Journal of Operations Management 16 Ž1998.


Technical note

Determination of an optimal set of design requirements using house of quality
Taeho Park

a, )

, Kwang-Jae Kim


a Organization and Management Department, San Jose State UniÕersity, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192, USA Department of Industrial Engineering, Pohang UniÕersity of Science and Technology, San 31, Hyoja-Dong, Nam-Gu, Pohang, Kyungbuk, 790-784, South Korea

Received 23 May 1996; accepted 1 September 1997

Abstract Quality Function Deployment ŽQFD. has been used to translate customer needs and wants into technical design requirements in order to increase customer satisfaction. QFD utilizes the house of quality ŽHOQ., which is a matrix providing a conceptual map for the design process, as a construct for understanding Customer Requirements ŽCRs. and establishing priorities of Design Requirements ŽDRs. to satisfy them. Some methodological issues occurring in the conventional HOQ are discussed, and then a new integrative decision model for selecting an optimal set of DRs is presented using a modified HOQ model. The modified HOQ prioritization procedure employs a multi-attribute decision method for assigning relationship ratings between CRs and DRs instead of a conventional relationship rating scale, such as 1–3–9. The proposed decision model has been applied to an indoor air quality improvement problem as an illustrative example. q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Quality; Product development; Mathematical programming

1. Introduction Quality has become one of the critical competitive strategies in today’s global market. To ensure the improvement of quality and productivity, firms have adopted Total Quality Management ŽTQM. as a key element of their business goals and initiated the use of TQM methods, such as Quality Function Deployment ŽQFD., design for manufacturability, and statistical process control. Among these TQM methods, QFD has been used to translate customer needs and wants into technical design requirements by integrat)

Corresponding author.

ing marketing, design engineering, manufacturing, and other relevant functions of an organization ŽAkao, 1990; Ansari and Modarress, 1994.. QFD originated in 1972 at Mitsubishi’s Kobe shipyard site, and then Toyota and its suppliers developed it further for a rust prevention study ŽHauser and Clausing, 1988; Wasserman, 1993.. After the concept of QFD was introduced in the US through auto manufacturers and part suppliers ŽSullivan, 1987., many US firms, such as Procter & Gamble, Raychem, Digital Equipment, HewlettPackard, AT & T, ITT, GM and Ford, applied QFD to improving communication, product development, and measurement of processes and systems ŽAnsari

0272-6963r98r$ - see front matter q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 7 2 - 6 9 6 3 Ž 9 7 . 0 0 0 2 9 - 6

1988.. to satisfy the CRs ŽHauser and Clausing. 1994. Each translation uses a matrix. Some research have been done to resolve these methodological issues. Furthermore. even reducing die transition time. incorporation of the correlations between DRs to a decision process for determining appropriate DRs. and integration of the correlations between DRs to a decision model for determining appropriate DRs to satisfy CRs.. engineering proposal systems. 1. Ž1994. in order to insure a more meaningful representation of the DR priorities. Although the conventional approach to prioritizing DRs is easy to understand and use. 1985. Thirty QFD applications that were published in the literature were selected at random and examined as to their rating schemes. The conventional HOQ employs a rating scale Že. the choice of a relationship rating scheme is critical in QFD applications.’’ added Cohen Ž1995. Kim r Journal of Operations Management 16 (1998) 569–581 and Modarress.e.. limited budget. or 1–5–9. ‘‘There is no scientific basis for any of the choices. Saaty and Kearns. of DRs at the top of the matrix ŽSee Fig. CRs in rows and DRs in columns. ‘‘QFD can be applied to whatever process you have control over: new product design.570 T. 1–3–9. their relationships within the matrix.. and subsequently into parts characteristics.’’ said Norman Morrell. K. corporate manager of quality-product reliability at Budd. 1980. and the remaining eight used other scales such as 1–5–9. The relationship ratings used in the HOQ prioritization process have a strong and direct impact on the technical importance ratings of DRs. Bounds and Yorks. Thus. ŽSee Griffin and Hauser. Ž3. called the house of quality ŽHOQ. adjustment of the relationship ratings between CRs and DRs.. However. Ž1994.. presented a linear integer programming model for maximizing customer satisfaction subject to a cost Ži. and Ž3. Wasserman Ž1993. constraint with a linear function and a procedure for normalizing the relationship ratings between CRs and DRs. of strength between CRs and DRs. tance of CRs. applied the Analytical Hierarchy Process ŽAHP. structuring.. business plans.e. 1–2–4. called normalization. assignment of the relationship ratings between CRs and DRs. 1993 for a discussion on the issues of identifying. namely Ž1. to determine the degree of importance of CRs. ŽSaaty.. The basic concept of QFD is to translate the desires of customers into product design or engineering characteristics. 1980. and establishing priorities of Design Requirements ŽDRs. The study revealed that various rating scales have been employed. HOQ is presented in a matrix form which shows: Ž1. or 1–6–9.. and Armacost et al. five used 1–3–5. Ž2. 1. the correlations Ži. 1994. for identifying Customer Requirements ŽCRs. It should be noted that AHP is a powerful and widely-used multi-criteria decision-making technique for prioritizing decision alternatives of interest ŽSaaty. and providing priorities for CRs.-J. further studies are necessary on development of a better relationship rating scheme between CRs and DRs other than the conventional ordinal rating scale. to indicate the degree Ži.. weak–medium–strong. seventeen used a 1–3–9 scale. As a result. Lu et al. process plans and production requirements.. determination of the degree of impor- Fig. consideration of cost trade-offs among DRs. None of the applications provided an explicit justification for the choice of such a rating scale. there are several methodological issues associated with it. and Ž5. dependencies. Ž4. Ž2. the absolute importance ratings of DRs in the conventional HOQ present ordinal importance ranks of DRs in their contribution to customer satis- ..g.e. Park. as cited by McElroy Ž1989. A typical HOQ matrix with a 1–3–9 rating scheme. The conventional relationship rating scheme primarily shows ordinal ranks of relationships between CRs and DRs rather than a continuum of rating values indicating a sliding scale of relationship strength.

m.g.e. the correlation information was not used in calculating priorities of the DRs and determining appropriate DRs for a design problem. DRs should be incorporated into the product of interest in the order of their relative importance rating to achieve more customer satisfaction. Mallon and Mulligan. such as cost and time. 3..T.e.. using the conventional QFD processes for prioritizing DRs.. if the level of one DR is changed. Ansari and Modarress. relationships between CRs and DRs. 2. it was applied to many industry problems Že. The absolute importance ratings of DRs derived from the relationship ratings with cardinal numbers can be used in further analyses requiring the magnitude of each DR’s importance in satisfying CRs Že. The absolute and relative importance of DRs are computed using the relative importance of CRs and the relationship ratings Ži. Glushkovsky et al. 1991.. Although the conventional QFD obtains information about correlations between DRs in the triangular-shaped correlation matrix at the top of HOQ. to represent a weak. selection of appropriate DRs to maximize customer satisfaction with a limited budget. it is necessary to devise a mechanism for accommodating the dependencies of DRs in calculating importance ratings of DRs. 1995. 1. the levels of the other DRs are changed collaterally. The absolute importance rating can then be transformed into the relative importance rating. respectively. in the relationship matrix of HOQ Ži. 3. 9. . K. Wi s degree of importance Ži. An indoor air quality improvement problem is presented to provide a thorough numerical understanding of the proposed new integrative decision model using the modified HOQ. a modified HOQ with a better approach for assigning relationship ratings between CRs and DRs other than the current rating scheme. in this paper. The new model. Thus. .. A new model for selecting design requirements in QFD In this section. . j . we will present: Ž1.-J.. where AI j s absolute Žtechnical. or strong relationship between i th CR Žcalled CR i . . 1992. a cell Ž i . Description of HOQ Since QFD was introduced to US firms in 1983. and correlations between DRs. the more important is DR j . Ý AI k ks 1 The larger the RI j . 1993. and j th DR Žcalled DR j . j s 1. 1995 for some recent application examples. 5. Lockamy and Khurana.. Griffin. a new integrative decision model for selecting an optimal set of DRs which incorporates all of the above issues into the conventional prioritization processes in QFD. renovation of a computer workroom facility. i th row and j th column of HOQ. 1994. and improvement of customer service. In conventional QFD applications. An HOQ typically contains information on CRs. cost and time. when two DRs with a high correlation are selected at the same time. of CR i . . relative importance of the CRs. RI j . and Ž3. medium. Kim r Journal of Operations Management 16 (1998) 569–581 571 faction. . 9 Žor 1... a new integrative HOQ model will be presented to determine an optimal set of DRs. there may be cost savings in installing them in a product. product design. and to incorporate the correlation between DRs into the decision process of determining appropriate DRs subject to some organizational constraints. n. R i j s relationship rating representing the strength of the relationship between CR i and DR j . For each DR. is 1 Ž 1. it is rather more meaningful and necessary to show the differences of DRs in contributing to customer satisfaction in their magnitude than just in the ordinal importance ranks. Thus. as AI j RI j s n . 2. as shown in Fig.. Since some DRs are in fact highly correlated with others Ži. a quadratic integer programming formulation for considering cost trade-offs among DRs and correlations between DRs during the process of selecting an optimal set of DRs. Thus... i s 1. .e.g. DRs for satisfying the CRs. is assigned 1. Ž2.e. . the absolute importance rating is computed as: m AI 1 s Ý Wi R i j .. shown in Fig. without consideration of any other constraints Že. importance weight.. integrates the following . 1–3–9 or 1–5–9. For example. strategic planning. ŽSee Maddux et al. Park. importance rating of DR j .g..

which has been used in past practical problems. Rather. CRs.: Ž1. 1995 for HOQ. Methods for eliciting utility weights in multi-attribute decision making can be used as a better alternative to the subjective weighting scale Že. Considering that the relationship ratings between CRs and DRs in HOQ represent the contri- . and benchmarking. Saaty. we will present a step-by-step procedure of a method Ži.. correlations between DRs... Park.g. 1980 and Saaty and Kearns. AHP. 1990 and Cohen.e. Since the conventional procedures of the methods can be obtained from the literature. swing method.’s integrative HOQ model Ž1994. 1–3–9 scale. and benchmarking of the product should be collected using the conventional procedures of HOQ. two aspects into Wasserman’s QFD planning process model Ž1993. 1989 for benchmarking.572 T.e. and Ž2.. considering the correlation between DRs in the mathematical programming for selecting an optimal set of DRs. A new integrative HOQ model.. and Lu et al. 1994 and Camp. their detailed descriptions are not included here. swing method. employing a new rating scheme for the relationship between CRs and DRs. K. Lu et al. 2. using a most commonly-used multi-attribute decision method Ži. 1985 for AHP. DRs.-J. organizational resource constraints such as budget. pairwise comparison of CRs. In Phase 1. Kim r Journal of Operations Management 16 (1998) 569–581 Fig. ŽSee Akao.. used for obtaining relationship ratings between CRs and DRs.

called Expert Choice ŽForman et al. The swing method. may be used for this eigenvector method. which is a part of the SMART procedures. Ž 2. . After all data involved in the QFD problem are obtained... xgX. . The above steps can be applied to CRs. Step 4. presented the following normalization procedure. one by one. . s Ý AIj x j js 1 s. which can accommodate correlations between DRs: n Ý R i kg k j R norm s ij ks 1 n n for i s 1. 1989 for details of the eigenvector method. one at a time. A computer software package.. g k Ž x . presented a modified version of SMART for explicitly considering the range of consequences on the given attributes. F 0 for k s 1. Show the decision maker two alternatives.. . an attribute whose swing leads to half the improvement compared to the most significant swing would get a weight of 50. methods of viewing weights as the relative importance of multiple attributes may be more appropriate for QFD applications. Ž 3.. Rate swings of all other attributes on a 0–100 scale. SMART ŽSimple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique. and to rank the attributes. importance weight. The eigenvector method which has been used as part of AHP can be employed to determine the importance weights of CRs. K. Wasserman Ž1993. whose relationship ratings are being sought. . Step 3. . . Assign a relative value of 100 to the most significant attribute which was ranked first in step 2. and the weights obtained in Step 3 will correspond to the assessed relationship ratings for the CR i Ži. is one technique which assesses attribute weights through the responses provided by the decision maker concerning hisrher tradeoffs among the attributes. is used in this paper to obtain the relationship ratings between CRs and DRs. Phase 2 will calculate the degree of importance Ži.. Kim r Journal of Operations Management 16 (1998) 569–581 573 bution of DRs to the satisfaction of CRs. l . . von Winterfeldt and Edwards Ž1986.e. One leads to the worst consequence on each attribute. In Phase 5.t. Ask the decision maker to imagine that he or she is under a condition of the worst alternative Ži.-J. through the normalization of relationship ratings its contribution should be distributed into the technical importance rating of DRs related to it in proportion to the relationship ratings between the CR and the relevant DRs ŽLyman. of CRs from data collected through pairwise comparisons of CRs. most if its level swings from the worst to the best consequence of the attribute. . Contribution of each CR to customer satisfaction is represented by the importance weight assigned to the CR. 1990. Eppel Ž1990. Step 2.. Attributes should be replaced with DRs. 1985. An example of the swing method applied to a QFD problem is illustrated in Appendix A. In Phase 3. Normalize the weights so that they add up to one. and the other one leads to the best consequence... R i j ’s in the i th row of the relationship matrix in HOQ chart.. where g k j denotes an element of the correlation matrix representing the correlation between DR k and DR j . .e. . an integer programming model for maximizing customer satisfaction by selecting appropriate DRs should be formulated as follows: n Max f Ž x . the one leading to the worst consequence on each attribute. Thus. originally presented by Edwards Ž1977. Thus.. n . and an utterly irrelevant attribute would get a weight of 0. to assess the relationship ratings between CRs and DRs in QFD.e.. relationship ratings between CRs and DRs in the relationship matrix should be normalized to generate a more meaningful representation of the DRs. Ž1. showed the following steps of the swing method to elicit the attribute weights through an interaction with the decision maker: Step 1. In Phase 4. ŽSee Saaty and Alexander. Park. The worst alternative in Step 1 is a situation where no DR will be included into a product or service to satisfy a CR Žsuppose it is CR i . . customer satisfaction. j Ý Ý R i k g jk js 1 k s 1 s 1. by indicating which attribute will improve an objective utility function Že. . absolute importance ratings of DRs should be calculated using the conventional HOQ calculation procedure shown in Eq.T.g. m .

. housekeeping.. Once the QFD problem is formulated as a quadratic integer programming problem shown in Ž3.. designers. Stuffiness was a common complaint..-J. was designed in 1968 and . classified as Sick Building Syndrome ŽSBS. and poor ergonomic design. if DR j is selected.. 1994. . Thus. Solver in Microsoft Excel was used to solve the quadratic integer pro- gramming problem for selecting the DRs. Ž3. stuffiness. Ž5. volatile organic components. where s i j is saving of resource Že. x j 4 . however. x j s 1. s k th organizational resource constraint. Since most practical QFD problems. employees working in the Business Tower ŽBT. Ž2. suffered from poor indoor air quality and expressed complaints of being sleepy and tired at work. Park. owners. qc n x n y B. 1994. ŽSee Salkin. Wasserman Ž1993. in Phase 6. Description of the building indoor air quality problem During the last decade. and contents of particulate matters. namely from newly constructed buildings to renovated facilities or old buildings. presented a simple linear cost constraint function for g Ž x . Such indoor air quality problems. it is more appropriate to express the g Ž x .. flies. qc n x n y B F 0 using the well-known ‘Knapsack’ problem approach. cost. along with the presence of flies within the stairwell entrance vestibules. correlations. King Ž1987. s c1 x 1 q . and Ž7. function in a quadratic form such that g Ž x . DRs should be selected in a decreasing order of the Žtechnical importance ratingrcost. j s 1. K. and operators have tried to minimize unwanted air infiltration because rising energy costs are the primary cause of the ‘tight building syndrome’. Thus. . l s number of organizational resource constraints. have occurred in all types and ages of structures. or Building Related Illness ŽBRI. as Wasserman Ž1993. where c j is cost required to include DR j . building at San Jose State University ŽSJSU. . to select the most appropriate DRs under a limitation of a given target cost as follows: g Ž x . a large accumulation of dust particles in the building was also found ŽI & A Engineering. 1993. The objective function in the above formula is to maximize a total absolute technical importance rating from selected DRs which represents the magnitude of customer satisfaction. the conventional QFD does not take into account trade-offs between the amount of customer satisfaction achieved from the selected DRs and the use of organizational resources.. lack of windows. such as cost and time. a study was conducted in 1994 to test indoor air quality for gases. 4. such as dust. temperature variations. 1994.574 T. concerns have been expressed regarding indoor air quality for nonindustrial buildings Žsee Banham. s c1 x 1 q . 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. The following is a list of problems identified: Ž1. In the case where dependencies Ži. Lunau. stressed the need for considering the amount of organizational resources to be used because a targeted selling price of the product in its market should be set. Application to building indoor air quality improvement 4. 1990. Otherwise.. Buckler. x s a decision variable vector. In addition to other physical factors in the workplace Že. usage associated with simultaneous implementation of i th and j th DRs..e. Kim r Journal of Operations Management 16 (1998) 569–581 where AI j s absolute technical importance rating of DR j . dust particles. for the DRs. He solved Problem Ž3. 1995. Moseley. the most appropriate DRs will be determined to satisfy CRs with the limited organizational resources.. most commercial buildings are mechanically ventilated with virtually no natural ventilation from the outside. and B is a given total target cost. Moreover. 1994. Ž6. odors. g k Ž x . ventilation.g. n.. Recently. x j s 0–1 decision variable for DR j Ži. 1975 for the details of quadratic integer programming.e. involve some degree of dependencies among DRs. When selecting DRs to implement. it is 0. temperature. s Ý n js 1 c j x j y n Ýn is 1 Ý j ) i s i j x i x j y B .. . with a constraint of g Ž x .1. . along with various chemicals present in building materials and furniture. . In this paper. Ž4... poor indoor air quality is viewed as a major building occupant complaint ŽBanham.g. The BT building with a closed environment Žthat is. ratios until the total cost of selected DRs does not exceed the limited repair budget. Eaton. . addressed. Today. all windows are sealed.

resulting in a better working and health environment for occupants in the building ŽI & A Engineering. The air is then drawn through a prefilter and final bag filters before entering the supply fan room. of 3 lb density matt faced acoustic lining. System: The existing standard profile control system should be replaced with a DDC system for more efficient air control and delivery. 5. K. and a geometric mean approach to combining group judgments. the new HOQ prioritization process described in Section 3 was employed. 1994. including air supply fan and air return fan. Numerical results To determine the priorities of implementing the above recommendations. which is also typical of HVAC system designs today. An eighteen-gage galvanized sheet metal condensation drain should be installed under the chilled water cooling coils. A customer study involved assessing the judgments of department secretaries in their views on the significance of problems caused by poor indoor air quality. and Air Conditioning ŽHVAC. In addition. 7. It should be noted that the secretaries are good surrogates for those who use the building because they spend more time in the building than anyone else. 12. using a pairwise comparison method in the AHP data collection process. Carbon Dioxide Sensor System: A CO 2 monitoring station with sensors should be installed in the return air plenum. 11. should be upgraded with more HP motors. Plumbing Risers: The shaft should be provided with 2-h fire-rated access panels at the toilet room wall adjacent to the shaft at each door. existing insect screens.2.T. The indoor air quality study for the BT building recommended the following actions to improve the mechanical BT HVAC operating systems. The ground floor air intake system is composed of a grade level outside air intake louver and pneumatically-controlled motorized intake dampers. The air supply system has a floor-mounted double inlet centrifugal fan with a cooling coil and heating coil arranged side by side on the ground floor. The return air system employs a non-ducted return air plenum pregnable. Door Seals: All fan plenum door seals shall be removed and replaced with new tight fitting weatherstripping to reduce air leakage and uncontrolled infiltration. 6. Air Plenum: All linear boards should be removed from supply plenum walls and replaced with new 2 in. 4. Since a group of eight secretaries working daily in the BT building participated in the survey. mounted exhaust fan should be installed to provide ventilation of the janitor’s closet on each floor. 13. Kim r Journal of Operations Management 16 (1998) 569–581 575 completed by 1970–1971.-J. 2. Duct Plenums and Fans: Duct plenums and fans should be cleaned. which are the importance weights of CRs. The separate heating and cooling ducts are then routed into the shaft to the 10th floor. HVAC Louvers: All damper motors. a geometric mean which is an 8th root of the product of judgments provided by eight individuals was used to combine group judgments.: 1. Return air from each thermal zone enters the ceiling cavity and is drawn back to the central shaft return air opening. Janitor Closet Ventilation: A dedicated roof- 8. The exhaust air is delivered to a plenum where it is then relieved out of the building through the exhaust louverrdamper combination. Table 1 shows the results of the customer study done. 3. and the vestibule ventilation exhaust fan should be replaced with new units. or recirculated into the mixed air plenum where it is mixed with outside air before entering the fan system. The ten-story building’s Heating. Ventilation. Eigenvalues of the judgment matrix in Table 1. 4. 9. system consists of a double duct constant volume air distribution system. Dampers: The air damper motors should be tested andror replaced as necessary. Housekeeping: BT janitorial services should be reviewed and improved to ensure the building is clean at all times. Air Delivery Systems: Air delivery systems. 10. Duct Distribution System: A duct distribution system should be improved to prevent air leakage. Direct Digital Control ŽDDC. The customer study was conducted using a pairwise comparison method in the AHP data collection process. any chemical cleaning detergents should be removed from the building. Park. are then calculated as .

Ž3. . judgments of the importance of problems are acceptable.000 increased the customer satisfaction . Ž2.187. 4. However. the increase of the budget from US$100. there may be some cost savings when two DRs are installed at the same time. s DR 16 s 1. however. 0.000 Ži. s Ý AI j x j js 1 s. and costs. 0.084. .2 1. The achieved level of customer satisfaction increased as a higher budget was allowed. The above quadratic integer programming with a repair budget of US$200.-J. K.0 2. it is found that upgrading an air delivery system Ži.000. 3 is required to complete an individual DR alone. a further analysis is necessary to select which DRs should be completed. Each cost shown in Fig. 0. For example. A sensitivity analysis for the budget constraint is presented in Fig.15 x 12 x 15 F B xgX. Table 2 illustrates cost savings from simultaneous installation of two DRs. 3 presents an HOQ matrix for the BT building indoor air quality problem. in Section 3.2 0.e.4 Ži. c1 x 1 q . x j s 0–1 decision variable for DR j Ž j s 1. B s budget available for improving indoor air quality in the BT building.. It should be noted that the value of consistency ratio should be around 10% or less to be acceptable ŽSaaty and Kearns. DR 10 s DR 11 s 0. When both of them are included in a repair contract. 3.9 x 2 x 9 ys6 .63 1.1 1. 0.1 1. of total investment required.. As mentioned earlier.t.4 1.000 ŽÝ16 .6 0.157. Fig.2% ŽUS$198. 2. . the BT building indoor air quality problem should be solved with a quadratic integer programming technique as follows: 16 0. respectively. DR 12 s . normalized relationship ratings between CRs and DRs obtained using swing method and normalization of relationship ratings by Eq. cost required to install the DRs.000 to US$125.132. and 0..e.8448.12 x 6 x 12 y s12 .5% customer satisfaction can be achieved with only 44. correlation between DRs. . including Ž1.g.000 and US$12. diminished as the level of the baseline budget became higher.700rUS$450.7 3.0 Temperature Dust Particles Ventilation Odors Housekeeping 2.8 1.. Total cost required: US$198. all DRs can be installed. respectively. . Since there are savings from simultaneous installation of two DRs. where AI j and c j s technical importance rating and cost of DR j shown in Fig. Decision variables: DR 1 s . . with increments of US$ 0. in general. However.04.. According to the results of prioritization of DRs. Ž 4. the problem will become very trivial.2 x 1 x 2 y s1 . correlation between DRs. 3.4 1. DR 1 .3 2. air supplyrreturn fans. US$513. Ž 16 16 . It should be noted that two engineers knowledgeable about air quality participated in providing information about relationships between CRs and DRs.576 T.10 x 1 x 10 y s2 .. Objective function value of the total technical importance rating: 0. are limited.2 1.000. s DR 9 s 1. Ž2. Park. . .e. budget and time. If the budget is at least US$450. require US$18. . 1985.e. and replacing all fan plenum door seals with new ones Ži. when available organizational resources Že.. Kim r Journal of Operations Management 16 (1998) 569–581 Table 1 An important matrix for CRs obtained using pairwise comparison.202.54 1.700. 84. when each of them is completed separately.5 2. DR 2 . the marginal rate of increase.11 x 6 x 11 y s6 . js 1 c j y US$63. resulting in the objective function of 1. upgrading air plenum walls Max f Ž x . and the following solution is found: 1. as in our BT indoor air quality problem. The numbers indicate geometric means of judgments of eight secretaries Temperature Dust Ventilation Odors House Flies Stuffiness 1.000 is discounted because of savings in time. US$4500 out of US$30. and Ž4. . qc16 x 16 y s1 . degrees of importance of CRs as obtained from the AHP analysis. is most important for improving building occupants’ satisfaction with indoor air quality in the BT building.8 1.82 1..152. If a repair budget is enough to complete all recommendations.000 is solved using the Solver module in Microsoft Excel. and the installation of a CO 2 monitoring station with sensors is least important.7 2. 0.000. Thus.000 Ý is 1 Ý j ) i s i j . Since the consistency ratio turns out to be 0. For example.

An HOQ matrix for the indoor air quality problem for the BT building at SJSU. K. Park. .T. 3.-J. Kim r Journal of Operations Management 16 (1998) 569–581 577 Fig.

To improve the level further. Park.500 US$10.9 y 84. The Knapsack model has a different constraint from that of Ž4. Fig. System.-J. there should be impetus to improve it further.500 US$5250 by 9. 4.. US$211. . is required. which will replace the existing standard profile control system with a direct digital control ŽDDC. In the building indoor air quality problem.500 s US$240. ŽSee Wasserman.5% without DR 11 .. . Sensitivity and performance analyses for customer satisfaction improvement over budget increment. y US$28. 4 shows the results of both models.500 Žsavings. 1993 for details of solving the Knapsack model. Since the Fig..4% Ž85.5.. the customer satisfaction level will remain at 88. K. which does not take cost savings into account. the control system conversion will improve the customer satisfaction level by 11.578 T.2 y 56.4% Ž66.000 was only 1. and training.000 to US$225. .5%.000 Žcost for DR 11 alone.. a considerable amount of budget Ži. equipment. Likewise..200 US$4050 US$28. which is c1 x 1 q . Kim r Journal of Operations Management 16 (1998) 569–581 Table 2 Cost savings occurring when two DRs are completed at the same time Pair of DRs DR 1 and DR 2 DR 1 and DR 10 DR 2 and DR 9 DR 6 and DR 11 DR 6 and DR 12 DR 12 and DR 15 Cost saving from simultaneous installation US$4500 US$10.8. However. qc16 x 16 F B. The proposed model is compared with a Knapsack model shown in Wasserman Ž1993. as the customer satisfaction level increases by investment in technology. Once customer satisfaction is enhanced up to a certain level. while the increase caused by the budget change from US$200.e. more effort and investment are required to achieve the same level of additional customer satisfaction.

the QFD problem could be extended to resource allocation problems in the operations management field. Although the proposed comprehensive model involves more effort Že. it provides an optimal set of DRs by solving a mathematical programming problem formulated with the importance ratings of DRs. Since the new relationship rating scheme relies on a simple additive multi-attribute model.e. Thus. The new decision model is to improve the conventional HOQ prioritization process for obtaining importance ratings of DRs by Ž1. budget. thus. Park.. Appendix A. as manifested by the symbols recorded in the second row of the chart. in comparison to the conventional HOQ process. normalizing the relationship ratings between CRs and DRs.. which might be selected with cost savings.. However. As an example. Ž2. correlation between DRs. and information about available resources. 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 Že. In fact. Assessment of relationship coefficients using swing method The SMART procedure with swing method embedded can be applied to obtaining the relationship ratings between CRs and DRs in QFD. and computation. A detailed step-by-step procedure for assessing the relationship ratings between CR 2 and DRs using the swing method is illustrated below. Step 2: Ask the design team to imagine the worst design condition and choose a DR that would best . whereas DR 3 is not related to CR 2 . Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. DR 1 s DR 2 s DR 4 s 0. and Ž3. It is presumed that DR 1 . K. Step 1: Show the design team two alternatives: one leads to the worst consequence with respect to CR 2 Ži. mathematical model building. more customer satisfaction. determining the degree of importance of CRs through the AHP multi-attribute decision process. DR 1 s DR 2 s DR 4 s 1.. all necessary stepby-step structured decision processes are included in the paper. consider the HOQ chart in Fig. Conclusions A mathematical programming-based approach to determining an optimal set of DRs to be included in a new product or service is presented in this paper by modifying a conventional prioritization process in QFD. and DR 4 have important effects on the customer satisfaction of CR 2 . 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. in an organization. while we were developing the new QFD method. As a result.. the Knapsack model results in no greater customer satisfaction than the proposed model. Kim r Journal of Operations Management 16 (1998) 569–581 579 Knapsack model does not take into account an organizational constraint of cost savings. 1. some recommendations provided by an engineering firm were implemented for improving indoor air quality. 5. it is worthwhile to invest such effort during the design stage in order to determine an optimal set of DRs.e. Thus. Furthermore. the new QFD method could not be implemented to the final decision process for the air quality problem.T. it is easy to use.g. it is a very handy and useful tool for practitioners. and the other one leads to the best design condition Ži. In addition.. data collection. which can help practitioners understand the entire decision process easily and implement it to their industrial problems. the investment will be justified with a better working environment.g. In other words. it cannot allow for installing additional DRŽs. assigning relationship ratings between CRs and DRs using the swing method rather than a conventional relationship rating scale of 1–3–9 or 1–5–9. DR 2 . The new integrative decision approach has been applied to a building indoor air quality problem in the College of Business at San Jose State University. and more market share resulting from better decision making.-J.

Quality Function Deployment. 60–62.W. A.. Hershkovits.. the American Supplier Institute.J. J. 19–22.. Milwaukee. transactions from a second symposium on Quality Function Deployment. 1977.. C. Lockamy. 9 Ž3. Mulligan.00 0. pp.. J. Eliciting and Reconciling Multi-attribute Utility Weights..00 0. 1990.A. Edwards... R 24 s 100rŽ40 q 60 q 0 q 100. MA. 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 .. 326–340. Building Design Construction 36 Ž4.580 T. Eng. 1990.23 0. D. Innov. 1995. 516–531. MA.. 1994.. . The growing concern over indoor air quality. Maddux. and Cybernetics. Clausing. 1994... Khurana.. The normalized ratings can be used as the relationship ratings in the HOQ chart. Marketing 9 Ž1. D. Air quality standards in offices: should they be health. 1980... 1993. Benchmarking. Quality Function Deployment: the role of suppliers. pp. Winokur. 171– 187. Moseley. MA. Mullens. D. Componation. Madu.45 CR 1 CR 2 CR 3 CR 4 CR 5 References Akao.C. 63–73. A. M. 28–35. Selly. M. AHP. associated with CR 2 are normalized as follows: R 21 s 40rŽ40 q 60 q 0 q 100. 1988. 36 Ž2. Y. The rating for DR 3 should remain zero because it is irrelevant to improving CR 2 . Quality Function Deployment —a system for meeting customers’ needs.. Sipper. 119 Ž3.R. The relationship ratings Ž R 2 j ’s. A. Ranney. Manage. Hauser. McGraw-Hill. In: Adams. A. Ansari..A. Productivity Press. C. J..0. Avoid a flop: use QFD with questionnaires. improve the design condition if its level changes from 0 to 1 Žthat is called a ‘swing’. G. Lyman. 1987. MA. and the normalized ones are summarized in a table shown below: CRs DRs Relationship ratings DR 1 100 40 0 0 50 DR 2 0 60 0 60 70 DR 3 50 0 100 100 0 DR 4 0 100 0 0 100 Normalized relationship ratings DR 1 DR 2 DR 3 DR 4 0. B. Health 53 Ž3. 1990. 1989. Harv.H. Addison-Wesley. Reading. Construction Eng. R. Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design. Lunau.. Organizations can apply Quality Function Deployment as strategic planning tool. ŽEds. and benchmarking in strategic marketing.. King.. Swart. The intermediate relationship ratings Žwhich are output of Steps 2 and 3. 1994. Thesis.. Ind. Lu. 72–79. GoalrQPC.... I&A Engineering. L.00 0. Forman. R. Kim r Journal of Operations Management 16 (1998) 569–581 Banham. M.. R. G.. New York. 1993.50 0. E. 1992.R. Saaty... Business Ind.L. which was chosen in Step 2. 1994. 307–315. 30 Ž4. Wyskida.L. Pittsburgh. respectively. Man. pp. Indoor air quality requires integrated approach. 1–27. Griffin. SMC-7. J. A.. 57–62..N. Bounds.3. M. G. A. Rate all other DR swings on a scale of 0–100.62 0. San Jose.. F. Mallon. K. The effects of indoor air quality on health. Deployment normalization.67 0.-J.E. 213–216. W..32 0. Dearborn. Yorks. 1994. R.. 33–37. Prod. J. 41–50. J...00 0. D. R 23 s 0rŽ40 q 60 q 0 q 100.. Suppose the design team rates the contribution of changing the levels of DR 2 and DR 1 from 0 to 1 to be 60 and 40. 1985. III.W. 1989. An AHP framework for prioritizing customer requirements in QFD: an industrialized housing application. WI. C. Risk Manage..... Quality Function Deployment: a case study. Indoor air quality problems. Manage.W. IIE Trans. G. Prod. with regard to CR 2 ..33 0. T. Evaluating QFD’s use in US firms as a process for developing products. Armacost.. Marketing Sci. Eppel. Manage. 23 Ž9.5.. s 0. IEEE Transactions on System. a conference co-sponsored by the Automotive Division of the American Society for Quality Control. 1995. s 0. Glushkovsky. The voice of the customer. Florescu. 1994. New York. 1995.00 1.00 0. McElroy.00 0. and GOALrQPC. Ph. Step 4: Normalize the ratings so that they add up to one.A. Buckler. Camp.A. A....D. W.. MI.. Cohen. 1993. Methuen.. The same procedure can be employed to assess the relationship ratings of other cells in the relationship rating matrix of HOQ. Saaty. R. Kuei.A. Manage. Methuen. Inv. How to use multi-attribute utility measurement for social decision making..2. Business Rev.00 0. J... The analytic hierarchy process..C. B. QFD: building the house of quality..38 0. Amos. 12 Ž1. D. E.20 0. 1991. 1994. decision support software. J. NSNArImprint 41 Ž3. 30–32.. T. Beyond Total Quality Management. 2 Ž4.R. 1995. Qual. Integrating QFD.. 28 Ž6. Better designs in half the time: Implementing QFD in America. T.00 0. Environ. 41 Ž6.F.. Griffin. University of Southern California. 26 Ž4. McGraw-Hill. M.. s 0. Int. Prog. Modarress. R. L. 60–93. Expert choice. 1990. J. J. P..00 0.30 0.. 56–59. 52–56. Eaton.L. Hauser. The house of quality. Cambridge. R 22 s 60rŽ40 q 60 q 0 q 100. Step 3: Assign 100 to DR 4 .or comfort-based? Indoor Environ. Purchasing Mater. Final report on indoor air quality of business tower building at San Jose State University. s 0.. Park. ASQC Quality Press. May–June. Automotive Industries.. Waldron.

. Cambridge University Press. Edwards. Addison-Wesley. K.T.S. and the problem in-between. Kim r Journal of Operations Management 16 (1998) 569–581 Saaty.L.. W.L.-J. American Supplier Institute. On how to prioritize design requirements during the QFD planning process.. New York. Sullivan. 59–65. Oxford... 1993. G. 1985.P. the end. D. Quality Function Deployment ŽQFD. . 1987. L. New York. A collection of presentations and QFD case studies. Massachusetts. Salkin.. T. Kearns. Praeger Publishers. 25 Ž3.. Decision analysis and behavioral research. IIE Trans. Saaty. Integer programming. Pergamon. J. von Winterfeldt.. Analytical Planning. 1989.M. T.: the 581 beginning. 1986.M. Alexander. 1975. Conflict Resolution: the Analytic Hierarchy Approach. Wasserman. H. Park..