ARTICLE IN PRESS

Building and Environment 40 (2005) 245–255

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Strategic use of quality function deployment (QFD) in the

construction industry
Irem Dikmen, M. Talat Birgonul, Semiha Kiziltas
Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey
Received in revised form 1 June 2004; accepted 1 July 2004

Abstract

In this paper, an attempt has been made to examine the applicability of QFD as a strategic decision-making tool after the
construction stage of a housing project to determine the best marketing strategy, to make a comparison between the performances of
different competitors and to transfer the experience gained from the current project to the forthcoming projects. For this purpose, a
QFD team has been formed to collect and verify the expectations of the customer profile of the sample project, which was a high-rise
building project located in Ankara, Turkey. The case study findings demonstrated that QFD could be successfully applied in the
housing projects as a strategic tool to facilitate marketing decisions. As a result of extensive literature review and the case study
observations; the paper also points out the limitations and breakthroughs of the QFD methodology. Finally, critical success factors
are proposed to improve the performance of the QFD methodology in construction projects.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Quality function deployment; Marketing; Critical success factors

1. Introduction Over the past decades, quality has been a differentiat-

Long-term viability of an organization mainly de-
pends on how effectively the organization utilizes its
resources for satisfying its stakeholders. For the
organizations operating in the construction industry,
one of the most privileged stakeholders are the clients
(end users or customers depending on the project type;
therefore, in the rest of this paper, client, customer and
end user will be used interchangeably). Satisfying their
needs and expectations is of the uttermost importance
for the companies because quality is in the eye of the
beholder and whatever they demand and expect from a
product/project defines the quality characteristics of an
entity. The unique nature of the industry necessitates the
understanding of client needs and expectations for each
project carefully for increasing their satisfaction level.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-312-210-24-70; fax: +90-312-
210-12-62.
E-mail address: irar@metu.edu.tr (I. Dikmen).
ing factor within the construction industry. It has been
demonstrated that despite the constraints on quality
differentiation efforts (like project budget, rules and
regulations, etc.), many companies are competing using
quality differentiation strategy and sustaining their
competitiveness in the long run [1]. Achievement of
client satisfaction, however, necessitates the manage-
ment of quality systematically, which further necessi-
tates utilization of quality tools and techniques for this
purpose. Quality function deployment (QFD) is one of
these techniques to deal with customer needs and
expectations more systematically for achieving the most
important objective of a construction company, satisfac-
tion of clients. QFD is broadly a total quality manage-
ment (TQM) implementation technique requiring clear
assessment of client/end-user expectations apart from
the basic needs of a project to convert them into design
targets. Within the context of this paper, an attempt has
been made to discuss QFD as a strategic tool to increase
client satisfaction with a step-by-step implementation of

0360-1323/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.07.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
246 I. Dikmen et al. / Building and Environment 40 (2005) 245–255
the methodology to a high-rise housing project and to
depict limitations and challenges of QFD implementa-
tions in construction industry as a result of extensive
literature survey. For this purpose, the previous works
on the subject area have been categorized to find out the
limitations reducing the applicability of QFD in con-
struction. By considering these limitations, critical
success factors (CSFs) for increasing the applicability
in construction projects are proposed.
2. QFD and its major benefits
As Preece et al. [2] stated ‘‘rewards go to these who
can best understand customer needs and deliver the
greatest value to their clients’’. Hence, companies
serving the quality expected by their clients using quality
tools and techniques will receive the awards. Being one
of these quality tools, QFD has been defined by its
originator Yoji Akao [3] as ‘‘a method for developing a
design quality aimed at satisfying the customer and then
translating the customer’s demands into design targets
and major quality assurance points to be used through-
out the production phase’’. It is a highly effective and
structured planning tool to deal with client demands
more systematically and defining what they want
precisely to do it right in the first time. QFD is produced
to be used at early stages of a project in order to produce
more accurate decisions by focusing on project budgets
in terms of quality and client’s needs [4]. However, using
the same methodology as a decision-making tool at later
stages also may be beneficial.
In the construction industry, usually the client needs
and requirements are not treated systematically. Even if
they are collected before the design phase, they tend to
be disregarded and finally vanish as the construction
phase goes on. Usually, the client needs/expectations
together with quality standards are defined during the
project requirement and feasibility stages. Due to the
lack of integration between the parties involved in a
project and lack of attention given to collection of client
needs at these stages, problems in terms of buildability,
delays due to incomplete designs, misunderstanding of
client expectations, rework, etc. are observed. QFD
applications have many benefits in reducing the quality
related problems. These benefits have been observed to
concentrate on the following headings; identification of
client needs and expectations, planning, communication
and concurrency; and uncertainty reduction [5–9].
 Precise collection and identification of client needs/
expectations: The methodology provides a systematic
way to collect and identify client needs. Client
expectations are collected at earlier stages and used
to provide the correct design solutions. Usually in
construction projects, design solutions are decided by
designers and this gives way to observation of
designer selections in the final facility rather than
the client expectations, leading to reduced satisfac-
tion. QFD is proved to be helpful in both collecting
and transferring client expectations into design
solutions without them diminishing as the project
goes on when used parallel to the traditional design
process.
 Better planning: QFD helps to track client expecta-
tions from the start till the end of the project and any
possible distortions can be checked in time.
 Enhanced communication and concurrency: QFD
necessitates cross functional team formations so that
client needs are collected and converted accurately
into design targets without sacrificing any of them.
Therefore, it forces the parties to integrate their work
through the use of concurrent procedures and
processes.
 Reduced uncertainty: Early identification of client
expectations minimizes uncertainty as the project
phases develop. Reduced cycle time and redesigns
are observed with QFD since, project teams thor-
oughly know what to produce from the beginning.
Accordingly, both clients and contractors would benefit
from QFD usage during different phases of a project.
Clients would obtain optimum definition of project
requirements and a higher conformance of the project to
preset targets, whereas contractors would experience
fewer conflicts with owners due to better definition of
their demands, minimal rework and fewer abortive cost
increases during project execution.
3. QFD applications in construction literature review
Although the interests in QFD applications in
construction are growing slowly, there are only a small
number of QFD implementation examples in the
construction management literature. Various applica-
tions within the literature can be grouped under three
categories as: QFD implementations before the design
stage; QFD implementations during the design stage
and QFD implementations after the design stage.
3.1. QFD implementations before the design stage
The construction literature is quite limited in terms of
the number of QFD applications and the number of
examples in this category is even fewer due to the
unawareness of the sector participants about this
technique. As demonstrated by Pheng and Yeap [1], 14
out of 15 respondents in the construction sector were
unaware of the QFD tool. The unique application of
QFD in this category is used for the assessment of
corporate service quality performance of design/build
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Dikmen et al. / Building and Environment 40 (2005) 245–255
(D/B) contractors by Arditi and Lee [10]. Owners before
the project-planning phase may be willing to select a D/
B firm and therefore should be well informed about the
quality performance of potential firms on their bidding
list. In the research of Arditi and Lee [10], QFD has
been utilized to measure the corporate service quality of
a D/B firm and concluded that QFD can be used as a
ranking mechanism for the selection of D/B firms. A
similar application by Ahmed et al. [6] confirmed that
QFD could be successfully applied during civil engineer-
ing capital project planning.
3.2. QFD implementations during the design stage
The majority of the examples in the literature are
observed to fall in this category as originally, QFD was
proposed for this stage. First, Mallon and Mulligan [4]
introduced the construction literature with QFD meth-
odology and proved the applicability of QFD in design
of a hypothetical renovation project. Next, Huovila et
al. [11] utilized the methodology for finalizing the
structural design of an industrial building, whereas it
has been applied to determine the design characteristics
of an internal layout of a building complex by Serpell
and Wagner [12]. By using QFD methodology, Gar-
gione [13] changed the design of a single apartment
according to end-user requirements. Similarly, the client
requirements processing model developed by Kamara
and Anumba [9,14,15] employed QFD for processing of
client requirements. They utilized QFD for determining
the actual requirements for a building project, namely,
Teesside Innovation Centre at the University of Tees-
side. In a similar manner, Huovila and Nieminen [16]
activated QFD for supporting the design of eco-efficient
buildings, specifically nursery schools and villas,
whereas, Eldin and Hikle [17] applied QFD in the
development of the conceptual design for a modern
large-size college classroom.
3.3. QFD implementations after the design stage
In the construction management literature, the
benefits of QFD usage after the design stage has not
been explored widely yet. Although, it is better to
implement QFD as early as possible in a construction
project, it is not too late to benefit from QFD even after
the construction stage is over. In this paper, use of QFD
after the construction stage, as a decision-making aid
during marketing will be demonstrated by a case study.
QFD can be used as a tool to make comparisons
between competitors and to gain knowledge of the
expectations of end users to be used in the forthcoming
projects. Especially, in the housing sector, where there
are repetitive types of projects, knowledge gained from
the current project can be used for forthcoming projects
to increase customer satisfaction levels. Therefore, the
247
validity of the model to construction projects after the
design stage has been verified by a case study [18]. In the
next paragraphs, the case study findings will be
presented.
4. Case study: QFD application in a housing project
The case study covers a QFD exercise carried out by a
medium-large scale construction company mainly in-
volved in the housing sector. The company, whose name
is withheld due to confidentiality reasons, is an
experienced builder that has constructed various hous-
ing complexes mainly within the region of Ankara. At
the time of the QFD exercise, the construction phase of
the big housing complex was over and the company was
trying to formulate an effective marketing strategy to
sell the units. The total area of the high-rise housing
complex was 23 000 m2 where 11 388 m2 was utilized for
social facilities and housing units. The remaining area
was reserved for recreational purposes.
The aims of the QFD exercise are indicated as
follows:
1. determination of a marketing strategy by identifica-
tion of expectations of the target customer groups
and comparing the strengths/weaknesses of the
housing complex with those of alternative housing
projects available in the market;
2. using the current QFD exercise findings to facilitate
decision-making in forthcoming projects;
3. formulation of a systematic procedure which may
guide the decision makers in all stages of the
construction value chain including feasibility analysis
and design so that the company may create a
competitive advantage within the housing market
by ‘‘quality differentiation’’.
The above-mentioned objectives imply that although
the current exercise is mainly for a short-term marketing
solution, it also has a long-term dimension as it will
constitute the initial stage of an institutionalized effort
to maximize quality in housing projects. The company
was not aware of the QFD methodology and had not
employed it in any of its previous housing projects.
QFD has been introduced by the researchers as a
solution method as it can incorporate identification of
customer needs, convert them into quality indicators
and facilitate competitive benchmarking in a structured
way. Then, the organizational infrastructure (availabil-
ity of databases, utilized environmental scanning tools,
etc.) has been examined to check whether necessary
information resources exist within the company to guide
the QFD exercise.
QFD methodology has many steps to follow, all of
which are interconnected to form the house of quality
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
248 I. Dikmen et al. / Building and Environment 40 (2005) 245–255

Technical correlations the database owned by the company has been

Section V
Technical measures
Planning matrix investigated to extract customer expectations for
Section II
high-rise building complexes. Results of customer
surveys, face-to-face interviews with potential buyers
Section I Section IV Section III
and complaints received from previous projects have
Section VI
constituted the entries of this database. An alternative
Voice of customers
Relationship matrix way of determining VOC related to the housing
Targets project under investigation was to form an inter-
disciplinary research team responsible for providing
Fig. 1. Basic house of quality matrix (HOQ) [7]. expert opinions/judgments. This joint research team
comprised of 5 members, 2 of which were the project
manager and chief-site engineer of the housing
matrices. The HOQ matrix whose name derives from its project, whereas the remaining 3 were the authors of
house-like appearance is a combination of sub-matrices this paper. After conducting a series of brainstorming
used to increase customer satisfaction by producing sessions and utilizing QFD tools like affinity dia-
products/projects exactly demanded by the customers. grams, tree diagrams and matrix diagrams, the joint
The sections constituting the HOQ matrix are namely research team managed to determine the 25 most
(Fig. 1): important criteria that would satisfy the customers of
this high-rise building project. The determined custo-
 Section I : Customer needs and requirements (voice of
mer needs are presented in Table 1. Finally, it has
customer, VOC)
been agreed that, customers of such a project would
 Section II: Technical measures
require a prestigious district as the location of their
 Section III: Planning matrix
houses as well as the ease of accessibility and closeness
 Section IV: Relationship matrix
to the city centre. These requirements have been
 Section V: Correlation matrix
collected under the heading of ‘social differentiation’
 Section VI: Weights, benchmarks and targets

More information can be found in Akao [3], Ahmed Table 1

Voice of customers section of HOQ matrix
et al. [6], Eldin [17] and Birgonul et al. [18] about the
QFD steps and construction of the HOQ. For the Customer needs/expectations
purpose of collecting necessary information to construct Location/ 1. Social differentiation
the HOQ matrix, several interviews have been con- district
Size 2. Large apartment unit
ducted with top level executives of the company, who
are also members of the research team. In the rest of this Comfort 3. Functionality and quality of materials/fixed
section, the step-by-step procedure conducted in the furniture used in the kitchen
aforementioned QFD exercise will be explained and the and 4. Functionality and quality of accessories/
outputs of each step will be discussed briefly. materials used in bathroom(s)
Convenience 5. Availability of independent/in house storage
unit
4.1. Determination of the target group 6. Architectural layout of the apartment unit
Security 7. Security from external threats
Before starting to identify customer needs and filling Car safety 8. Parking area/garage
the 1st section of the HOQ matrix, the customer profile
Social facilities 9. Indoor swimming pool
of the project has to be defined. The targeted customer
10. Tennis courts
group as defined by the company professionals cover 11. Fitness centre
middle and high income people who are seeking 12. Playrooms and play field for the children
differentiation in housing units through aesthetics, 13. Mini football field
favourable location and availability of social facilities. 14. Sufficient green area for recreational purposes
Strength 15. Earthquake resistance
HVAC 16. Air conditioning
4.2. Constructing the HOQ matrix 17. Efficient central heating
Energy 18. Continuous water and electricity supply
The steps followed during the research for applying 19. Low energy costs and high thermal quality
QFD methodology to this high-rise housing project are Fire safety 20. Availability of smoke/fire detectors
21. Efficient fire extinguishing system
summarized below:
Elevators 22. Sufficient number of elevators with high speed
 As stated before, the first step in the application is to Scenery 23. Good and fascinating sight
Management 24. Efficient building management
identify the expectations of the target customer
Aesthetics 25. Exterior appearance of the facility
groups from the project. To achieve this purpose,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Dikmen et al. / Building and Environment 40 (2005) 245–255
and assigned with the highest importance level.
Likewise, the other possible expectations of the
targeted customers from this project have been
investigated and given importance levels accordingly.
Importance levels have been assigned by considering
the customer priorities learnt from previous projects.
Similarly, the research team identified other projects
having compatible properties and also completed in
the same time period as the case project and obtained
necessary information about these projects. Accord-
ingly, starting from the most valued customer need to
the least, subjective customer evaluations for each
rival company have been decided on. These evalua-
tions have been used to complete the planning matrix.
 The technical measures corresponding to each custo-
mer need have been identified in the next step.
Technical measures reflect the solutions selected by
the company to supply the customers with their needs.
They help the different disciplines working on the
project, to understand customer requirements in the
same meaning and avoid confusions that can be faced
while interpreting the customer needs. The corre-
sponding technical indicator of each customer re-
quirement listed in the HOQ matrix has been found in
order to reach the correct targets that would mostly
satisfy the buyers. Technical measures, which have
been identified as a result of brainstorming sessions,
are listed in Table 2.
 In order to fill the appropriate section of the HOQ
matrix (Section 4), the relationships between customer
needs and technical measures have to be identified
subjectively by the research team. This step is essential
to understand the contribution of each technical
measure in overall customer satisfaction level as well
as to see how the technical measures are helpful to
satisfy each customer expectation. The scoring scale
and the corresponding explanation of relations
utilized within the case study are shown in Table 3.
All of the relationships are defined in Fig. 2.
 The performance of the company on meeting each
customer need has been compared with its major
rivals’ performance. As a result of this comparison,
the customer requirements necessitating improve-
ments have been identified and goals have been set
for better meeting each of them. The goals have been
set by considering the best alternative for each
customer expectation as compared to major rivals.
Improvement ratios for each customer need, which
are found by dividing the goal to the current
performance, are calculated. For instance, ‘‘availabil-
ity of sufficient green area for recreational purposes’’
has an initial importance level of 8. The performance
of the current company in satisfying this need is given
a score of 3 whereas the competitors have a
corresponding performance score of 5. Thus, the
target performance level is decided to be 5 and the
249
Table 2
Technical measures section of HOQ matrix
Technical measures
1. Location of the housing units (which district of the city)
2. Size of the apartment units (m2 )
3. Provision of fixed furniture and materials according to customer
selection
4. Provision of materials and accessories according to customer
selection
5. Size of storage unit for each apartment (m2 )
6. Functional architectural layout
7. Security system (cameras, fences, password protected entrance gates,
etc.) and professional security team (# of members in the team)
8. Number of parking space reserved for each apartment unit (#)
9. Daily capacity of swimming pool(s)
10. Number of tennis courts (#)
11. Daily capacity of the fitness center
12. Total size of the play field for children (m2 )
13. Total size of the mini football field (m2 )
14. Total area reserved for recreational purposes (m2 )
15. Type of structural system and foundation
16. Individual AC system for each apartment unit
17. Central heating system for the complex
18. Capacity of the generator (kva) and water tank (m3 )
19. Heat and sound insulation
20. Installation of smoke detectors (#)
21. Fire extinguisher system
22. Number/capacity of elevators
23. Dimensions of windows for good sight
24. A company assigned for operation and maintenance of buildings
25. Architectural appearance
Table 3
Scoring scale and corresponding explanation of relations
Score Meaning of relation/linkage
9 Strong relationship
3 Moderate relationship
1 Weak relationship
0 No relationship
improvement ratio is found by dividing the target
level (5) to the current performance level (3). The
improvement ratio is calculated as 1.67. Furthermore,
the revised weight of the customer expectation is
found by multiplying the improvement ratio (1.67)
with the original importance weight (8). Thus, the
revised weight is approximately 13.36. The purpose of
this calculation is to increase the weight of the
customer needs where the company is unsuccessful
in meeting so far and to bring these issues to the
attention of the development team.
 The interactions between technical measures have
been examined and assigned in the roof of the matrix
as shown in Fig. 2. Finally, the weights of the
technical measures have been calculated by multi-
plying each customer need’s revised weight with the
relationship score on the same row and adding them
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
250 I. Dikmen et al. / Building and Environment 40 (2005) 245–255
Fig. 2. HOQ matrix.
column-wise (see Fig. 2). After these calculations have
been made for each technical measure, the weights
have been analysed and the most important ones have
been identified. This identification process has also
showed the order of measures needing improvements
to provide the customers with what they mostly want
to see in the final stage of the project.
 In order to decide on the specific targets for technical
measures, the rival companies’ performances with
respect to each technical measure have been evaluated
and the best performance has been determined as the
target level. The final weights of technical measures
and selected targets for the project are shown in
Fig. 3.
5. Findings of the case study
 The major output of the analysis is the HOQ shown in
Fig. 2. The results achieved in Fig. 2 demonstrated
that, the five most important technical measures
which contributed to the success of the project were;
‘location of the housing complex’, ‘functional archi-
tectural layout of the apartment units’, ‘total size of
each apartment unit’, ‘security system/professional
security team’ and finally, ‘area reserved for recrea-
tional purposes/good sight’. Those points should be
highlighted during the marketing efforts as these
points are most valued by the end users. The better
the customer satisfaction, the more successful will be
the selling of the units in the short run. In the long
run, the improved customer satisfaction will bring
good reputation meaning increased competitive ad-
vantage within the housing market.
 The calculations performed to find the weights of
customer needs are important to highlight the needs
that require improvements. The initial importance
levels reflect the importance of each need in the eyes
of customers. In the case study, the three most
important customer demands were listed as; ‘social
differentiation’, ‘large apartment units’ and ‘security
from external threats’. After the strategic decision-
making process, goals have been set which in the end
affected the revised weights of the needs. When the
revised weights, which show the order of importance
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Dikmen et al. / Building and Environment 40 (2005) 245–255
Fig. 3. Technical benchmarks and final targets section of the HOQ matrix.
to the decision-makers has been investigated, it is
observed that many of the weights have been
increased leading to a change in the order of priority.
Setting goals by benchmarking the performance of the
rivals increased the weighting of the customer needs
requiring urgent improvements. According to the
results obtained, the three most significant customer
needs have been ranked as; ‘security from external
threats’, ‘parking area/garage’, and ‘sufficient green
area for recreational purposes’.
 Moreover, if the relationship matrix of the HOQ
matrix given in Fig. 2 is investigated column-wise, the
significance and contribution of each technical
measure in satisfying overall customer needs can be
seen. The output of the case study (Fig. 2) has shown
that, the technical measures, namely; ‘total size of
each apartment unit’, ‘location of the housing
complex’ and ‘company assigned for the operation
and maintenance of the complex’ have been the
highest contributors in the overall success of the
project. Similarly, if the relationship matrix is
investigated row-wise, the contributions of all the
251
technical measures in satisfying a single customer
need are observed. Again in Fig. 2, customer needs,
namely; ‘low energy costs/high thermal quality’,
‘exterior appearance of the whole facility’ and
‘efficient central heating system’ have been linked
with the highest number of technical measures. So,
they have been the customer needs that could be
handled with the highest number of technical
measures and also shows the success of the develop-
ment team while assigning technical measures.
 The company professionals were satisfied with the
results of the QFD exercise, as it helped them to
identify customer needs and carry out competitive
benchmarking in a structured way. It was evident that
the major CSF was availability of databases about
customer expectations, complaints, etc. which facil-
itates the data collection phase significantly. Also, a
competitor intelligence system is an imperative as in
order to set accurate and reliable goals, the company
should know the properties and technical solutions
proposed by the rival companies working on similar
projects. As a result of the QFD exercise, the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
252 I. Dikmen et al. / Building and Environment 40 (2005) 245–255
company decided to use the QFD methodology in
forthcoming projects and establish an information
infrastructure within the company to manage quality.
Thus, as well as determination of a marketing
strategy, company professionals were able to con-
struct a foundation for a structured value manage-
ment system which may be used in the forthcoming
projects.
 Almost 1.5 years after the QFD implementation, a
follow-up interview has been conducted with the same
company professionals. They note that the company
used the outputs of the QFD exercise in a new
housing project which had a very similar target
customer group. Furthermore, they declared that
the marketing strategy determined by the QFD
exercise reduced the selling period of the housing
units considerably, although the exact impact could
not be quantified exactly. However, in forthcoming
projects, they are planning to carry out a new QFD
exercise as the rivals have changed as well as the
customer expectations.
6. Limitations and constraints of QFD
As well as its benefits defined so far, the QFD
methodology has some limitations for practical imple-
mentation. QFD methodology encounters some pro-
blems in construction projects regardless of which stage
of construction it is utilized. The potential limitations
should be noted for the potential users of QFD so that
corrective actions can be planned beforehand. These
limitations and breakthroughs which have been experi-
enced both in the case study implementation and
reviewed in the literature findings can be classified under
two categories as global limitations (i.e. limitations
due to its philosophy) and application-specific limita-
tions (i.e. limitations according to its practical
implementation).
6.1. Global limitations
Typically, one of the most important challenges of the
QFD technique is its being mainly quality based.
Quality is the primary issue of QFD methodology for
increasing client satisfaction levels in a project. The
technique lacks comprehensiveness in terms of budget,
schedule, technology constraints of the project or other
company specific constraints. The considerations on
these issues are not incorporated and analysis is carried
out as if they are limitless resources. However, it is
proven that budget constraints together with other
timing and resource limitations affect QFD implemen-
tation performance [1]. In the case study presented
above, the price of the housing units was a significant
decision criterion that should be taken into account
while making comparisons between alternative housing
projects, which was neglected within the QFD analysis.
In a similar manner, from a strategic management
point of view, the methodology does not consider the
strategic objectives of the organization. Although the
planning matrix part of the HOQ matrix encounters
the rivals’ selection during decision-making, it does not
consider resource allocation in the current project
according to the long-term objectives of the organiza-
tion. However, a better understanding of the methodol-
ogy and utilization of it according to the strategic
objectives would yield optimum solutions both for the
projects and the organization as a whole.
Subjectivity in decision-making is another constraint
of the methodology. The formation of the HOQ matrix
is mainly done by subjective judgments rather than
concrete solutions. This may reduce the reliability of the
methodology because the decisions reflect preferences
and judgments of the team responsible for QFD
implementation.
Also, the fact that, in the traditional procurement
system, the design and construction is carried out by
different parties creates a major problem for the overall
success of the QFD methodology if it is applied before
or during the design stage. It is evident that the
methodology is more useful for a D/B project where a
single party is responsible for every phase of the project
or for repetitive type of projects (like pipeline, housing,
highway, etc.).
Apart from these, the lack of awareness about QFD
process within construction companies or professionals
in this area brings further problems for implementa-
tions. Moreover, the consideration of QFD implemen-
tation as a unique and standalone activity leads to a
reduction of performance. Rather, the methodology
should be part of a quality program in a quality-oriented
organization. Quality consciousness must be deployed in
the company culture together with real commitment to
continuous improvement. Otherwise, the implementa-
tions will not produce the required performance.
In a similar manner, the cross functionality and
concurrent-working environment inside the organiza-
tions should be enhanced. Customer needs can only be
satisfied with cross functional communications so that
the misunderstandings are eliminated which are ob-
served mainly in ‘throw over the wall’ type orientations
[20]. Cross-functionality is hard to attain in the
construction industry, since different parties are respon-
sible for different parts of the project.
6.2. Application-specific limitations
One of the major problems faced in the QFD
applications is poor definition of the customers. In the
construction industry, the customer is usually known at
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Dikmen et al. / Building and Environment 40 (2005) 245–255
the beginning of the project. Therefore the seriousness of
the problem may not be significant for the construction
industry in general. In the case study given in this paper,
as the project type was ‘‘build and sell’’, the definition of
the customer was a critical activity which could
significantly affect the outcome of the QFD exercise.
Another point is the application process itself. The
process is lengthy requiring great time, resource and
effort to perform. The size of the matrices in HOQ
matrix may vary according to the project but generally
speaking, large and complex matrices are formed in the
implementation of QFD. This sometimes leads to
misunderstandings and miscalculations in the matrix
formations as also experienced in the case study
example. As a remedy, the process can be computerized
but this would incur capital investments for the
formation of the necessary infrastructure.
Formation of the team for QFD implementation is
another challenge faced during the implementation of
the methodology. One of the most important tasks is the
team formation phase since their experience and
intuition determine the necessary design attributes and
solve conflicts among them. The better the team is
formed, the more accurate will be the completion of the
matrices. Inadequacy of the professionals having knowl-
edge on QFD, quality standards or design attributes will
also hinder the successful implementation of the
methodology.
Apart from these, during implementation of QFD,
trying to reduce the wide variety of client needs into a
manageable number, choosing the right technical
measures for each VOC, deciding on the correct
relations between the VOC and technical measures,
finding the optimum design targets are observed as other
challenges faced by the authors.
As a conclusion, it is not wrong to say that QFD is
hard to implement and still not widely used by
contractors for quality improvement. Contractors are
subject to push (like compulsory applications by
government) or pull (like self-actualization needs)
factors varying from organization to organization [1].
This means that, although CSFs are taken into account
to minimize the limitations of the methodology, it will
take a long time for QFD to be used widely in
construction projects during different stages of con-
struction value chain.
7. How to improve applicability of QFD
implementations?
As the limitations and challenges of QFD are grouped
under two categories, the remedies and possible
recommendations for improving the applicability of
QFD in construction projects will be provided in two
253
distinct groups; as recommendations for global limita-
tions and CSFs for implementations.
7.1. Recommendations for global limitations
 To reduce the general limitations due to inadequate
consideration of cost constraints, a wider framework
for the methodology is necessary. The reliability of
the model would be more promising if the model
produced solutions by considering cost and schedule
constraints. Finding solutions as if the company or
project resources are limitless does not reflect reality.
Therefore, a revised QFD framework covering cost
constraints to optimize resources and decisions is
essential. The current framework of QFD should be
improved with a model incorporating the cost
dimension into the calculations. The model proposed
by Bode and Fund [21] for evaluation of cost-quality
tradeoffs can be a solution to this problem. This
model tries to integrate cost into the QFD framework
so that an optimization is performed for customer
satisfaction and cost of the resources.
 The strategic implementation of QFD has not been
considered so far. It is a widely known fact that if
QFD is implemented in a quality oriented organiza-
tion, the ultimate effect of QFD will be felt in the
achievement of the overall objectives of the company
[19]. This is because the client satisfaction in the
current project will bring client retention, as the
clients will prefer the company in their later projects.
Similarly, better designs with QFD will result in
reduced construction costs, which is another source of
competitive advantage for the company. When the
design deviates, which are observed as the principal
reasons for project cost deviations [22] are reduced
considerably by focusing on the client expectations at
earlier stages, this will create price differentiation for
the company. Also, as demonstrated by the case
study, using QFD as a tool to select a marketing
strategy may significantly increase the effectiveness of
the marketing efforts.
 QFD can be employed in any stage of the project
according to the different needs of the company. As
demonstrated in the case study, the expectations from
the methodology should match with the potential
outputs of QFD.
 The subjective assignment of the relationships and
weights in the matrices is another important limita-
tion of the QFD methodology. The impreciseness and
vagueness in the subjective inputs reduce the relia-
bility of the decisions quite considerably. Therefore
systems that take into account these vague calcula-
tions should be imposed to the conventional QFD
calculations. Quantitative methods such as artificial
neural networks, analytical hierarchy process and
fuzzy logic can be combined with the model to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
254 I. Dikmen et al. / Building and Environment 40 (2005) 245–255
improve the reliability of the decisions. For instance,
the fuzzy QFD system proposed by Yang et al. [23],
which defines triangular fuzzy members to capture
vagueness of the fuzzy linguistic terms and to reduce
subjectivity, can be a solution for this problem.
 In summary, total involvement in quality and con-
current working environment are necessary for
successful implementations. Therefore, the corporate
culture of the organizations should support these
items for attaining higher performance in QFD
applications.
7.2. CSFs for QFD implementations
 The lengthy process can be easier to handle if
computer applications like QFD software are utilized.
Similarly, knowledge of QFD has to be maintained by
the professionals responsible for the implementations.
On the job training, seminars from outsiders, etc. can
be helpful for this purpose.
 Application time is another important success criter-
ion for QFD. Application of the methodology at
earlier stages of the projects as soon as possible
to avoid late engineering changes, redesigns and
omission of the client requirements is strongly
recommended.
 The QFD team must be defined with great care to
achieve reliable outputs from the methodology as the
QFD team’s subjectivity, experience and knowledge
plays a significant role in the output of the HOQ
matrix.
 Apart from these, as experienced from the case study
project, utilization of quality tools like affinity
diagrams and tree diagrams to reduce the customer
needs into coherent and measurable number can bring
considerable assistance.
8. Conclusions
Within the context of this research, the QFD
methodology has been applied to a real construction
project and its applicability in the wider construction
sector has been discussed. According to the case study
implementation, it has been observed that QFD can be
utilized to determine the right marketing strategy, to
make a comparison with the competing alternatives and
to collect data which could increase client satisfaction
level in upcoming projects. Thus, using QFD during the
marketing stage as an uncovered application area has
been demonstrated.
Although applicability and benefits of QFD have
been demonstrated many times for the design stage of
construction projects, limitations and challenges have
not been covered in depth within the construction
management literature. This paper is intended to list
these limitations in a categorical format and propose
CSFs to eliminate some of these limitations to improve
the applicability of the technique for construction
projects. To ensure the best performance in QFD
applications, CSFs should be taken into account.
So far, the construction industry has failed to under-
stand or has ignored the QFD methodology as a tool to
increase the quality of projects, as it is perceived by the
end users. However, as the number of successful
implementations increase by considering these CSFs
and the companies experience the potential benefits in
various stages of construction, it is believed that they
will use QFD both to minimize quality-related costs and
to sustain a successful strategic position in the long run.
References
[1] Pheng LS, Yeap L. Quality function deployment in design/build
projects. Journal of Architectural Engineering 2001;7(2):30–9.
[2] Preece CN, Moodley K, Smith AM. Corporate communication in
construction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific; 1998.
[3] Akao Y. Quality function deployment: integrating customer
requirements into product design. Cambridge: Productivity Press;
1992.
[4] Mallon JC, Mulligan DE. Quality function deployment—a system
for meeting customers’ needs. Journal of Construction Engineer-
ing and Management 1993;119(3):516–31.
[5] Tran TL, Sherif JS. Quality function deployment (QFD): an
effective technique for requirements acquisition and reuse.
Proceedings of IEEE int. software engng. standard symposium,
Los Alomitos, CA, 1995.
[6] Ahmed SM, Sang LP, Torbica ZM. Use of quality function
deployment in civil engineering capital project planning. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 2003;129(4):
358–68.
[7] Hauser JR, Clausing D. The house of quality. Harvard Business
Review 1988; 63–73.
[8] Ranky PG. Concurrent/simultaneous engineering (methods, tools
& case studies). West Yorkshire: CIMware Limited; 1994.
[9] Kamara JM, Anumba CJ, Evbuomwan FO. Client requirements
processing in construction: a new approach using QFD. Journal
of Architectural Engineering 1999;5(1):8–15.
[10] Arditi D, Lee D. Assessing the corporate service quality
performance of design-build contractors using quality function
deployment. Construction Management and Economics 2003;21:
175–85.
[11] Huovila P, Lakka A, Laurikka P, Vainio M. Involvement of
customer requirements in building design. In: Alarcon L, editor.
Lean construction. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1997. p. 403–16.
[12] Serpell A, Wagner R. Application of quality function deployment
(QFD) to the determination of the design characteristics of
building apartments. In: Alarcon L, editor. Lean construction.
Rotterdam: Balkema; 1997. p. 355–63.
[13] Gargione LA. Using quality function deployment (QFD) in the
design phase of an apartment construction project. Proceedings of
the IGLC-7, 26–28 July, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
USA, 1999.
[14] Kamara JM, Anumba CJ, Evbuomwan FO. Computer-based
application for the processing of clients’ requirements. Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering 2000;14(4):264–71.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Dikmen et al. / Building and Environment 40 (2005) 245–255
[15] Kamara JM, Anumba CJ. ClientPro: a prototype software for
client requirements processing in construction. Advances in
Engineering Software 2001;32:141–58.
[16] Huovila P., Nieminen, J. QFD as a trade-off tool in the
performance approach. CIB World Building Congress, April,
Wellington, New Zealand, 2001.
[17] Eldin N, Hikle V. Pilot study of quality function deployment in
construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 2003;129(3):314–29.
[18] Birgonul MT, Dikmen I, Kiziltas S. Application of quality
function deployment (QFD) methodology to housing projects.
Proceedings of the fifth international congress in civil engineer-
ing, 25–27 September, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul,
Turkey, 2002.
255
[19] Cohen L. Quality function deployment: how to make QFD work
for you. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company;
1995.
[20] Revelle JB, Moran JW, Cox CA. The QFD handbook. New
York, USA: Wiley; 1998.
[21] Bode J, Fund YK. Cost engineering with quality function
deployment. Computers and Engineering 1998;35(3–4):
587–90.
[22] Burati JL, Farrington JJ. Costs of quality deviations in design and
construction. Source Document 29, Construction Industry
Institute, Clemson University, Clemson, 1987.
[23] Yang YQ, Wang SQ, Dulaimi M, Low SP. A fuzzy quality
function deployment system for buildable design decision-mak-
ings. Automation in Construction 2003;12:381–93.