You are on page 1of 15

INTERNATIONAL Mechanical OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 0976 International Journal of JOURNALEngineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN AND 6340(Print), ISSN

N 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME TECHNOLOGY (IJMET)
ISSN 0976 6340 (Print) ISSN 0976 6359 (Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Septmebr - December (2012), pp. 07-21 IAEME: Journal Impact Factor (2012): 3.8071 (Calculated by GISI)



Parul Guptaa , R.K. Srivastavab Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Moradabad Institute of Technology, Moradabad-244001,Uttar Pradesh,India b Professor, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, E-mail:, E-mail:

ABSTRACT QFD is a tool that bridges the distance between an organization and its customers. To accomplish that goal it is important to know the customers needs or requirements (Customer Voice) so that they can be involved from the early phases of the planning process. This implies implementing technological solutions by specialists (Technician Voice) to determine the customers requirements. QFD provides many benefits for an organization during product development. The most important of these benefits are a strong focus on the customer, improved communication, and better teamwork across the organization. This paper present three modified quality function deployment model and illustrative examples Keywords:- Customer Satisfaction, Kano Model, Quality function deployment (QFD), House of Quality, Customer Satisfaction. I. INTRODUCTION Quality function deployment (QFD) is defined by Cecilia Temponi, John Yen and W.Amos Tiao as a multiattribute measurement method that brings together major components of an organization and the complex task of capturing customers expectations and ultimately delivering customer satisfaction. Quality function deployment is a customer driven tool in implementing total quality management. Among lots of TQM methods, QFD has been used to translate customer needs and wants into technical design requirements by integrating marketing, design engineering, manufacturing, and other relevant functions of an organization.(Akao, 1990) As an approach to design, QFD is a concept that Akao introduced in Japan in 1966. It was first put into use at Mitsubishis Kobe shipyard site in 1972,and then Toyota and its suppliers developed it further for a rust prevention study. After the concept of QFD was introduced in the US by King in 1983, many US firms, such as Procter&Gamble, Raychem, Digital Equipment, Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, ITT, GM and Ford applied QFD to improving communication, product development, and measurement of processes and systems (Park,1998). Customer satisfaction has been a matter of concern to most of the companies. Satisfaction ratings are being used as an indicator of the performance of services and products and help to form

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME
ulate strategies of the companies. Hanan and Karp have stated that Customer satisfaction is the ultimate objective of every business: not to supply, not to sell, not to service, but to satisfy the needs that drive customers to do business. Market success of a product is also important from the environment point of view, since a product which is not sold, becomes the most useless product from both economical and environmental point of view. It has environmental impacts without having any value for the customer . II.QFD PROCESS QFD employs several matrices to clearly establish relationships between company functions and customer satisfaction. These matrices are based on the ``what-how'' matrix, which is called HOQ. QFD is an iterative process performed by a multifunctional team. The team will use the matrices to translate customer needs to process step specifications. The matrices explicitly relate the data produced in one stage of the process to the decisions that must be made at the next process stage. Product planning is the first matrix. Customers desires, in customers' own words (whats), are determined and translated into technical description (hows) or proposed performance characteristics of the product. The second QFD matrix relates potential product features to the delivery of performance characteristics. Process characteristics and production requirements are related to engineering and marketing characteristics with the third and fourth matrices. (Temponi,1998)

Figure 1- Quality Function Deployment Process III.HOUSE OF QUALITYS GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND PROCESS House of Quality, introduced by Hauser and Clausing, is the most commonly used matrix in traditional QFD methodology in order to translate the desires of customers into product design or engineering characteristics and subsequently into product characteristics, process plans and production requirements. The house of quality is applied for identifying customer requirements and establishing priorities of design requirements to satisfy CRs. The aim is providing right products for the right customers. The house is made up of three main parts: the customer attributes or customer requirements (horizontal section); engineering characteristics or design requirements (vertical section) and the center of the house.

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME

Figure 2- A typical HOQ matrix with a 1-3-9 rating scheme Customer requirements section indicates the voice of customers. It shows the requirement of the customers and what they think is important in the product and also relative importance of the different customer attributes. Design requirements section records the technical aspects of designing a product. It indicates, How the customer wants can be met. The objectives and targets section (basement of the house) indicates the relative importance of the different engineering characteristics and also indicates target levels or measures of effectiveness for each. The roof of the house indicates the positive and negative relationships between the design requirements. (Hauser and Clausing, 1988).The center of the house describes the correlation between the design requirements and the customer attributes. The strength and direction of each relationship is represented by a graphical symbol creating a matrix of symbols indicating how well each engineering characteristic meets each customer attribute (Hauser and Clausing, 1988). In conventional QFD applications, a cell (i, j) in the relationship matrix of HOQ( i.e., ith row and jth column of HOQ) is assigned 1, 3, 9 (or 1, 5, 9) to represent a weak, medium, or strong relationship between ith CR (called Cri) and jth DR called DRj) , respectively. The absolute and relative importance of DRs are computed using the relative importance of CRs and the relationship ratings (i.e., 139 or 159) . For each DR, the absolute importance rating is computed as:

AIj = Wi Rij

where AIj =absolute technical importance rating of DRj, j=1, . . . ,n, Wi =degree of importance (i.e.,importance weight) of CRi , i=1, . . . ,m, Rij =relationship rating representing the strength of the relationship between CRi and DRj. The absolute importance rating can then be transformed into the relative importance rating, RIj is shown as

RI j =

AI j

k =1

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME
The larger the RIj, the more important is DRj. Thus without consideration of any other constraints (e.g., cost and time), DRs should be incorporated into the product of interest in the order of their relative importance rating to achieve more customer satisfaction. IV. THREE EXTENSIONS OF QFD QFD provides many benefits for an organization during product development. The most important of these benefits are a strong focus on the customer, improved communication, and better teamwork across the organization (Bossert, 1991). The process of linking houses together especially benefits the development process by maintaining the "voice of the customer" throughout the entire process, establishing clear relationships between multiple groups, and providing a means for incorporating more and more levels of detail into the process (Hauser and Clausing, 1988). Besides these advantages many researchers express some deficiencies and disabilities of QFD in product development stage. Researcher has generally focused on potential lacks of QFD and HOQ and some of them describe possible alternatives to overcome these problems. Next sections in this paper present three modified quality function deployment model and illustrative examples. 1. A new integrative decision model for prioritizing design requirements The conventional HOQ employs a rating scale (e.g. 1-3-9,1-3-5 or 1-5-9) to indicate the degree of strength between (weak-medium-strong) customer requirements and design requirements. Although conventional HOQ approach, presented by Hauser and Clausing, it is easy to understand and use, there are several methodological issues associated with it, namely; Determination of the degree of importance of CRS Assignment of the relationship ratings between CRs and DRs, Adjustment of the relationship ratings between CRs and DRs, called normalization, in order to insure a more meaningful representation of the DR priorities Incorporation of the correlations between DRs to a decision process for determining appropriate DRs Consideration of cost trade-offs among DRs. Some research has been done to resolve these methodological issues. Lu and Armacost applied the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the degree of importance of CRs. Wasserman presented a linear integer programming model for maximizing customer satisfaction subject to a cost constraint with a linear function and a procedure for normalizing the relationship ratings between CRs and DRs. However, Taeho Park and Kwang-Jae Kim thought that main problem is the usage of conventional rating scheme. Therefore, they realized the necessity of development of a better relationship rating scheme between CRs and DRs and integration of the correlations between DRs to a decision model for determining appropriate DRs to satisfy CRs. Taeho Park and Kwang-Jae Kim state three problems of conventional rating scheme. 1. Choice of rating scale is very subjective and there are no scientific bases for any of the choices. 2. The conventional relationship rating scheme primarily shows ordinal ranks of relationship between CRs and DRs rather than a continuum of rating values indicating a sliding scale of relationship strength. As a result, the absolute importance ratings of DRs in the conventional HOQ present ordinal importance ranks of DRs in their contribution to customer satisfaction rather than more meaningfully, showing the differences of DRs in contributing to customer satisfaction in their magnitude.


International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME
3. The information of correlations between DRs was not used in calculating priorities of the DRs and determining appropriate DRs for a design problem. It is necessary to devise a mechanism for accommodating the dependencies of DRs in calculating importance ratings of DRs, and to incorporate the correlation between DRs into the decision process of determining appropriate DRs subject to some organizational constraints, such as cost and time. For example, when two DRs with a high correlation are selected at the same time, there may be cost savings in installing them in a product. In order to overcome these problems, Park and Kim presented a modified HOQ model to determine an optimal set of DRs. Park and Kim integrates two aspects into Wassermanns QFD planning process and Lus integrative HOQ model: (1) Employing a new rating scheme for the relationship between CRs and DRs, using a most commonly used multi-attribute decision method (swing method). (2) Considering correlation between DRs for selecting an optimal set of DRs. Phases of the new integrative HOQ model of Taeho Park and Kwang-Jae Kim are shown below:

Figure 3- Phases of new integrative HOQ model In phase 1, the swing method,which is a part of the SMART (Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique) is used by Park and Kim to obtain the relationship ratings between CRs and DRs. A detailed step-by-step procedure for assessing the relationship between CR 2 and DRs of HOQ using the swing method is illustrated below. It is presumed that DR1 , DR 2 and DR 4 have important effects on the customer satisfaction of CR 2 , whereas DR3 is not related to CR2 as manifested by the symbols recorded in the second row of the chart. Step 1: Show the design team two alternatives: one leads to the worst consequence with respect to CR 2 ( i.e., DR1 = DR2 = DR 4 = 0 ) , and the other one leads to the best design condition (i.e., DR

DR1 = DR2 = DR4 = 1 ).


International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME
Step 2: Ask the design team to imagine the worst design condition and choose a DR that would best improve the design condition if its level changes from 0 to 1 (that is called a swing). Suppose the design team answers that they would swing DR 4 first because it is believed to have the most significant impact on CR 2 . Step 3: Assign 100 to DR4 , which was chosen in Step 2. Rate all other DR swings on a scale of 0100. Suppose the design team rates the contribution of changing the levels of DR 2 and DR1 from 0 to 1 to be 60 and 40, respectively, with regard to CR2 . The rating for DR3 should remain zero because it is irrelevant to improving CR 2 . Step 4: Normalize the ratings so that they add up to one. The normalized ratings can be used as the relationship ratings in the HOQ chart. The relationship ratings Rij s associated with CR 2 are normalized as follows: R21 = 40/(40+60+0+100) =0.2

R22 = 60/(40+60+0+100)= 0.3 R23 = 0/ (40+60+0+100) = 0.0 R24 =100/(40+60+0+100)=0.5

The same procedure can be employed to assess the relationship ratings of other cells in the relationship rating matrix of HOQ. The intermediate relationship ratings, which are output of Steps 2 and 3 and the normalized ones, are summarized in a table shown below: CRs DRs Relationship ratings

Normalized relationship ratings


DR1 100 40 0 0 50

DR2 DR3 DR4 0 50 0 60 0 100 0 100 0 60 100 0 70 0 100

DR1 DR2 DR3 DR4 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.62 0.00 0.23 0.32 0.00 0.45

After obtaining all necessary data and calculate the degree of importance of CRS by using the eigenvector method, relationship ratings must be normalized. Taeho Park and Kwang-Jae Kim used normalization procedure presented by Wasserman (1993)which can accommodate correlations between DRs:

norm ij


for i = 1,..,m;j

k =1 n n

j =1 k =1

Y jk

where Ykj denotes an element of the correlation matrix representing the correlation between DRs. In Phase 5, Park and Kim states an integer programming model for maximizing customer satisfaction by selecting appropriate DRs. The formulation of this model is formulated as follows:

Max f(x)=

j =1


g k ( x) 0 for k=1,.l

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME
where AI j = absolute technical importance rating of DR j , x j =01 decision variable for DR j (i.e., if DR j is selected, x j = 1 . Otherwise, it is 0), x=a decision variable vector, {x j } , j=1, . . . ,n, organizational resource constraint, l=number of organizational resource constraints(Park,1997). The objective function of this formula is to maximize a total absolute technical importance rating from selected DRs, which represents the magnitude of customer satisfaction. When selecting DRs to implement, the conventional QFD doesnt take into account trade-offs between the amount of customer satisfaction achieved from the selected DRs and the use of organizational resources, such as cost and time. King and Wasserman developed simple linear cost constraint function which for g(x) to select the most appropriate DRs under a limitation of a given target cost. Function called as Knapsack problem approach is illustrated as follows:

g k (x)=kth

g ( x) = c1 x1 + ..... + c n x n B 0
This means that DRs should be selected in a decreasing order of the technical importance rating/cost ratios until the total cost of selected DRs doesnt exceed the limited repair budget. Park and Kim state that in the case where correlations exist among some DRs, some savings in resource consumption are most likely expected when two or more correlated DRs are simultaneously installed into a product or service design. Since most practical QFD problems, as Wasserman 1993 addressed, involve some degree of dependencies among DRs, they think it is more appropriate to express the g(x) function in a quadratic form such that
n j =1 n n

g ( x) = c j x j s ij xi x j B
i =1 j >1

where s ij is saving of resource (e.g., cost) usage associated with simultaneous implementation of ith and jth DRs. Case study: Application to building indoor air quality improvement Taeho Park and Kwang-Jae Kim has been applied proposed decision model to an indoor air quality improvement problem as an illustrative example. After a study conducted in 2012 problems caused by poor indoor air quality identified as follows: (1) stuffiness, (2) temperature, (3) dust particles, (4) ventilation, (5) odors, (6) housekeeping, and (7) flies. Then a customer study was conducted using a pair wise comparison method in the AHP data collection process. Since a group of secretaries working daily in the BT building participated in the survey, a geometric mean which is an 8th root of the product of judgments provided by eight individuals was used to combine group judgments. Following table shows the results. Temperature Dust 1.0 2.7 3.5 Ventilation Odors House Flies 2.2 1.1 1.1 2.4 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.2 0.82 0.54 0.63 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.8 2.0 1.7 2.4

Stuffiness Temperature Dust Particles Ventilation Odors Housekeeping

Eigen values of the judgment matrix in the table that are the importance weights of CRs, are then calculated as 0.202, 0.187, 0.085, 0.152, 0.157, 0.132 and 0.084, respectively. Figure 4 presents an HOQ matrix for the BT building indoor air quality problem, including (1) degrees of importance of CRs as obtained from the AHP analysis, (2) normalized relationship ratings between CRs and DRs obtained using swing method and normalization of relationship ratings (3) correlation between DRs, and (4) cost required to install the DRs.


International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME

Figure 4- HOQ matrix for the indoor air quality problem for the BT building According to the results of prioritization of DRs, it is found that upgrading an air delivery system (DR6) is most important for improving building occupants satisfaction with indoor air quality, and the installation of a CO monitoring station with sensors (DR14) is least important. If a repair budget is enough to complete all recommendations, the problem will become very trivial. However, however, when available organizational resources are limited, a further analysis is necessary to select which DRs should be completed; so Park and Kim found the cost savings that is occurred when two related DRs are installed at the same time. For example, upgrading air plenum walls (DR1) and replacing all fan plenum door seals with new ones (DR2) require Rs.18000 and Rs.12000 respectively, when each of them is completed separately. When both of them are included in a repair contact, Rs.4500 out of Rs.30000 is discounted because of savings in time. Therefore, they form this quadratic integer programming technique;

Objective function: Max f(x)= Budget constraint :

j =1

AI j x j

c1 x1 + ..... + c16 x16 s1, 2 x1 x 2 s1,10 x1 x10 s 2,9 x 2 x 9 s 6,11 x 6 x11 s 6.12 x 6 x12 s12,15 x12 x15 B


International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME
Cost savings occurring when two DRs are completed at the same time illustrated below. Pair of DRs Cost saving from simultaneous installation DR1 and DR2 DR1 and DR10 DR2 and DR9 DR6 and DR11 DR6 and DR12 DR12 and DR15 Rs.4,500 Rs.10,200 Rs.4,050 Rs.28,500 Rs.10,500 Rs.5,250

Taeho Park and Kwang Jae-Kim solved above quadratic programming module by assuming that repair budget of Rs.200000and they found out; 1. 2. 3. Objective value function of the total importance rating: 0.8484 Decision variables: DR1=.......DR9=1; DR10=DR11=0;DR12=.......DR16=1 Total cost required:Rs.1,98,700
16 16 16

If the budget is at least Rs.450,000 (Rs.513,000(

j =1

)- Rs.63,000 (

j =1 j > i


)),all DRs can be

installed, resulting in the objective function. Therefore, 84.5% customer satisfaction can be achieved only 44.2% (198,700/450,000) of total investment required. Park and Kim present these results in a sensitivity analysis shown below.

Figure 5- Sensitivity and performance analysis for customer satisfaction improvement over budget increment In this graph, the achieved level of customer satisfaction increased as a higher budget was allowed, with increments of Rs.25,000.However,the marginal rate of increase diminished as the level of baseline budget become higher. For instance; the increase of the budget from Rs.100,000 to Rs.125,000 increased the customer satisfaction by 9.4% (66.2-56.8) while the increase caused by the budget change from Rs.200,000 to Rs.225,000 was only 1.4%. Therefore, they stated that as the


International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME
customer satisfaction level increases by investment in technology, equipment and training, more effort and investment are required to achieve the same level of additional customer satisfaction. In this case, the customer satisfaction level will remain at 88.5% without DR11, which will replace the existing standard profile control system with a direct digital control DDC System. To improve the level further, a considerable amount of budget (Rs.211,500=Rs.240,000(cost for DR alone)-Rs.28,500 (savings) is required. However, the control system conversion will improve the customer satisfaction level by 11.5%. The proposed model is compared with a Knap-sack model shown in Wasserman that does not take cost savings into account. Since he doesnt take into account an organizational constraint of cost savings, it cant allow for installing additional DRs, which might be selected with cost savings. Thus the Knapsack model results in no greater customer satisfaction than the proposed model. In conclusion, Taeho Park and Kwang-Jae Kim stated that The new relationship rating scheme using the swing method measures decision-makers opinions on the relationship between CRs and DRs more systematically and accurately than the conventional relationship rating scale used in HOQ. Since the new relationship rating scheme relies on a simple additive multi-attribute model, it is easy to use; thus, it is a very handy and useful tool for practitioners. In addition, it converts decision-makers thoughts of the relationship between CRs and DRs into a continuum of rating values so that the QFD problem can be formulated into a mathematical programming problem subject to limited resources e.g., budget in an organization. As a result, the QFD problem could be extended to resource allocation problems in the operations management field. In other words, the investment will be justified with a better working environment, more customer satisfaction and more market share resulting from better decision making. 2.Integrating Kanos model in the planning matrix of QFD K.C.Tan and X.X.Shen state in their articles that the quality of a product or service is ultimately judged in terms of customer satisfaction. Focusing on listening to the voice of the customer (VOC), quality function deployment has been used as a quality improvement and product development technique in many fields. In order to achieve total customer satisfaction in an effective way, QFD practitioners should go beyond listening to the VOC. Therefore, Tan and Shen recommended that Kanos model (which will be described below briefly) should be incorporated into the planning matrix of QFD to help accurately and deeply understand the nature of the VOC. Review of Kanos model First, Professor N.Kano has developed a very useful diagram for characterizing customer needs in 1984. Then King, Clausing and Cohen developed this model, which divides products or service features into three distinct categories, each of which affect customers in a different way. (Matzler, 1998) One-dimensional attributes: With regard to one-dimensional attributes, customer satisfaction is proportional to the level of fulfillment. It means that it result in customer satisfaction when fulfilled and dissatisfaction when not fulfilled. The higher the level of fulfillment, the higher the customers satisfaction. These attributes are usually explicitly demanded by the customer. For example, when customers want to buy a new car, mileage may be such an attribute. Attractive attributes: These attributes are the product criteria, which have the greatest influence on how satisfied a customer will be with a given product. These attributes neither explicitly expressed nor expected by the customer. Although fulfilling these requirements leads to more than proportional satisfaction, their absence doesnt cause dissatisfaction because as mentioned customers are unaware of what they are missing. Must be attributes: These attributes are basic criteria of a product. If the product or service doesnt meet the need sufficiently, the customers become very dissatisfied. On the other hand, as the customer takes these requirements for granted, their fulfillment will not increase his satisfaction. Fulfilling the must-be attributes will only lead to a state of not dissatisfied. The customer regards the must be attributes as prerequisites; he takes them for granted and therefore doesnt explicitly demand


International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME
them. Must be requirements are in any case a decisive competitive factor, and if they are not fulfilled, the customer will not be interested in the product at all.

Figure 6- The Kano model A proposed approach to using Kanos model In this proposed approach developed by Tan and Shen, there are mainly two issues with which QFD practitioners must be confronted; classifying customer attributes into Kano categories and choosing the proper transformation function for customer attributes in each category. The data needed in classifying customer attributes are obtained through a Kano questionnaire that consists of a pair of questions. They expressed the relationship between customer satisfaction and product or service performance existing in Kanos model can be quantified by using an appropriate function with parameters. Specifically, the relationship can be expressed as s=f(k,p), where s represents the customer satisfaction, p represents the product or service performance and k is the adjustment parameter for each Kano category. Kanos model tells us that not all customer satisfaction attributes are equal. Not only are some more important to the customer than others, but also some are important to the customer in different ways than others. As it is shown at graphic, the attractive attributes result more easily in customer satisfaction than must-be attributes do. Moreover for attractive attributes, the customer satisfaction increases progressively with the improvement of the product performance. Therefore, for attractive attributes, we can get s/s> p/p where s and p represent the customer satisfaction degree and product performance level. Similarly for one dimensional attributes, s/s= p/p , for must be attributes, s/s< p/p . In other words, using a parameter k, the above three relationship formula can be expressed by one equation, s/s=k( p/p). Thus, for attractive attributes, k>1, for one dimensional attributes k=1, for must be attributes, 0<k<1. Case example K.C.Tan and X.X. Shen illustrated their approach by a case example to show the integration of Kano model into QFD by adjusting the raw priority of each customer attribute. The QFD is applied to this case study for the definition and design of good web pages. After careful information gathering, several main customer attributes and their corresponding priorities( using a 1-5 scale) are identified. Furthermore two other web pages are chosen to make a competitive analysis. Then customers are asked to rate their satisfaction degree for both own web page and two competitors pages using a 1-5 scale. To implement the proposed integrative approach, customers are also asked to group properly their requirements into Kano categories.


International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3 Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME 3, )

Figure 7- The VOC with customer perception and Kano category Tan and Shen claim that in traditional QFD, customer perception data are usually used to make a competitive analysis and based on this analysis, a customer satisfaction target is set for each customer attribute. Adopting the standard adjustment of improvement ratio, the raw importance can importa consequently be adjusted. However, the adjusted importance may not accurately represent what we really need. The traditional QFD of this case is shown below.

Figure 8- The traiditional planning matrix for good web pages In this matrix Kanos attributes are not taken into consideration so the relationship between customer satisfaction and performance considered as linear and constant. For instance, taking easy-to red text as an example, its customer satisfaction target is set as 3. the customer satisfaction to is degree has to be increased by 150% in order to achieve the satisfaction target and to satisfy customers. For this target, in the traditional planning matrix the raw importance is increased by 150% accordingly. However, according to the previous Kano model analysis, it is judged as a must must-be attribute. For a must-be attribute, Kanos model clearly tells us that the customer satisfaction target be cannot be achieved even after increasing the raw importance by 150%. For this, the must be attribute should be increased more than 150% to achieve its desired satisfaction. After developing Kanos model K.C.Tan and X.X.Shen form this approximate transformation function for the adjusted ratio in order to integrate Kanos model to QFD: QFD

IRadj = ( IR0 ) k


International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3 Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME 3, )
Where IR adj is the adjusted improvement ratio IR0 is the original improvement ratio and k is the Kano parameter for different categories. In this equation, k is the only parameter for QFD practitioners to choose. After classifying the customer attributes into proper Kano categories, the actitioners corresponding k can be chosen. In this case, Tan and Shen chose the k value , 1 and 2 for must must-be, one dimensional and attractive attributes, respectively. Resulting QFD matrix is illustrated below Resulting

Figure 9- The planning matrix with Kano category From this planning matrix with Kano category, it can be seen that the raw priorities are adjusted differently from the traditional method. Tan and Shen took the customer attribute easy read text method. easy-to as an example again. In the traditional planning matrix, its percentage importance is 10.8% while it becomes 15.4 after incorporating the Kano analysis. Thus, the importance has been increased just as they previously analysed. For other customer attributes, it is similar. In conclusion, K.C.Tan and X.X.Shen use the Kano model to help differentiate among customer requirements, to obtain an imaginative understanding of customer needs and to understand unders the nature of the VOC and make strategic planning. 3. A knowledge-based approach to the quality function deployment based Jae Kyeong Kim, Chang Hee Han, Sang Hyun Choi, Soung Hie Kim presented that o of the one major difficulties of QFD in practice, is the large size of the HOQ. Even for a simple product design, the size of a HOQ can grow very fast. This implies the need for a huge amount of time and effort to develop as well as fill out the HOQ chart. Notwithstanding the rapid growth of QFD methodologies on the specific procedure, development of efficient methodologies for developing the HOQ charts has scarcely been addressed. Thus, These researchers suggest a knowledge based approach to build a knowledge-based HOQ chart for a new product. The main idea of our suggested methodology is as follows: methodology


International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME
1. Similar products have similar attributes of HOQ charts like customer requirements, engineering characteristics, and so on. If similar HOQ charts are built into a same class, managing the HOQ charts is more efficient. 2. HOQ charts in the same class arc classified into a rule tree according to their similarity degree. The main reason is to locate more similar charts nearby for the efficient selection. 3. IF-THEN typed knowledge retrieves the more similar HOQ chart from the selected class base for a new product. Based on the retrieved HOQ charts, human experts can modify the chart with ease. If one HOQ chart is not enough, more than two charts will be used for a new product. In that ease, the criteria of selection is degree of similarity of a rule tree. 4. More QFD analysis is performed, the knowledge base and case base becomes more richer. That means more suitable HOQ chart(s) may be provided for a new product. In most cases, the QFD model is usually applicable to only one specific design problem, even though developing QFD model needs much time and effort from multiple functional groups. However, these researchers often investigate that some prior knowledge from the experience of developing a QFD model can be utilized to resolve other similar QFD situations. From this investigation, they consider a class analysis to combine the prior knowledge so that they handle a set of similar QFD situations simultaneously. Although a concrete example or definition of similarity is not found (Holtzman 1989), QFD class concept would be helpful in modeling HOQ charts in an efficient way. Kim, Han and Choi suggest a class analysis, which regards a QFD analysis as an integrator of QFD knowledge and treats a set of QFD having some degree of similarity as a single unit. For this purpose, first they develop a rule tree and then suggested If-Then typed knowledge-based approach. Designing a decision class involves many trade-offs. If the decision class is too narrowly defined, it will represent too few individual products; if it is defined in a general manner, its corresponding class analysis will lose the benefits of domain specificity and may be prohibited expensively. Therefore, it is necessary to design a decision class that is neither too restrictive nor too comprehensive.(Kim,1998) Knowledge based-methodology is consists of the following five phases:
Phase 1: Build a class of similar QFD cases. Products are characterized by attributes like customer's age, customer's monthly income, market region, ere such that an individual product is characterized by its attribute values. Phase 2: Construct a rule tree for the class Each product has a number of attributes and can be classified into a particular subclass. STIG (Splitting Using Total Information Gain) algorithm (Kim, 1993) is used to construct a IF-THEN typed rule tree. Phase 3: Classification of a new QFD situation into a proper class using a rule tree. IF-THEN typed knowledge retrieves the very similar HOQ charts from the selected class base with a new product. Phase 4: Based on the retrieved HOQ chart, human experts can modify HOQ charts with ease. The retrieved HOQ charts have proper customer requirements and engineering characteristics for the new product, but some part of them may be modified or deleted. New requirements and characteristics may be added. With the retrieved HOQ chart, human expert can save time and effort at a considerable amount. Phase 5: Updating the class base, knowledge base, and data base by adding a new generated HOQ chart to the class for the later use.

V. CONCLUSION Quality function is a very dynamic topic and also house of quality is a very flexible model that many researchers have developed them in case of different subjects and areas. This paper has tried to explain three of them; a new model for prioritizing design requirements, a proposed approach that integrate Kanos model into QFD and a knowledge based approach to QFD. These new approaches


International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 3, Sep- Dec (2012) IAEME
may also have some deficiencies but as mentioned earlier, it is very progressive topic that further researches will remove these deficiencies and make QFD applicable for different areas efficiently and effectively.

REFERENCES 1. Determination of an optimal set of design requirements using house of quality; Taeho Park, Kwang-Jae Kim, Journal of Operations Management 16 (1998) 569-581 2. QFD not just a tool but a way of quality management, Cor P.M. Govers, International Journal of Production Economics (2001) 151-159 3. Ernzer, M., Kopp, K. (2003), Application of Kano Method to Life Cycle Design , IEEE Proceedings of EcoDesign: Third Intern ational Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing , Tokyo Japan, December 8-11,383389 4. Integrating Kanos model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment; K.C. Tan, X.X. Shen, Total Quality Management, Vol:11 No:8 (2000) 1141-1151 5. 5. Hanan, M. and Karp, P. (1989 ), Customer Satisfaction, how to M a xi mise , M eas ure a nd Mark et y o ur C omp a ny s U lt imate Product . New York. 6. Determination of information system development priority using Quality Function Deployment; Chang Hee Han, Jae Kyeong Kim, Sang Hyun Choi, Soung Hie Kim; Computers Industry Engineering (1998) Vol:35 241-244. 7. A Knowledge-Based Approach to the Quality Function Deployment; Chang Hee Han, Jae Kyeong Kim, Sang Hyun Choi, Soung Hie Kim; Computers Industry Engineering (1998) Vol:35, 233-236 8. House of quality: A fuzzy-logic based requirements analysis; Cecilia Temponi, John Yen, W.Amos Tiao; European Journal of Operations Research 117 (1999) 340-354 9. How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kanos model of customer satisfaction into Quality Function Deployment; Kurt Matzler, Hans H. Hinterhuber; Technovation vol:18 (1998) 25-38 10. Quality Function Deployment and decision analysis; Gwen Delano, Gregory S. Parnell, Charles Smith, Matt Vence; International Journal of Operations&Production Management (2000) Vol:20 591-601