quality as well as low cost also with 9 rooms and a Relationships matrix,
products’ (Kim and Ooi, 1991). Burton,1995 on plus a further 4 rooms and 2 Relationships
the other hand, proposes that the QFD chart, matrices to include safety and regulatory
often referred to as a ‘house of quality’ due to its’ requirements as well as the Ford Worldwide
so called construction of ‘rooms’ and a ‘roof’ is Customer Requirements and Systems Design
essentially a chart comprising nothing more Specifications.
6
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
Burton, (1995) adds to his description of the 4. THE CASCADING PHASE TO PHASE MECHANICS
House of Quality chart comprised of lists and OF QFD
relationships matrices by stating that they are Sullivan, (1986) defines four levels of QFD
aligned along two axes, where the x-axis is called matrices that reflect different stages of application
the customer axis, and the y-axis is called the in the product development cycle. The first of
technical axis. This twin axis description is these is the ‘Planning Matrix’ that culminates with
supported by Asaka and Ozeki, (1988), who selected control characteristics (based on customer
suggests QFD is generally charted using a ‘two importance, selling points and competitive
dimensional diagram’, with customer quality evaluations). The second is the ‘Component
requirements on the vertical axis and the quality Deployment Matrix’ which culminates in defining
requirements needed to satisfy the customer the finished component characteristics (based the
requirements on the horizontal axis. Akao, (1988) planning matrix targets). The third stage is the
on the other hand refers to these symbols within ‘Process Plan Chart’, which culminates in the
the quality charts used for QFD as indicators of production process monitoring plan required by
correlation between the customers ‘demanded the operators. Finally the fourth stage is the
qualities’ and the technical ‘quality elements’. ‘Control Plan’ which culminates in defining quality
Akao, (1988) also refers to the traditionally used controls that would typically include control points,
symbols depicting; strong, medium and weak as control methods, sampling size frequency and
the; double circle, circle and triangle respectively. checking methods. In each case Sullivan (1986)
outlines that the previous charts’ key outputs feed
For an example of a typical Phase 1 House of into the next chart as key inputs, and represent the
Quality Chart see Fig 4., (Hochman and O’Connell transition from the development phase to the
1993), which charts the customer requirements execution of the production phase within the
and key measureables for a portable phone. product development cycle.
7
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
The four Phase QFD process can be seen in a title suggests this is the qualitative benchmarking
cyclical way (see Fig. 5 [Ford, 1983]). And as a that the customer participates in within the
‘Process Clock’ as used by Ford Motor Company horizontal customer axis (Ford 1994 Version One).
(Fig 6 [Ford, 1994]). Customers evaluate the products by comparing the
relative ‘perceived’ performance according to the
The cascading phase to phase QFD can be seen key customer requirements (using customer
through Fig. 7 (Hauser, and Klausing, 1988) for a language) as identified by prior market research
typical 4 Phase QFD process and Fig. 8 (Ford, with the support of the QFD team. This exercise
1994) for the Ford 5 Phase QFD process using a will involve the company product (or service)
‘Rear View Mirror. amongst its key competitive products (or services).
The second benchmarking activity is the
5. THE MECHANICS OF THE BENCHMARKING quantitative Engineering Competitive Assessment
PROCESS WITHIN PRIORITISATION (or Evaluation) (ECA or ECE) (Ford 1994 Version
Benchmarking within the Phase 1 HOQ comes in 3.0). This technical benchmarking exercise will
two forms, the first is the Customer Competitive compare the same products (or services) through
Assessment (or Evaluation), (CCA or CCE) [Ford, conducting tests that are ‘global and measurable’
1994 Version 3.0, Ford 1994 Version One]. As the (Ford, 1983, 1994 Version 3.0), (Ford 1994
8
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
Version One) and have been correlated objectively benchmarking exercises within the same HOQ
or subjectively to best represent the technical matrix is that it is then possible to compare
function of the subjective customer wants. These subjective customer ratings to objective
tests have been typically referred to as Substitute engineering ratings. The first benefit is to show
Quality Characteristics (Akao, 1988), or Design the company where improvements are required the
Requirements (Ford, 1987), (Ford, 1989), Technical most, and where there is already high satisfaction
System Expectations (Ford, 1994 Version 3.0), relative to competition. The second key benefit is
(Ford 1994 Version One), or Hows, (ASI Quality that it is possible to compare discrepancies
Systems, 1996). These are the technical Company between customer perception and technical reality.
Measures (Verduyn and Wu, 1995). These make up
the key element to the technical axis (Ford, 1994 Competitive benchmarking to set goals is a
Version 3.0). The benefit of conducting both powerful tool and is supported by Vaziri, (1992)
9
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
who adds that it assists companies to anticipate form of futuring provides the engineer a key tool
customer needs. This ability to anticipate customer in setting so called ‘stretch’ targets (Ginn, 1996).
wants is a critical measure of success within any Vaziri, (1992) adds that it is important to obtain
QFD exercise, and in the absence of any other this benchmarking data in a timely fashion to be
10
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
effective. Vaziri, (1992) also argues that QFD with most companies, the basic QFD HOQ maths
derived customer requirements are a precursor to for determining the final technical axis TIR’s
benchmarking, but not a pre-requisite, although he remains universal. Each TIR is the sum of the
does reinforce the argument that the combination ‘final’ weighted CIR multiplied with each
of QFD and benchmarking culminates in feeding respective relationship value (typically 9, 3 or 1)
information to quality improvement teams. across the horizontal axis, and then the summed
Ohinata, (1994) supports the idea that down the vertical axis. Typically the CIR’s are also
benchmarking was originally a Japanese invention normalised between 1 to 5, although the
(rather then an American invention, typically Strategic CDI (which is the weighted CDI as a
attributed to Xerox) used by small companies who result of the Quality Strategy maths and
used this tool for modelling best practice from algorithms to produce a futuring effect) may vary,
other larger Japanese and American companies. and even include decimal points (Ford, 1994
Ohinata, (1994) cites some five areas for Version 3.0), (Bergeon, 1996). The maths is
benchmarking of; product, function, process, invariably an automatic feature of any QFD
management and strategy. Ohinata, (1994) adds software.
to this the five steps for successful benchmarking
as; clarifying goals, organising a team, selecting 8. THE MECHANICS OF THE ROOF CORRELATION
target organisations (products or services), MATRIX WITHIN PRIORITISATION
collecting and analysing information and devising This last section of the mechanics of QFD is
an action plan. These five areas and steps are perhaps the least utilised part. The completion of
arguably a mirror image of the basic key areas and the Phase 1 ‘roof’ correlation has either been a
steps required to set up and run a QFD exercise. It simple tick box item of the QFD process, or
is therefore perhaps no coincidence that the completed with just the strong negative trade offs
synergy of the QFD process with benchmarking is with little follow up to deploy recommendations
complete when it is recognised that the two key to avoid conflicting technical system expectations
axis of QFD include a benchmarking exercise to (TSE’s). The full function of the roof correlation is
support the target setting and prioritisation of to assign weak and strong positive and negative
both axis. Finally when considering benchmarking, relationship symbols between the technical
as with all tools, De Toro, (1995) warns of 10 measurEables of the QFD HOQ. As a result it has
pitfalls that confront the benchmarking team become the practice to just assign strong
which De Toro, (1995) refers to as ‘miscues’. negatives that highlight the critical conflicts
between optimised technical measureables.
6. THE MECHANICS OF THE QUALITY STRATEGY
PLAN WITHIN PRIORITISATION 9. EXTERNAL & INTERNAI CUSTOMER TO SUPPLIER
The quality strategy or plan (Ford, 1987), (Ford, ‘VOICE-QUALITY-SATISFACTION’ CHAINS
1989), (Ford, 1992), (Ford, 1983 Level 1), (Ford, This section will now discuss the various
1983 Level 2), (Ford 1994 Version 3.0), (Ford, arguments and proposals that link together the
1994 Version One) is the area or room within the end user customers voice to the internal
QFD HOQ where consideration of the customer customer-supplier chains that act on the customer
importance rating (CIR) or customer delight index input and feedback to improve product quality
(CDI) (Bergeon, 1996) for the key customer wants and ultimately deliver higher end user
is effectively weighted using a combination of satisfaction. This concept is covered both directly
techniques. First it is important to emphasise the and indirectly by many authors, but this review
subtle difference between CIR and CDI. Typically will consider the implications for QFD and its role
CIR’s were individually rated by the customer within a Company Wide Quality Control process
during drive surveys .The CDI method based on to support customer-supplier chains. Within the
Thurstone is only one of many methods that can context of QFD, Ansari and Modarress, (1994)
be used to compare customer wants. Effectively state that it is the role of the QFD team to
this is a form of prioritisation before the QFD determine strategies that consider all
HOQ is constructed in an effort to keep the total opportunities presented by both internal groups
matrix size containable. and external suppliers. The scenario by Ansari
and Modarres (1994) suggests that QFD teams
7. THE MECHANICS OF TECHNICAL IMPORTANCE make ideal coordinators of the external-internal
RATINGS WITHIN PRIORITISATION customer-supplier chain, because the four phase
Although the software algorithms and strategies QFD process spans the product development
for determining weightings of customer wants cycle. This scenario is supported by
CIR’s and CDI’s often a closely guarded secret Gopalakrishnan, McIntyre and Sprague, (1992)
11
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
who propose that, while the QFD tool defines the retention rate, be it faster delivery, electronic
customer-supplier relationships, it also improves billing and payment or better trained personnel,
internal processes. or whatever. Fierman, (1995) adds further support
to Stewart’s, (1995) argument by stating that
To look generically how the custom-supplier chain companies should try harder to thrill its customer
links to key goals of product quality, product with new technology and innovations. This
timeliness, and customer satisfaction Chaston, directly supports the Kano, (1994) argument for
(1993) proposes the three overlapping areas of excitement quality, or attractive quality. Denton,
‘mutual overlap (Chaston, 1993) states requires (1990) reinforces all these statements by
more then these three areas just working together, proposing that leadership in the global
these areas must build a degree of mutual trust marketplace belongs to those who meet or exceed
through a common set of goals to assure mutual customer requirements. Clark and Fugimoto,
satisfaction. Chaston, (1993) concludes this (1991), corroborate these statements by
scenario of developing inter-organisational confirming that increasing customer demands
partnerships to deal with future management is have become the focal driver of recent and current
becoming increasingly common in high market forces for all products and services, and
technology industries, such as computing, the automotive industry alike. The changes in
precision engineering, communications and health business drivers since the 1970’s have changed
care. subtly from low investment, capacity utilisation
and crisis management to the current state of
Clark and Fujimoto, (1991) state that the global customer satisfaction, time to market and brand
economy is now characterised by intense loyalty. Next will be a discussion that pulls all
international competition, with a fragmented these lessons learnt above into the context of
market of discerning customers who demand QFD, and its role and impact in delivering the
quality and satisfaction. This assertion is critical traceability of the customers voice through
corroborated by Bemowiski, (1996) who quotes the product development process. Ultimately, if
Wolfgang R. Schmidt (CEO of Rubbermaid Inc) as successful, product design and function quality
stating that customers are now demanding more will be sufficiently improved in the key areas most
for less. Bemowisiki, (1996) continues Schmidt’s important to customers’ ‘perception’ of that
assertion who continues to state that customer product (or service). With this, will come a
want more quality, more service, more choice and customer feedback of higher satisfaction that
most important, more innovation. For all these prompts greater brand loyalty and increased
extra demands, Schmidt concludes, the customer return of investment through more sales and
will continuously want to spend less time, less risk profit. Although QFD is only one of many quality
and less money obtaining want they want tools available, it does have the unique
(Bemowiski, 1996). Brecka, (1994) corroborates characteristic that it starts with the end user and
the previous statements by stating that the finishes with the end user providing its is
importance of product quality and customer deployed, as is designed, throughout the
satisfaction has reached such a critical level it the complete product development cycle.
future success for all companies rests on these
two criteria. Brecka, (1994) concludes his If the foundation of the QFD house of quality
argument by quoting Claes Fornell (the developer (HOQ) is based on the premise that products are
of the American Customer Satisfaction Index) who designed to reflect customers desires (Hauser and
states that when a buyer recognizes quality it is Klausing, 1988), then outcome of the QFD
reflected in customer satisfaction. Customer process delivers a product that provides a
satisfaction in turn leads to increased revenue. sustained or increased level of customer
Fornell continues to state that customers are an satisfaction (Hochman and O’Connell, 1993).
economic asset and although they are not on the Increased customer satisfaction as a key outcome
balance sheet they should be (Brecka, 1994). of QFD as supported by many authors including
Stewart, (1995) supports this by stating that if a Hochman and O’Connel, (1993) assumes the
company cannot demonstrate the link between successful deployment of QFD driven targets. It is
increased customer satisfaction and improved this successful delivery process of customer
financial results, the company is not measuring requirements through the customer-supplier chain
customer satisfaction correctly. Stewart, (1995) that is critical (Ford, 1994 Version One). Although
adds that to retain customer loyalty to the the assumption that QFD is deployed effectively, it
product, companies must learn what are the has already been recognised in the East versus
specific factors that make the most difference to West scenario that QFD needs to be linked into a
12
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
13
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
4 Sullivan, L.P., (1986) ‘Quality Function 36 Barlow, K., (1995) ‘Policy Deployment in
Deployment, A system to assure that Action at Kawneer’ , ASI Quality Systems
customer needs drive the product design 6th European Symposium for Taguchi
and production process.’ , Quality Progress, Methods & QFD, Kenilworth, England,
June 1986, pp.39-50. May 16-18, 1995.
5 Hauser, J.R., Clausing, (1988) D., ‘The 37 Clausing, D., (1994) Total Quality
House of Quality’ , Harvard Business Review, Development, A Step-by-Step Guide to
May-June 1988, pp.63-73. World-Class Concurrent Engineering, ASME
Press, 1994.
6 Sullivan, L.P., (1988) Policy Management
Through Quality Function Deployment’ , 38 Burton, D., (1995) ‘The Ideal Lunch,
Quality Progress, June 1988, pp.18-20. building the heart of quality, the complete
‘how to’’, QFD’, QFD Workshop Conference,
7 McElroy, J., (1989) ‘QFD, Building The Bradford Management Centre, University of
House of Quality’, Automotive Industries, Bradford, June 27, 1995.
January, 1989, pp.30-32.
40 Ford Motor Company., (1987) Quality
8 Fowler, C.T., (1991) ‘QFD-Easy As 1-2-3’, Function Deployment, Executive Briefing,
1991 SAVE (Society of American Engineers) American Suppliers Institute Incorporated,
Proceedings, Kansas City, MO, USA, SAVE Dearborn, Michigan, A.S.I. Press,
National Business Office, Vol.26, 1991, QFD00250, 1987.
pp.177-182.
41 Ford Motor Company., (1989) QFD
9 Ealey, L., (1987) ‘QFD-Bad Name For A Awareness Seminar, QETC (Quality Education
Great System’, Automotive Industries, and Training Centre), Ford Motor Company,
Vol.167, July 1987, pp.21. Dearborn, Michigan, USA, First Issue:
January 1989, Second Issue: May 1989.
10 Morrell, N.E., (1988) ‘Quality Function
Deployment, disciplined quality control’, 42 Ford Motor Company., (1992) QFD
Automotive Engineering, Vol.96, February Reference Manual, Car Product
1988, pp.122-164. Development, Technical Training and
Educational Planning, Ford Motor Company,
15 Kim, S.H., and Ooi J.A., (1991) ‘Product Dearborn, Michigan, USA, May 1992.
Performance as a Unifying Theme in
Concurrent Design-II. Software’, Robotics & 43 Ford Motor Company., (1983) Module 7,
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol.8, Customer Focused Engineering, Level 1,
No..2, 1991, pp127-134, QFD Manual, EQUIP (Engineering Quality
Improvement Programme), Ford Motor
20 Reynolds, M., (1992) ‘Quality Assertive Company Ltd, Published by Education and
Companies to Benefit From Recovery’, Training, EQUIP Centre, 26/500, Boreham
Elastometrics, February, 1992, pp.19. Airfield, Essex, England, 1983.
14
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
44 Ford Motor Company Limited., (1983) 124 Verduyn, D.M. and Wu, A., (1995)
Module 7, Customer Focused Engineering, ‘Integration of QFD, TRIZ & Robust Design
Level 2,QFD Manual, EQUIP (Engineering Overview “Mountain Bike” Case Study’, ASI
Quality Improvement Programme), Ford Total Product Development Symposium,
Motor Company Ltd, Published by Education Novi, Michigan, USA, November 1-3, 1995.
and Training, EQUIP Centre, GB-26/500,
Boreham Airfield, Essex, England, 1983. 138 Hochman, S.D and O’Connell, P.A., (1993)
‘Quality Function Deployment : Using the
45 Ford Motor Company Limited., (1994) Quick Customer to Outperform the Competition on
QFD, The Marketing - Engineering Interface, Environmental Design’, IEE International
Automotive Safety & Engineering Standards Symposium on Electronics and Environment,
Office, Ford Motor Company Limited, Arlington NA, USA, 1993, pp 165-172.
Fairlane Plaza, Dearborn, USA, (Restricted
access).Version 3.0, 1994. 139 ASI Quality Systems., (1996) ‘Improving
Quality and Reducing Costs’, Catalogue of
46 Ford Motor Company Limited., (1994) Ford Services, American Suppliers Institute 1996.
Customer Satisfaction Process , European
Automotive Operations Powertrain QFD 140 Vaziri, K., (1992) ‘ Using Competitive
Steering Team, Issued by the Customer Benchmarking to Set Goals’ Quality
Focused Engineering Group, Ford Motor Progress, Vol.25, October 1992, pp 81-83.
Company, Vehicle Centre 1, Dunton
Research & Engineering Centre, Essex, SS15 141 Ohinata, Y., (1994) ‘Benchmarking : The
6EE, England, Version One, (Restricted Japanese Experience’, International Journal of
access), December 1994. Strategic Management & Long Range Planning,
Vol. 27 Issue 4, August 1994 pp 48-53.
47 Straker, D., (1995) ‘The Tools Of The Trade’,
Quality World, Vol.21, Issue 1, January 142 De Toro, II., (1995) ‘The 10 Pitfalls of
1995, pp.28-29. Benchmarking’, Quality Progress, Vol. 28
No.7, January 1995, pp 61-63.
48 Asaka, T., Ozeki, K., (1988) Handbook of
Quality Tools, The Japanese Approach, English 143 Bergeon, S. (1996) ‘ Strategic CDI and
translation Published by Productivity Press, Parent Process with Quick QFD’ , A
Inc., 1990. (Originally published as ‘Genbacho Presentation by SSO (Strategic Standards
no tameno QC Hikkei’, by Japanese Standards Office), QFD/MRO (Market Research Office)
Association, Tokyo, 1988). Conference, FAO, Fairline Training &
Development Centres, Dearborn, Michigan,
54 Gopalakrishan, K.N., McIntyre, B.E., and USA, March 11-15 1996.
Sprague, J.C., (1992) `Implementing
InternalImprovement With the House of 151 Cristiano, J.J., Liker, J.K., White III, C.C., ‘An
Quality’, Quality Progress, September 1992, Investigation into Quality Function
pp.57-60. Deployment (QFD) Usage in the US
68 Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takashi, F., Tsuji, S., 152 Clark, K.B., Fujimoto, T., (1991) Product
(1994) ‘Attractive Quality and Must-Be Development Performance Strategy,
Quality’, (English translation of ‘Miryoki-teki Organisation and Management in the World
Hinshintu to Atarmae Hinshintu’), The Auto Industry, Harvard Business School
Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Press 1991.
Control, Vol.14, No.2, 1994, pp.39-48.
179 Bemowiski, K., (1996)’Leaders on Leadership’,
84 Nickols, F.W., (1996) ‘Yes, It Makes a Quality Progress, January 1996, pp 43-45.
Difference’ Quality Progress, January 1996,
pp 83-87. 180 Hochman, S.D and O’Connell, P.A., (1993)
‘Quality Function Deployment : Using the
103 Ginn, D., ‘Worldwide Powertrain QFD Customer to Outperform the Competition on
Library’,Ford Motor Company QFD/CFE Environmental Design’, IEE International
Department, 814/220, Research & Symposium on Electronics and Environment,
Engineering Centre, Dunton, Essex. England. Arlington NA, USA, 1993, pp 165-172.
15
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
16
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
17
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
18
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
03/09 – Waleed Al-Shaqha and Mohamed Zairi 02/17 – Igor Filatotchev, Mike Wright, Klaus Uhlenbruck,
The Critical Factors Requested to Implement Pharmaceutical Care in Laszlo Tihanyi & Robert Hoskisson
Saudit Arabian Hospitals: A Qualitative Study Privatization and Firm Restructuring in Transition Economies:
03/08 – Shelly MacDougall & Richard Pike The Effects of Governance and Organizational Capabilities
The Elusive Return on Small Business Investment in AMT: Economic 02/16 – Mike Tayles, Andrew Bramley, Neil Adshead & Janet Farr
Evaluation During Implementation Dealing with the Management of Intellectual Capital: The Potential Role
03/07 – Alexander T Mohr of Strategic Management Accounting
The Relationship between Inter-firm Adjustment and Performance in 02/15 – Christopher Pass
IJVs – the Case of German-Chinese Joint Ventures Long-Term Incentive Schemes, Executive Remuneration and Corporate
03/06 – Belinda Dewsnap & David Jobber Perfomance
Re-thinking Marketing Structures in the Fast Moving Consumer Goods 02/14 – Nicholas J Ashill & David Jobber
Sector: An Exploratory Study of UK Firms An Empirical Investigation of the Factors Affecting the Scope of
03/05 – Mohamed Zairi & Samir Baidoun Information Needed in a MkIS
Understanding the Essentials of Total Quality Management: 02/13 – Bill Lovell, Dr Zoe Radnor & Dr Janet Henderson
A Best Practice Approach – Part 2 A Pragmatic Assessment of the Balanced Scorecard: An Evaluation use in
03/04 – Deli Yang & Derek Bosworth a NHS Multi-Agency Setting in the UK
Manchester United Versus China: The “Red Devils” Trademark Problems 02/12 – Zahid Hussain & Donal Flynn
in China Validating the Four-Paradigm Theory of Information Systems Development
03/03 – Mohamed Zairi & Samir Baidoun 02/11 – Alexander T Mohr & Simone Klein
Understanding the Essentials of Total Quality Management: The Adjustment of American Expatriate Spouses in Germany –
A Best Practice Approach – Part 1 A Qualitative and Quantative Analysis
03/02 – Alexander T Mohr 02/10 – Riyad Eid & Myfanwy Trueman
The Relationship Between Trust and Control in International Joint Ventures The Adoption of The Internet for B-to-B International Marketing
(IJVs) – An Emprical Analysis of Sino-German Equity Joint Ventures 02/09 – Richard Pike & Nam Cheng
03/01 – Mike Tayles & Colin Drury Trade Credit, Late Payment and Asymmetric Information
Explicating the Design of Cost Systems 02/08 – Alison J Killingbeck & Myfanwy M Trueman
Redrawing the Perceptual Map of a City
2002
02/07 – John M T Balmer
02/34 – Alexander T Mohr Corporate Brands: Ten Years On – What’s New?
Exploring the Performance of IJVs – A Qualitative and Quantitative
Analysis of the Performance of German-Chinese Joint Ventures in the 02/06 – Dr Abdel Moniem Ahmed & Professor Mohamed Zairi
People’s Republic of China Customer Satisfaction: The Driving Force for Winning Business
Excellence Award
02/33 – John M T Balmer & Edmund Gray
Comprehending Corporate Brands 02/05 – John M T Balmer & Stephen A Greyser
Managing the Multiple Identities of the Corporation
02/32 – John M T Balmer
Mixed Up Over Identities 02/04 – David Philip Spicer
Organizational Learning & The Development of Shared Understanding:
02/31 – Zoë J Douglas & Zoe J Radnor Evidence in Two Public Sector Organizations
Internal Regulatory Practices: Understanding the Cyclical Effects within
the Organisation 02/03 – Tamar Almor & Niron Hashai
Configurations of International Knowledge-Intensive SMEs:
02/30 – Barbara Myloni, Dr Anne-Wil Harzing & Professor Hafiz Mirza Can the Eclectic Paradigm Provide a Sufficient Theoretical Framework?
A Comparative Analysis of HRM Practices in Subsidiaries of MNCs and
Local Companies in Greece 02/02 – Riyad Eid, Myfanwy Trueman & Abdel Moniem Ahmed
The Influence of Critical Success Factors on International Internet
02/29 – Igor Filatotchev Marketing
”Going Public with Good Governance’’: Board Selection and Share
Ownership in UK IPO Firms 02/01 – Niron Hashai
The Impact of Distance Sensitivity and Economics of Scale on the
02/28 – Axele Giroud Output and Exports of Israel and its Arab Neighbours
MNEs in Emerging Economies: What Explains Knowledge Transfer to
Local Suppliers 2001
02/27 – Niron Hashai 01/18 – Christopher M Dent
Industry Competitiveness – The Role of Regional Sharing of Distance- Transnational Capital, the State and Foreign Economic Policy:
Sensitive Inputs (The Israeli – Arab Case) Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan
02/26 – Niron Hashai 01/17 – David P Spicer & Eugene Sadler-Smith
Towards a Theory of MNEs from Small Open Economics – Static and The General Decision Making Style Questionnaire:
Dynamic Perspectives A Comfirmatory Analysis
02/25 – Christopher Pass 01/16 – David P Spicer
Corporate Governance and The Role of Non-Executive Directors in Large Expanding Experimental Learning: Linking Individual and
UK Companies: An Empirical Study Organisational learning, Mental Models and Cognitive Style
02/24 – Deli Yang 01/15 – E Grey & J Balmer
The Development of the Intellectual Property in China Ethical Identity; What is it? What of it?
02/23 – Roger Beach 01/14 – Mike Talyes & Colin Drury
Operational Factors that Influence the Successful Adoption of Internet Autopsy of a Stalling ABC System: A Case Study of Activity Based Cost
Technology in Manufacturing Management and Performance Improvement
02/22 – Niron Hashai & Tamar Almor 01/13 – N Esho, R Zurbruegg, A Kirievsky & D Ward
Small and Medium Sized Multinationals: The Internationalization Law and the Deminants of International Insurance Consumption
Process of Born Global Companies
01/12 – J Andrews Coutts & Kwong C Cheug
02/21 – M Webster & D M Sugden Trading Rules and Stock Returns: Some Preliminary Short Run Evidence
A Proposal for a Measurement Scale for Manufacturing Virtuality from the Hang Seng 1985-1997
02/20 – Mary S Klemm & Sarah J Kelsey 01/11 – D McKechnie & S Hogarth-Scott
Catering for a Minority? Ethnic Groups and the British Travel Industry Linking Internal Service Encounters and Internal Transactions: Unravelling
02/19 – Craig Johnson & David Philip Spicer Internal Marketing Contract Workers
The Action Learning MBA: A New Approach Management Education 01/10 – M Webster & D M Sugden
02/18 – Lynda M Stansfield Operations Strategies for the Exploitation of Protected Technology: Virtual
An Innovative Stakeholder Approach to Management Education: Manufacture as an Alternative to Outward licensing
A Case Study
19
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
01/09 – Axèle Giroud 0009 – Patricia C Fox, John M T Balmer & Alan Wilson
Buyer-Supplier Transfer and Country of Origin: An Empirical Analysis of Applying the Acid Test of Corporate Identity Management
FDI in Malaysia 0008 – N Y Ashry & W A Taylor
01/08 – Damian Ward Information Systems Requirements Analysis in Healthcare:
Do Independent Agents Reduce Life Insurance Companies’ Free Cash Flow? Diffusion or Translation?
01/07 – Daragh O’Reilly 0007 – T Lindley, D O’Reilly & T Casey
Corporate Images in ‘Jerry Maguire’: A Semiotic Analysis An Analysis of UK Television Advertisements for Alcohol
01/06 – Tony Lindley & Daragh O’Reilly 0006 – Eric Lindley & Frederick Wheeler
Brand Identity on the Arts Sector The Learning Square: Four Domains that Impact on Strategy
01/05 – M Trueman, J Balmer & D O’Reilly 0005 – K K Lim, P K Ahmed & M Zairi
Desperate Dome, Desperate Measures! Managing Innovation at London’s The Role of Sharing Knowledge in Management Initiatives
Millennium Dome 0004 – C De Mattos & S Sanderson
01/04 – M Trueman, M Klemm, A Giroud & T Lindley Expected Importance of Partners’ Contributions to Alliances in
Bradford in the Premier League? A Multidisciplinary Approach to Emerging Economies: A Review
Branding and Re-positioning a City 0003 – A Harzing
01/03 – A Harzing Acquisitions Versus Greenfield Investments: Both Sides of the Picture
Self Perpetuating Myths and Chinese Whispers 0002 – Stuart Sanderson & Claudio De Mattos
01/02 – M Webster Alliance Partners’ Expectations Concerning Potential Conflicts and
Supply Systems Structure, Management and Performance: Implications Relative to Trust Building
A Research Agenda 0001 – A Harzing
01/01 – A Harzing An Empirical Test and Extension of the Bartlett & Ghoshal Typology of
Acquisitions Versus Greenfield Investments: Exploring the Impact of the Multinational Companies
MNC’s International Strategy
1999
2000 9922 – Gerry Randell & Maria del Pilar Rodriguez
0031 – John Ritchie & Sue Richardson Managerial Ethical Behaviour
Leadership and Misleadership in Smaller Business Governance 9921 – N Y Ashry & W A Taylor
0030 – Mary Klemm Requirements Analysis as Innovation Diffusion: A Proposed
Tourism and Ethnic Minorities in Bradford: Concepts and Evidence Requirements Analysis Strategy for the Development of an Integrated
0029 – (not available) Hospital Information Support System
20
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
9818 – P S Budhwar, A Popof & D Pujari 9721 – R Beach, A P Muhlemann, A Paterson, D H R Price and J A Sharp
Evaluating Sales Management Training at Xerox in Greece: The Strategy Options in Manufacturing Industry: Propositions Based on
An Exploratory Study Case Histories
21
W O R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S
22