Abstract
Customer satisfaction is one of the critical success factors to many leading companies over the world. Quality function deployment (QFD) has gained extensive international support as one of the powerful techniques to increase the customer satisfaction. In the QFD, correctly rating the final importance of customer requirements (CRs) is a crucial and essential process since it largely affects the target value setting of design requirements. The final importance ratings of CRs are generally determined by combining relative importance ratings and competitive priority ratings. However, determining the final importance ratings is very difficult due to the typical uncertainty or imprecision of customer’s judgment (or perceptions). This paper proposes a novel approach to prioritize CRs in QFD process by developing two sets of new rating methods, called customer preference rating (CPR) method and customer satisfaction rating (CSR) method, for relative importance ratings and competitive priority ratings, respectively. The CPR method provides a simple and intuitive technique to capture the customers’ incomplete or uncertain perceptions on the relative importance of CRs based on their own preferences, allowing them to give a partial ordering of CRs. The CSR method constructs the customer satisfaction model based on the competitive benchmarking analysis and then evaluates the performance quality of company product using our satisfaction and uncertainty measure. Furthermore, the CSR method is integrated with the Kano’s model to capture the different impacts of CRs on customer satisfaction. Finally, the proposed approach is illustrated with a numerical example of car door design problem.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Cristiano JJ, Liker JK, White CC III (2001) Key factors in the successful application of quality function deployment (QFD). IEEE Trans Eng Manag 48(1):81–95
Matzler K, Hinterhuber HH (1998) How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano’s model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment. Technovation 18(1):25–38
Chen CC, Chuang MC (2008) Integrating the Kano model into a robust design approach to enhance customer satisfaction with product design. Int J Prod Econ 114:667–681
Fung RYK, Yiliu TP, Chen Y (2003) Modeling of quality function deployment planning with resource allocation. Res Eng Des 14:247–255
Franceschini F, Rossetto S (1995) QFD: the problem of comparing technical/engineering design requirements. Res Eng Des 7:270–278
Cherif MS, Chabchoub H, Aouni B (2010) Integrating customer’s preferences in the QFD planning using a combined benchmarking and imprecise goal programming model. Int Trans Oper Res 17:85–102
Akao Y (1990) Quality function deployment: integrating customer requirements into product design. Productivity Press, Cambridge
Franceschini F (2001) Advanced quality function deployment. St. Lucia, Boca Raton
Cohen L (1995) Quality function deployment: how to make QFD work for you. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Hauser JR, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harv Bus Rev 66(3):63–73
Griffin A, Hauser JR (1993) The voice of customer. Mark Sci 12(1):1–27
Tran TL, Sherif JS (1995) Quality function deployment (QFD): an effective technique for requirements acquisition and reuse. In: Proceedings of the 2ndd IEEE Software Engineering Standards Symposium, Montreal, Canada pp 191–200
Chan LK, Kao HP, Wu ML (1999) Rating the importance of customer needs in quality function deployment by fuzzy and entropy methods. Int J Prod Res 37(11):2499–2518
Li Y, Tang J, Luo X, Xu J (2009) An integrated method of rough set, Kano’s model and AHP for rating customer requirements’ final importance. Expert Syst Appl 36(3):7045–7053
Li YL, Tang JF, Luo XG (2010) An ECI-based methodology for determining the final importance ratings of customer requirements in MP product improvement. Expert Syst Appl 37:6240–6250
Karsak EE, Sozer S, Alptekin SE (2002) Product planning in quality function deployment using a combined analytic network process and goal programming approach. Comput Ind Eng 44:171–190
Sireli Y, Kauffmann P, Ozan E (2007) Integration of Kano’s model into QFD for multiple product design. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 54(2):380–390
Tontini G (2003) Deployment of customer needs in the QFD using a modified Kano model. J Acad Bus Econ 2(1)
Tan KC, Shen XX (2000) Integrating Kano’s model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment. Total Qual Manag 11(8):1141–1151
Gonzalez ME, Quesada G, Bahill AT (2003) Improving product design using quality function deployment: the school furniture case in developing countries. Qual Eng 16(1):47–58
Kwong CK, Bai H (2002) A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment. J Intell Manuf 13:367–377
van de Poel I (2007) Methodological problems in QFD and directions for future development. Res Eng Des 18:21–36
Lai X, Xie M, Tan KC, Yang B (2008) Ranking of customer requirements in a competitive environment. Comput Ind Eng 54(1):202–214
Buyukozkan G, Ertay T, Kahraman C, Ruan D (2004) Determining the importance weights for the design requirements in the house of quality using the fuzzy analytic network approach. Int J Intell Syst 19(5):443–461
Chen CY, Chen LC, Lin L (2004) Methods for processing and prioritizing customer demands in variant product design. IIE Trans 36:203–219
Saaty TL (1998) The analytic hierarchy process. RWS, Pittsburg
Chuang PT (2001) Combining the analytic hierarchy process and quality function deployment for a location decision from a requirement perspective. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 18:842–849
Partovi FY (2007) An analytical model of process choice in the chemical industry. Int J Prod Econ 105:213–227
Ho W (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications. Eur J Oper Res 186:211–228
Saaty TL (2003) Decision making in complex environment, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for decision making and the analytic network process (ANP) for decision making with dependence and feedback. The Creative Decisions Foundations, Pittsburgh
Lee YT, Wu WW, Tzeng GH (2008) An effective decision-making method using a combined QFD and ANP approach. WSEAS Trans Bus Econ 12(5):541–551
Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York
Kwong CK, Bai H (2003) Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP and an extent analysis approach. IIE Trans 35(7):619–626
Nepal B, Yadav OP, Murat A (2010) A fuzzy AHP approach to prioritization of CS attributes in target planning for automotive product development. Expert Syst Appl 37:6775–6786
Wang J (1999) Fuzzy outranking approach to prioritize design requirements in quality function deployment. Int J Prod Res 37(4):899–916
Ertay T, Kahraman C (2007) Evaluation of design requirements using fuzzy outranking methods. Int J Intell Syst 22(12):1229–1250
Sauerwein E, Bailom F, Matzler K, Hinterhuber HH (1996) The Kano model: how to delight your customers. In: Proceedings of the IX International Working Seminar on Production Economics. Innsbruck, Austria
Kano N, Seraku N, Takahashi F, Tsuji S (1984) Attractive quality and must-be quality. J Jpn Soc Qual Control (Hinshitsu) 14(2):39–48
Berger C, Blauth R, Boger D et al (1993) Kano methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center Qual Manag J 2(4):2–36
Chaudha A, Jain R, Singh AR, Mishra PK (2010) Integration of Kano’s model into quality function deployment (QFD). Int J Adv Manuf Technol. doi:10.1007/s00170-010-2867-0
Nahm YE, Ishikawa H (2005) Representing and aggregating engineering quantities with preference structure for set-based concurrent engineering. Concurr Eng: Res Appl 13(2):123–133
Nahm YE, Ishikawa H (2006) A new 3D-CAD system for set-based parametric design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29:137–150
Han CH, Kim JK, Choi SH (2004) Prioritizing engineering characteristics in quality function deployment with incomplete information: a linear partial ordering approach. Int J Prod Econ 91:235–249
Gustafsson A, Gustafsson N (1994) Exceeding customer expectations. In: Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Quality Function Deployment. Novi, MI
Zimmermann HJ (2001) Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Kluwer, New York
Lial ML, Greenwell RN, Ritchey NP (2002) Finite mathematics. Addison Wesley, New York
Kim JB, Wallace D (1997) A goal-oriented design evaluation model. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Sacramento, California
Wood KL, Antonsson EK (1989) Computations with imprecise parameters in engineering design: background and theory. ASME J Mech, Transmissions Automation Design 111(4):616–625
Luoh L, Wang WJ (2000) A modified entropy for general fuzzy sets. Int J Fuzzy Syst 2(4):300–304
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nahm, YE., Ishikawa, H. & Inoue, M. New rating methods to prioritize customer requirements in QFD with incomplete customer preferences. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 65, 1587–1604 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4282-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4282-1