Benchmarking: An International Journal

Integrating quality function deployment and benchmarking to achieve greater

profitability
Ashok Kumar Jiju Antony Tej S. Dhakar
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ashok Kumar Jiju Antony Tej S. Dhakar, (2006),"Integrating quality function deployment and benchmarking
to achieve greater profitability", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Iss 3 pp. 290 - 310
Permanent link to this document:
[Link]
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

Downloaded on: 21 December 2014, At: 11:50 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 63 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@[Link]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2746 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
X.X. Shen, K.C. Tan, M. Xie, (2000),"Benchmarking in QFD for quality improvement", Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 282-291 [Link]
Hendry Raharjo, Kah Hin Chai, Min Xie, Aarnout C. Brombacher, (2010),"Dynamic benchmarking
methodology for quality function deployment", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 1 pp.
27-43 [Link]
Mahmoud M. Yasin, (2002),"The theory and practice of benchmarking: then and now", Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 9 Iss 3 pp. 217-243 [Link]

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 529950 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit [Link]/authors for more information.
About Emerald [Link]
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
[Link]/[Link]

BIJ
13,3 Integrating quality function
deployment and benchmarking to
achieve greater profitability
290
Ashok Kumar
Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
Jiju Antony
Caledonian Business School, Six Sigma Research Centre,
Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, and
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

Tej S. Dhakar
Professor of Quantitative Studies, School of Business,
Southern New Hampshire University, Manchester, New Hampshire, USA

Abstract
Purpose In this paper, the aim is to propose a framework for utilizing quality function deployment
(QFD) and benchmarking in combination to chalk out an improvement plan that redesigns or modifies
existing processes to a point where they consume the least amount of resources while imparting the
maximum value (in the sense of customer satisfaction) to the output.
Design/methodology/approach Using a real world case study, the paper demonstrates that the
marriage of two tools QFD and benchmarking is synergistic in its import and vital to a companys
strategic and financial superiority.
Findings The product and process design was improved by using the combination of QFD and
benchmarking techniques discussed in the paper. As a result, the company accomplished significant
financial and strategic results.
Research limitations/implications The case study includes competitiveness analysis at the first
house of quality (HOQ) but not at the subsequent HOQ due to lack of information from the competitors.
However, the paper demonstrates the competitiveness analysis at the first HOQ which can be extended
to all subsequent HOQ.
Practical implications The research would be useful to academicians and practitioners in
developing their own integrated versions of QFD and benchmarking methodologies to improve their
products and processes and gain strategic advantage.
Originality/value Despite the mutual dependence between a firms strategic and financial
performance and the consequent dependence on market share and profitability, which can both be
maximized using QFD and benchmarking, the research that employs both techniques is virtually
non-existent.
Keywords Quality function deployment, Customer satisfaction, Benchmarking, Competitive analysis,
Product design, Quality improvement
Paper type Research paper

Benchmarking: An International Introduction

Journal As the search for new tools, techniques, and strategic paradigms to meet and, more
Vol. 13 No. 3, 2006
pp. 290-310 appropriately, exceed the ever-increasing customer expectations rages on in the new
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-5771
millennium, two methodologies benchmarking and quality function deployment
DOI 10.1108/14635770610668794 (QFD) in conjunction with each other have the potential and the capability to help
 accomplish this goal. The discerning and stringent customer of today is no more Integrating QFD
satisfied with low-cost products; s(he) demands high quality, high variety/more and
options, and rapid delivery of a product all at the lowest possible cost. Since, all four
of these objectives are mutually conflicting i.e. each one drains resources at the cost benchmarking
of the other there is a dire need for an optimizing tool that helps guide the planning
and budgeting process with an eye on customer needs. By virtue of the way it is
designed, the QFD methodology assures, with high a degree of confidence, that a 291
company will design and develop its new products or product improvement programs
exactly the way that maximizes customer satisfaction using the least resources. Indeed,
using Knapsack type of modeling (Wasserman, 1993), it is possible to allocate
resources optimally in a fashion that maximizes the fulfillment of customer needs
(equivalently, increase in customer satisfaction) from a pre-specified budgetary
constraint. Additionally, QFD is a tool that is simple in its approach, rigorous in its
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

methodology, elegant in its content, and compulsive in its results.

While QFD is a powerful tool to identify what needs to be done to the product to
respond optimally to customers needs, benchmarking presents an opportunity to
optimize processes for maximizing the output value while minimizing the resources
used. Thus, if the goal of an organization is to maximize customer satisfaction for a
given amount of resources (or budget), QFD is a wonderful tool to use. However, if the
goal is to maximize customer satisfaction through the design of a new product or
modification of an exiting product, benchmarking helps design or modify processes
and/or practices that yield the most value while the resource usage is minimized. The
word value used here is in the generic sense and refers to those attributes of the
product that would improve customer satisfaction. There is ample empirical and
theoretical evidence that customers are more satisfied with a product compared to its
competitors if the product differentiates itself from others in the same class on quality,
level of customization, and/or delivery speed. With the advent of web hosting services,
during and after sales service have become additional variables in the determination
of customer satisfaction. In summary, QFD methodology helps design/modify a
product that maximizes customer satisfaction while benchmarking helps develop
processes that will produce such a product with the least resources. It is a tautology,
therefore, that a combination of benchmarking and QFD methodologies permits
extraordinary opportunity for companies to generate tremendous strategic advantage.
The burden of this paper is to illustrate how the service function of a manufacturing
company, acting as an independent consultant, brought about necessary product and
process innovations using QFD and benchmarking that resulted in significant
improvement in market share and profitability of the company.
We will provide a brief review of the overall concepts involved in the case study.
In a math programming parlance, any organizations strategic problem may
therefore be formulated as follows.
Assume that a companys strategic position is a function of just two variables: its
market share m and its profitability p. Let f(m, p) be a function that maps the strategic
position of a company from the exact values of the two variables m, p. Let b be the total
resources in dollars that a company is willing to invest to carve out a higher strategic
position. Then, the strategic formulation is:

Max fm; p subject to B # b; 1

 BIJ where B is the actual dollars spent. Here, one could reasonably argue that m is the value
function of customer satisfaction. One can further postulate, based on manufacturing
13,3 literature (Swamidass, 1986; Hayes and Pisano, 1996) that:
m gP; Q; C; D 2
where P is the price of the product, Q is the quality level, C is the degree of
292 customization or number of features, and D is the speed at which product is delivered.
g is an appropriate non-linear function. In turn, each of these (P, Q, C, and D) is a
function of resources spent and the efficiency with which the resources are managed to
build value in the product. If r is the resources spent in dollars, h represents the
efficiency and smartness with which resources are transformed into the product, then
one can reasonably construct the following model for profitability p:
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

p Km; r; h 3
where K is an appropriate function. The above equations represent a somewhat
circular argument, but it is evident that to improve the bottom line, resources must be
used efficiently and smartly, the latter implying that resource usage must be dedicated
to customer satisfaction.
Irrespective of the path one takes to reach the conjectures just stated, no one would
deny the fact that if one accepts the logic of (1) through (3), estimating the shape and
relationships embedded in f,g, and K are not easy to define or establish. This is where
QFD and benchmarking come to the rescue of an organization. QFD would help
optimize g (although it may not be explicit just the product design would establish
the levels of quality, customization, etc.), whereas benchmarking would help optimize
K. Despite mutual dependence between a firms strategic and financial performance
and the consequent dependence on market share and profitability which both can be
maximized using QFD and benchmarking, the research that employs both techniques
is virtually non-existent.

Literature survey on QFD and benchmarking

In this section, we review relevant literature in QFD first and then review few works
that combine benchmarking and QFD in their research. We found only nine such
papers on Proquest ABI Inform, and after study, only five were found useful to
review here. Others had pursued benchmarking and QFD as independent techniques in
their work.

Quality function deployment

QFD has been around for over three decades but it has begun to realize its full potential
as a powerful tool to improve companies strategic position only since 1990s.
Businesses that build their strategies around customer satisfaction are gradually
realizing that QFD, quite often in conjunction with Kano model (Shen et al., 2000a, b;
Tan and Shen, 2000) presents an excellent opportunity to converge on the exact
product that customers would love to buy. The power of QFD lies in the fact that, when
implemented properly, QFD yields a plan, a product, and/or a detailed budget that
would maximize customer satisfaction for a given number of dollars.
Originally developed by a Japanese shipbuilding firm in the early 1970s, QFD was
imported by the US auto industry in the 1980s and has now achieved widespread use
 throughout the world both in manufacturing products as well as in services. The Integrating QFD
Japanese first introduced QFD in a shipyard in 1967. QFD is translated from six and
Japanese Kanji characters Hin Shitsu Ki No Ten Kai whose meaning is shown in
Figure 1 (ASI, 1992). benchmarking
An important fact about the QFD is that the methodology of development of House
of Quality (HOQ) is so generic that it can be employed in a large variety of situations.
For instance, each HOQ has a set of customer needs (left room) and a set of product 293
requirements (top) that satisfy the customer needs. Thus, HOQ can be used in any
situation with an internal customer-supplier relationship. In other words, in any
situation of the type X needs Y, X can be an internal customer (equivalent to customer
needs) and Y can be the top of the HOQ. This fact is exploited in listening to the
customers voice through a four-step HOQ process that starts from customer needs and
ends at process controls (see QFD methodology section).
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

By virtue of the fact that the top of HOQ (product specifications) is designed so as to
deliver the left (customer requirements), QFD has been used extensively in a variety of
applications. First and the foremost, use of QFD is in new product or service design
and development or modification of existing products or services, especially when
there is limited budget allocation for such activities. For instance, QFD is used in
designing service offerings in healthcare sector (Dijkstra and van der Bij, 2002), in
software industry (Barnett and Raja, 1995), in construction industry (Abdul-Rahman
et al., 1999), in education or pedagogical applications (Houston and Lawrence, 1998;
Hwarng and Teo, 2000; Lam and Zhao, 1998; Motwani et al., 1996; Pitman et al., 1996),
in Airline industry (Ghobadian and Terry, 1995), IT-information modeling (Omar et al.,
1999); just to name a few. QFD has been employed very extensively in manufacturing
clothing manufacture (Chan et al., 2002), OEM (Parkin et al., 2002). In terms of
product design, QFD has not only been used to identify critical product specifications
commensurate with customer needs but also to prioritize the specifications in terms of
their importance. Franceschini and Rossetto (2002) develop an interactive algorithm
using QFD to prioritize the technical characteristics of any product design. Such
prioritization is absolutely necessary in order to bring about maximum customer
satisfaction with limited resources available. Jussel (2000) show how QFD can be used
to improve product design and thereby improve business performance for innovative
businesses competing on product customization. Lochamy and Khurana use QFD to
develop new products for Chrysler Motors. Fung et al. (1999) in the only study of its

HIN SHITSU KI NO TEN KAI

QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT

FEATURES MECHANIZATION DIFFUSION
ATTRIBUTES DEVELOPMENT
QUALITIES EVOLUTION Figure 1.
 BIJ kind (to our knowledge) demonstrate how the target levels of product attributes can be
13,3 determined when there is positive or negative interaction between the attributes (see
roof of HOQ description in next subsection). They employ fuzzy inference to arrive at
optimal product attributes.
Over the last decade, the theory of QFD has been significantly enriched by
employing various existing techniques in conjunction with QFD to simplify, prioritize
294 and optimize the product specifications that maximize customer satisfaction. Kwong
and Bai (2002) use AHP (analytical hierarchical process) and fuzzy sets theory for
determination of the importance of customer requirements. Bouchereau and Rowlands
(2000) use fuzzy logic, artificial neural networks, and the Taguchi methods to design an
automobile product with optimum specifications. Partovi (2001) uses a double-matrix
concept for quantifying Hesketts strategic service vision model. Delano et al. (2000)
combine decision theory with QFD to get the best product specifications for a
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

cargo/passenger aircraft. Ginn et al. (1998) combine FMEA and QFD methodologies to
develop a superior quality product for Ford. Finally, Wasserman (1993) use the concept
of Knapsack type solutions to maximize the customer satisfaction based on the
attribute selection. Owing to the flexibility of QFD and the scope of its application,
QFD has become a significant planning and strategic tool in its own right (Partovi,
2001; Lee and Ko, 2000; Lee et al., 2000; Lu and Kuei, 1995; Han et al., 2001; Tan and
Shen, 2000, and others).

Benchmarking and QFD

Benchmarking has been variously defined as the process of identifying,
understanding, and adapting outstanding practices from organizations anywhere in
the world to help your organization improve its performance. It is an activity that looks
outward to find best practice and high performance and then measures actual business
operations against those goals. According to a premier benchmarking web site (www.
[Link]/), the ten best organizations that are considered role model for
benchmarking are: Bank of America, Xerox, TRW, Dana, US Army, Saudi Aramco, US
Department of Veteran Affairs, DynMcDermot, NASA, and Social Security
Administration. Also the ten top business processes that are currently benchmarked
are: information systems technology, benchmarking, human resources, customer
service satisfaction, employee development training, call centers help desks, document
control records management, process improvement management, accounting, and
internal and external communications. Companies that have won Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award (please see [Link]) are generally good candidates for
benchmarking. Also, companies that have won other quality awards, such as EQFM
award, Australian Quality Award, Deming or Dr Juran Awardees are also good
candidates for benchmarking.
There are very few studies that combine QFD and benchmarking. Shen et al.
(2000a, b) suggest that: . . . customer satisfaction benchmarking can help decision
makers identify areas for improvement, make strategic decisions, and set targets
on desired satisfaction performance and propose the use of hierarchical
benchmarks for strategic competitor selection and decision making. The term
customer satisfaction benchmarking refers to comparing your own product on each
customer need (left side of HOQ) with that of your competitors and initiating
corrective action wherever your product falls short. Partovi (2001) presents an
 analytical method for quantifying Hesketts Strategic service vision for a service Integrating QFD
organization. Starting with two matrices in series that connect market segments, and
service processes, and QFD elements, patrovi uses Analytic Hierarchy Process and
Analytic Network Process techniques in a creative way to determine the benchmarking
synergistic effects of the column variables. Benchmarking is then used to identify
areas of breakthroughs in service performance.
Pfohl et al. (1999) employs benchmarking for the spare parts logistics in a German 295
mechanical industry. While benchmarking is used to identify areas of improvement,
total functional deployment (similar to QFD) is then employed to develop target levels
consistent with the projections from benchmarking. Ettlie (1993) states that
benchmarking had a significant impact on the process and organizational methods
by which new designs are formulated as well as on the QFD process that was used to
develop new products. In a three-phase plan development by AT&T to improve the
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

cycle time of their new products (Sansone and Singer, 1993), AT&T found using
benchmarking that they take anywhere between 133 and 250 per cent of the time taken
by their Japanese competitor. They used statistical process control and QFD to bring
their cycle time in line with that of their competitors.

QFD and benchmarking methodologies

What is QFD?
QFD is an interdisciplinary team process that aids in planning for new or improved
designs and processes such that:
.
focus is on customer requirements;
.
competitive environment and market/customers are factored into all decisions;
.
the inter-functional teamwork is strengthened;
.
customer requirements are translated into measurable goals for each
department; and
. the involvement of all employees is garnered towards listening to the voice of
customer.

The heart of the QFD methodology is what is called a HOQ which is shown in Figure 2.
Note specifically the interaction boxes which are part of advanced QFD methodology.
Primary purpose of these is to explain the interactions of the adjacent boxes that are
shown connected through shadowed arrows. Readers are referred to Prasad (1998) for
detailed explanation of advanced QFD.

The QFD methodology

The QFD methodology works through the concatenation of four (generally speaking)
houses of quality. Please see Figure 3. We provide synoptic details here. Readers are
advised to look up other works (ASI, 1992) for greater details.
It is useful to understand the role of an HOQ as a relationship between a customer
and a supplier where each of these terms is used in a generic sense. The box on the left
of the product features/characteristics relationship matrix (PFCRM) of the first HOQ
represents the needs of the customers which must be met to satisfy the customer. The
box at the top of the PFCRM box contains a list of product characteristics or features
that would satisfy those customer needs. The degree or level of satisfaction of customer
 BIJ
13,3 Features
Inter-relationships
Matrix (Roof)

Advanced
Product Features (HOWS) Advanced Interactions
Interactions
296

Customer Needs - Product

Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

Customer Needs Competitiveness Analysis

Characteristics/ Features Relationship
(Whats) Matrix
Matrix

Figure 2.
Advanced Target Determination Matrix (How-
House of quality with Interactions Muchs)
Advanced Interactions
advanced interactions

Product Part
Planning Deployment
Matrix Matrix

HO Q - I HO Q - II

Production Process
Control Planning
Matrix Matrix

Figure 3.
Sequence of HOQs
HO Q - IV HO Q - III
 needs depends on the levels at which the product characteristics exist in the present Integrating QFD
design of the product. Using the competitive analysis box the one on the right of the and
PFCRM box one determines the target levels of each of the product
characteristic/feature so as to maximize customer satisfaction for a given amount of benchmarking
resources (usually dollars). Interestingly, the competitiveness analysis matrix includes
a composite impact of customer needs, existing competitors products, and the
sales/revenue potential of each needs marginal improvement. In other words, the first 297
HOQ has in-built mechanism for external benchmarking.
The second HOQ, called the part deployment HOQ, helps assign the parts to each
feature/component of the product so as to meet the level of targets set in the first HOQ.
The analytical process is essentially the same although customers or competitors are
no more involved in the process or resultant action of this HOQ. This is pretty much
the internal matter of the company although some level of internal benchmarking can
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

be usefully employed here provided the company can peek into a competitors product
parts and features.
The third HOQ, called the process planning matrix, concentrates on development of
the best processes and practices that would deliver the target levels of specifications
set for each part or feature of the product. Once again, benchmarking can play a major
role here since we are talking about best practices/processes. Indeed, this HOQ in
conjunction with the first one determines the level of quality, customization, and agility
of delivery and of course the cost of the product. In other words, the quality of resource
management plays a vital role in constructing and managing the resources for
maximum customer satisfaction.
The last HOQ, called the production control matrix, makes sure that the processes
do exactly what they were expected or intended to do. This is the HOQ that makes sure
that the customer need is indeed fulfilled, that is, the customer voice is in reality heard.
The controls are so designed that they guarantee that the best processes and practices
projected in the third HOQ are indeed employed (e.g. through benchmarking). The best
practices and processes are so designed through the use of innovative engineering,
management or through benchmarking, that they maximize the accomplishment of
target levels of product features or characteristics set forth in the second HOQ. Finally,
since the product characteristics were developed using an analytical process that
guarantees maximum satisfaction of customer needs (embedded in the competitiveness
matrix), the reverse chain of HOQs ensures the fulfillment of customer needs or what is
alternatively described as listening to the customers.

Application of QFD and benchmarking: a real world study

We now describe how a Michigan-based company accomplished significant financial
and strategic results using a combination of QFD and benchmarking techniques. To
protect companys identity as requested, we would call the company The RST Inc.
The RST is an aspiring new entrant with only five years of longevity in the furniture
industry. A singular distinction that this company has is its hierarchical structure.
Please see Figure 4. The service and staff functions, such as finance, marketing, human
resource and maintenance fall within the purview of the service VP. Furthermore, VP
(service) is also responsible for customer satisfaction. The role of service function in the
sense of customer satisfaction is all encompassing. For this reason, all activities
involving product innovation, product improvement, value analysis, process
 BIJ innovation and improvement, and process mapping are all within the purview of
13,3 service function. Manufacturing has mostly a compliant role although they are
encouraged to submit suggestions for product and process improvements. VP (service)
is also the chief of planning and strategy committee. The role of manufacturing on the
strategy committee is to provide information as requested and implement committees
decisions in performing manufacturing tasks. RST has some very worthy world class
298 competitors, e.g. Steelcase, Haworth, Herman Miller, as well as a couple of relatively
new competitors in south Michigan. However, RST prides in the innovative capability
of its service staff and hence its CEO has set forth a very ambitious program of
innovating its entire line of furniture products. Initial results from SWOT analysis
have shown that the marginal utility of an invested dollar is the highest in office
furniture industry. In addition, RST has gone against the economic vein and hired (a
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

better word would be stole) two premier strategists from its world-class peers. Their
goal is to exploit the huge hole in the competitive terrain for customization.
We will skip the details of formation of steering committee and other procedural
steps taken to finally decide to go the way of QFD and benchmarking. Suffice it to say
that VP (service), a very dynamic individual, has determined, based on a feasibility
study that these two methodologies coupled with brainstorming and Pareto analysis
where needed are likely to yield the fastest results. It was envisioned that the QFD will
be used to identify the customers unsatisfied and unspoken needs and benchmarking
will be used to optimize the production and marketing processes. Separate
sub-committees, each headed by a high level manager, were formed to pursue the
QFD and benchmarking effort. It was also realized that these are mostly sequential
efforts so that a mobile team that would initially coordinate the efforts of QFD team but
would then move to the benchmarking committee was the best way to move forward.
The efforts and work of both committees were subject to review by CEO once every
month.

Project statement
For the QFD team, the following scope was defined for existing products that were
doing well in the market:
Broad QFD scope statement. To modify or redesign the popular existing office furniture
products so as to maximize customer satisfaction through maximum customization and
faster time performance.

President & CEO

VP VP
Service Manufacturing
Task
Task
Product
Figure 4. Improvement Human Finance &
Marketing Maintenance Manufacturing
Partial organization chart and Customer Resource Accounting
Satisfaction
 Similar statement (not included here) was chalked out for new products in home Integrating QFD
furniture as well. As is well known, the QFD processes, if done to their fullest potential, and
snowball in size very quickly. Even with reasonable elimination of choices at every
stage, the final QFDs have a large number of process attributes to control. For this benchmarking
reason, we will report only partial results of a QFD/benchmarking project that was
undertaken by the company. The first HOQ presented here is truncated by up to 80 per
cent in customer needs and a corresponding number of production specifications. 299
Similar levels of truncations have been applied to other stages of HOQs.
One of the products that RST sold well due to its powerful ergonomic design was a
high-end office chair. The 178 incline of the backrest was a result of a year long study
and there were numerous other features that provided increased physical comfort and
physical wellness (a term quite loosely thrown around by the CEO of RST). A 178
incline was not only comfortable but also was optimal for keeping blood pressure to a
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

minimum under prolonged usage of the office chair (wellness). A more appropriate
statement for the truncated QFD would be:
To develop a new height-adjustment mechanism or to modify the existing one that optimizes
the physical wellness of the user, while maintaining the cost within the specified range
conducive to the marketability of the office chair.

Benchmarking
Based on the market conditions, customer preferences, and competitive distinctive
competencies, the following benchmarks were set after a feasibility study that lasted
four weeks and involved sales personnel, customers, external consultants and, of
course, all the expertise and inside information that the world class companies
strategy provided (Table I).
Having set the benchmarks, the process of developing HOQs began, which we
describe next.

Implementation of quality function deployment

The implementation process for the given project goal and its accomplishment through
QFD began by identifying customer needs and developing the first HOQ. The two
senior level employees hired from the world class companies also proved very helpful
because of the wealth of information they brought from their respective companies. As
we stated earlier, the first HOQ is limited to height-adjustment mechanism and within
that further truncation has occurred.

Average world class Our performance before Our performance after

Item/factor competitor QFD exercise QFD exercise

Development cost
including prototyping $70,000 $72,000 15 percent lower
Development time
(months) 18 16 10
Total cost of chair ($) 2,500 2,800 2,200
Total market share 30 percent 3 7 percent 14 percent Table I.
 BIJ The first HOQ: production planning matrix
13,3 The customer needs. The first HOQ (Figure 5) begins with identification of the
customer needs. In this case, the customer needs related to the height adjustment
mechanism were extracted from the parent QFD that was developed for the entire
office chair. The needs were established by involving a focused group of customers
(senior/high level officials from 23 companies), sales and marketing personnel, two
300 aforementioned employees that migrated from other companies, and an external
consultant who acted as a facilitator and elicitor of ideas. Fishbone, Pareto, and
Vicinity diagrams were used to generate and extract the customer needs shown in the
left column of the first HOQ. This group also rated the importance of each need on a
scale of 1-5 that is shown in the third column from left of this HOQ. Engineering
personnel, sales and marketing personnel, and the external consultant were used to
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

identify and extract the product requirements from the parent QFD that were believed
to influence or deliver the customer needs.
Customer-need product-requirement relationship matrix. The same group was
used to evaluate and assign the strength of relationship between each pair of product
requirement and customer need (9 7). A three-point scale was used in assigning the
numbers in each cell: 1 indicates a weak relationship, three represents a medium
strength relationship, and nine represents a strong relationship. Moving further to the
right of the customer-need product-requirement relationship matrix, the level at
which a need is satisfied by our product was adjudged on a scale of 1-5 (by the same
group) and placed in the column captioned our company.
Competitiveness analysis. Three world-class companies (Haworth, Herman Miller,
and Steelcase) were also evaluated (identities are mixed-up for reasons of potential
controversy) for the level at which their respective product satisfied each need. These
evaluations are placed in next three columns WCC1, WCC2, and WCC3. Based on the
competitors weaknesses in theirs products, reflected in below five ratings (lower the
worse), and the importance rating of each need (Column 3), the future targets for our
performance on each need was determined. For instance, on the second need, speed of
adjustment, our competitors were either two or three, which means there is a lot to be
gained by doing better than our competitors on this need which customers perceive as
very important (4 on a scale of 5). Furthermore, little improvements here would
guarantee large returns since competitors are not doing so great on this need. Hence, a
target of five was chosen to maximize customer satisfaction. The next column indicates
the ratio of improvement, which is computed as the ratio of where the company wants
to be versus where it is now in terms of the satisfaction of each need by the customer.
For the second need, therefore, this ratio is computed as 5=2 2:50: The next column,
sales points, reflects the marginal profit potential of each need 1.5 for the second need
thus indicates the judgment of the group that for every unit improvement in the
satisfaction of this need (on a scale of 1-5), the profit improvement potential is 50 per
cent. The next column is simply the overall weight of each need calculated as the
product of the three important ratings importance of the need, sales point, and
the ratio of improvement. For the second need, this number 4 2:5 1:5 15: Finally,
the weight for each need is normalized on a scale of 1-100. This is done by dividing
each needs weight by the total weight of all the needs. All rows corresponding to the
needs were then sorted based on the total normalized weight.
 Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

Legend for Roof

N
P N SP = Strong Positive
N SN
N P = Positive
N
N N P N = Negative
N
SN N N N SN = Strong Negative

LTB STB STB LTB STB STB LTB LTB LTB LTB = Larger the Better
STB = Smaller the Better
Product Requirements

WCC1
WCC2
WCC3
Weight

Importance
Sales Points
Percentage*

Complexity

Knee Space

Time to adjust
Effort to adjust
Our Company Now

Adjustment Range
Ratio of Improvement

Number of adjustments
Adjustment increments
Location of adjustment
Our company in the future

Meeting federal regulations

Customer Needs
Adjustment range LTB 5 9 9 3 9 1 1 9 9 3 3 4 2 3 5 1.67 1.5 12.5 20.2%
Speed of adjustment LTB 4 3 9 1 9 9 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 5 2.50 1.5 15.0 24.3%
Easy Adjustment LTB 4 1 1 9 3 9 3 3 9 3 2 2 4 5 1.67 1.5 10.0 16.2%
Customizable LTB 4 9 9 3 3 3 2 2 3 5 1.67 1.5 10.0 16.2%
Safe LTB 5 3 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 4 1.00 1.1 5.5 8.9%
Comfortable LTB 4 9 9 3 9 9 3 4 4 4 4 4 1.00 1.1 4.4 7.1%
Interchangeable LTB 3 1 3 3 3 4 4 1.33 1.1 4.4 7.1%
Weight 4.81 4.43 2.47 3.92 3.09 4.42 3.67 3.67 3.09 Total 61.8 100.0%
Percentage 14.3% 13.2% 7.3% 11.7% 9.2% 13.2% 10.9% 10.9% 9.2%
" within
# of
Inches seconds force inches count yes/no count arms
steps
Units reach"
Our Company Now 4 3 2 2 4 2 5 3 4
WCC1 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 3 4
WCC2 2 2 2 2 2 3 5 3 4
WCC3 4 4 3 3 4 3 5 3 4
Our company in the future 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 3 5
Target 26-42" 5 2 20" 3 2 yes infinite 15"
* Ranked after the competitive analysis was completed.
benchmarking

Product planning house of

and

quality (HOQ 1)
Figure 5.
301
Integrating QFD
 BIJ Specification targets. To keep the size of the QFD from snowballing, the top four needs
13,3 ranked by their normalized weights (shadowed cells) were selected for further analysis
and to develop targets for the specifications that contribute to the needs just identified.
To accomplish this, a search for the specifications that scored a nine in the product
requirements-customer needs matrix corresponding to each need (with shadowed
normalized weights) was conducted. Please see all shadowed cells in the matrix. It
302 turned out that all specifications were involved in satisfying at least one of the needs
identified for enhancement. Therefore, for all specification a weight was computed that
reflected a weighted sum of the elements in the column corresponding to a specification
multiplied by the normalized weight in that row. For instance, for the first specification,
the specification weight was 9*20.2 per cent 3*24.3 per cent 1*16.2 per
cent 16.2 per cent 9*7.1 per cent 4.806 per cent. Weights for all specifications
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

were computed likewise. At this point, evaluations were made on a scale of 1-5 for our
competitors with respect to where they fared in each specification. Moving parallel to
what we did in the competitive analysis, a target score on a scale of 1-5 was assigned (see
our company in the future row). These target scores were then converted to actual values
of the specifications. For instance, the specification in the adjustment mechanism that
would determine the time of adjustment would hit a maximum target of five provided
the adjustment process could be completed in 5 seconds.

The second HOQ: part deployment matrix

Six of the most salient product specification requirements were then selected for
further expansion into second HOQ (Figure 6). These were, therefore, placed in the left
room of the HOQ so as to allow their role as customer needs now. The top of this matrix
represented the part characteristics of the mechanism and was now divided into three
segments: adjustment mechanism, base understructure, and work surface. Each of
these was further segmented into more specific part characteristics.
The weights were then assigned to each cell at the intersection of a part
characteristic and product requirement. Once again a three-point scale (1, 3, 9) was
used to assign the weights commensurate with the strength of relationship. There was
no competitiveness analysis room in this HOQ since there are no information/data
pertaining to the competitors available here. The weights and targets for each part
characteristic were determined exactly the way it was done in the case of the first HOQ.

The third HOQ: process planning matrix

Once again to keep the exposure within reasonable size, six part characteristics were
chosen for further reporting. These part characteristics are shown in the customer need
compartment of the third HOQ (Figure 7). Their internal suppliers are processes that
would deliver on these part characteristic targets that were set at the stage of second
HOQ. A partial list of the processes that are relevant to the part characteristics
constitutes the top of the central room of the HOQ. Roof and the right most room are
omitted as they are redundant to the analysis. The numbers on a three-point (1, 3, 9)
scale are assigned exactly as we did in previous two HOQs. Also, the targets were
computed and determined in an identical fashion to that of the two previous HOQs.
Details are omitted.
 Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

Part Characteristics

Adjustment Mechanism Base Understructure Work Surface

Weight
Weight

Stability

Importance
Durability
Deflection

Min. Height
Max. Height
Color/Finish
Color/Finish

Standard Footprint

Ease of Adjustment

Min. Load Capacity

Consistent aesthects

Max. Load Capacity

Speed of Adjustment
Product Requirements
Adjustment Range 5 3 9 9 9 9 9 1 9 9 3
Effort to Adjust 4 3 9 9 3 9 3 1 1 3 1
Number of Adjustments 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1
Location of Adjustment 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1
Adjustment Increments 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1
Complexity 2 1 9 1 3 9 9 1 1 9 1 3 3
Weight 38.00 120.00 80.00 84.00 126.00 96.00 14.00 5.00 82.00 71.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 28.00
Percentage 7.0% 22.1% 14.7% 15.4% 23.2% 17.6% 2.6% 0.9% 15.1% 13.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 5.1%
Target 50 500 26" 42" Force 10 sec. wxd Y/N 150 lbs pass/fail y/n p/f < .075" y/n 52.6 lbs
benchmarking

Part deployment house of

Figure 6.
and

quality (HOQ II)

303
Integrating QFD
 BIJ Process Operations
13,3 Process Parameters (Manufacturing)

counterweight spring

Release Mechanism

attachment plate
latching clip
Lifting Rod
Importance

casing
304

Part Characteristics
Max. Load Capacity 5 9 9 9 9 3 9
Min. Height 4 9 3 1 1
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

Max. Height 5 9 3 3 1
Ease of Adjustment 5 1 9 3 1 9

Figure 7. Speed of Adjustment 4 1 9 1 1 3

Process planning house of Weight 135.00 153.00 64.00 73.00 81.00 45.00
quality (HOQ Ii)
Percentage 24.5% 27.8% 11.6% 13.2% 14.7% 8.2%

The fourth HOQ: production control

This HOQ represents (Figure 8) the final control mechanisms that are employed by
quality assurance (through inspection, quality control, and other testing methods) to
ensure that the processes indeed function as stipulated at the 3rd HOQ stage. As
before, a sample of processes identified at third HOQ were used as the customer
needs in the fourth HOQ. Some control measures are shown at the top of the fourth
HOQ. As in the second and third HOQ, the roof and the competitiveness analysis are
redundant for the fourth HOQ as well and therefore, not reported. The exact
specifications of process as also the product characteristics are suppressed as it serves
no purpose to report them but might expose the companys design details of the
mechanism.

Benchmarking effort
It is worth pointing out that at each of the second, third, and fourth HOQs, internal
benchmarking could have been used with great effect from the parsimony and
innovation standpoint. The comparison of the world class companys internal
processes and controls could have revealed a lot of weak/inefficient spots in the way
RST works. However, we had no access to that information. This also resulted in
elimination of competitiveness analysis in each HOQ (other than the first). This, in
turn, may have rendered substandard processes and process controls. However, since
RST prided on their own innovative capabilities and had access to some of the inside
information through their new hires, it is possible that the world class companies also
may be suffering from imperfect processes and in turn from poor competitiveness. This
seems to neutralize their advantage which could have accrued to RST through internal
benchmarking.
 Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

Product Physical Characteristics Process Parameters

Actions to Take
Torsion Spring Clip
Targets X = Complete

Size
Time

Angle

Length
Location

Importance
Torsion Strength
Temperature
Roll Force
Speed
Angle
Length
Diameter
Feed
Process Capability (Cp)
SPC System
Mistake Proofing
New Fixtures
Preventative Maintenan

Process Operations
Torsion Spring Winding 5 3 3 3
Clip Bending 3 3 9
Alignment Hole Drilling 4 1 3 3

Guiding Slot Machining 3 1 3 3 1

Attachment Pin Pressing 3 1 9 3

Release Mechanism
Assembly 4 9
Weight 27.00 15.00 43.00 48.00 39.00 36.00
Percentage 13.0% 7.2% 20.7% 23.1% 18.8% 17.3%
Units inch ksi degrees inch inch minutes degrees ksi in/sec degrees inch inch in/sec
benchmarking

quality (HOQ IV)

Process control house of
Figure 8.
and

305
Integrating QFD
 BIJ Conclusion
13,3 In this paper, we theorized that there is a synergistic effect in integrating
benchmarking with QFD methodologies for companies that seek higher levels of
financial and strategic performance through product improvement. We used a real
world example of a furniture company to show how QFD and benchmarking
methodologies could be effectively combined to improve the design of a product for
306 greater customer satisfaction. To the extent that greater customer satisfaction leads to
higher market share and greater profitability; we have shown that QFD and
benchmarking are, in effect, strategic tools whose integration has a synergistic effect.
A singular limitation of our case study was that we lacked competitors data at micro
level. This fact limited our demonstration of the prowess of internal benchmarking in
optimizing internal processes of a company. However, we provided enough clues and
discussions that would shed light on how internal benchmarking can be usefully
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

employed in improving internal processes and controls within a company. Also, in our
illustration, we used a truncated version of the original project that the case company
used due to space paucity. However, in doing so, we were careful enough to include
enough information so as to retain the integrity and completeness of our arguments.
Our objective was to develop all four HOQs starting with benchmarks that were laid in
advance and we accomplished that. Micro level benchmarks can be used in a parallel
fashion.
In terms of the success in achieving benchmarks laid out at the beginning of the
case study, this story is still unfolding. Many of the items stipulated in the partial HOQ
presented here are still in the process of being implemented. However, according to the
latest quarterly report, and the CEOs estimation, the company is already ahead of their
goals that the strategy committee had set for profitability and market share. Once the
implementation is complete, we will provide a sequel to this work outlining the lessons
learnt, results obtained, and the product modifications that worked and those that did
not.
Based on the results thus far, we would like to conclude that the answer to the
question we posed in the title of this paper is in the affirmative. Indeed, there is a need
to integrate benchmarking and QFD methodologies to obtain strategic and financial
synergy. QFD would help get the best product from the customer standpoint leading to
the maximum possible customer satisfaction, whereas benchmarking would help
develop the best and the most efficient processes at the expense of the least amount of
resources. In conjunction, the effect would be that of a strategically superior
manufacturing/service system that employs the integrated version of these two
methodologies.
We hope that this work would be useful for academicians and practitioners in
developing their own integrated version of QFD and benchmarking methodologies to
improve their products and processes and gain a sustained strategic advantage.

References
Abdul-Rahman, H., Kwan, C.L. and Woods, P.C. (1999), Quality function deployment in
construction design: application in low-cost housing design, The International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 591-9.
American Supplier Institute (1992), Quality Function Deployment: Executive Briefing, ASI, Alan
Park, MI.
 Barnett, W.D. and Raja, M.K. (1995), Application of QFD to the software development process, Integrating QFD
The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 24-42.
and
Bouchereau, V. and Rowlands, H. (2000), Methods and techniques to help quality function
deployment (QFD), Benchmarking, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 8-19. benchmarking
Chan, K., Chan, S.F. and Chan, C. (2002), Applying QFD in the clothing manufacturing sector: a
case study on improving a distance-learning program in Hong Kong, Managerial
Auditing Journal, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 86-91. 307
Delano, G., Parnell, G.S., Smith, C. and Vance, M. (2000), Quality function deployment and
decision analysis: a R&D case study, International Journal of Operations, Vol. 20 No. 5,
p. 591.
Dijkstra, L. and van der Bij, H. (2002), Quality function deployment in healthcare: methods for
meeting customer requirements in redesign and renewal, The International Journal of
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 67-89.

Ettlie, J.E.E. (1993), Revisiting the house of quality foundations, Production, Vol. 105 No. 4,
p. 26.
Franceschini, F. and Rossetto, S. (2002), QFD: an interactive algorithm for the prioritization of
products technical design characteristics, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 69-75.
Fung, R.Y.K., Law, D.S.T. and Ip, W.H. (1999), Design targets determination for inter-dependent
product attributes in QFD using fuzzy inference, Integrated Manufacturing Systems,
Vol. 10 No. 6, p. 376.
Ghobadian, A. and Terry, A.J. (1995), How Alitalia improves service quality through quality
function deployment, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 25-30.
Ginn, D.M., Jones, D.V., Rahnejat, H. and Zairi, M. (1998), QFD/FMEA interface, European
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-24.
Han, S.B., Chen, S.K., Ebrahimpour, M. and Sodhi, M.S. (2001), A conceptual QFD planning
model, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18 Nos 8/9,
pp. 796-812.
Hayes, R. and Pisano, G. (1996), Manufacturing strategy: at the intersection of two paradigm
shifts, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 25-41.
Houston, D. and Lawrence, K.A. (1998), QFD in a university quality management course,
Annual Quality Congress Proceedings of ASQ, pp. 555-60.
Hwarng, H.B. and Teo, C. (2000), Applying QFD in higher education, Quality Congress, ASQs
. . . Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, pp. 255-63.
Jussel, R.M.A. (2000), How QFD improves product development across sites, Measuring
Business Excellence, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 28-33.
Kwong, C.K. and Bai, H. (2002), A Fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance
weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment, Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, Vol. 13 No. 5, p. 367.
Lam, K. and Zhao, X. (1998), An application of quality function deployment to improve the
quality of teaching, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 389-413.
Lee, S.F. and Ko, A.S.O. (2000), Building balanced scorecard with SWOT analysis, and
implementing Sun Tzus the art of business management Strategies on QFD
methodology, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 15 Nos 1/2, p. 68.
 BIJ Lee, S.F., Lo, K.K., Leung, R.F. and Ko, A.S.O. (2000), Strategy formulation framework for
vocational education: integrating SWOT analysis, balanced scorecard, QFD methodology
13,3 and MBNQA education criteria, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 15 No. 8, p. 407.
Lu, M.H. and Kuei, C.H. (1995), Integrating QFD, AHP and benchmarking in strategic
marketing, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 85-96.
308 Motwani, J., Kumar, A. and Zairi, M. (1996), Implementing QFD for improving quality in
education: an example, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 149-59.
Omar, A.R., Harding, J.A. and Popplewell, K. (1999), Design for customer satisfaction: an
information modelling approach, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 10 No. 4, p. 199.
Parkin, N., Linsley, M.L., Chan, J.F.L. and Stewardson, D.J. (2002), The introduction of QFD in a
UK original equipment manufacturer, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2,
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

pp. 43-54.
Partovi, F.Y. (2001), An analytic model to quantify strategic service vision, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 476-99.
Pfohl, H., Cullmann, O. and Stolzle, W. (1999), Inventory management with statistical process
control: simulation and evaluation, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 101-20.
Pitman, G., Motwani, J., Kumar, A. and Cheng, C.H. (1996), QFD application in an educational
setting a pilot field study, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 99-107.
Prasad, B. (1998), Review of QFD and related deployment techniques, Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 221-34.
Sansone, F.P. and Singer, H.M. (1993), AT&Ts 3-phase plan rings in results, Appliance
Manufacture, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 71-4.
Shen, X.X., Tan, K.C. and Xie, M. (2000a), An integrated approach to innovative product
development using Kanos model and QFD, European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, p. 91.
Shen, X.X., Tan, K.C. and Xie, M. (2000b), Benchmarking in QFD for quality improvement,
Benchmarking, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 282-91.
Swamidass, P.M. (1986), Manufacturing strategy: its assessment and practice, Journal of
Operations Management, pp. 471-84.
Tan, K.C. and Shen, X.X. (2000), Integrating Kanos model in the planning matrix of quality
function deployment, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 11 No. 8,
pp. 1141-51.
Wasserman, G.S. (1993), On how to prioritize design requirements during the QFD planning
process, IIE Transactions, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 59-65.

Further reading
Anonymous (1993), Association for computing machinery, Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 88-9.
Ansari, A. and Modarress, B. (1994), Quality function deployment: the role of suppliers, Journal
of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 28-36.
Armacost, R.L., Componation, P.J., Mullens, M.A. and Swart, W.W. (1994), An AHP framework
for prioritizing customer requirements in QFD: an industrialized housing application, IIE
Transactions, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 72-9.
 Balthazard, P.A. and Gargeya, V.B. (1995), Reinforcing QFD with group support systems, The Integrating QFD
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 43-62.
Chin, K., Pun, K., Leung, W.M. and Lau, H. (2001), A quality function deployment approach for
and
improving technical library and information services: a case study, Library Management, benchmarking
Vol. 22 Nos 4/5, pp. 195-204.
Cragg, P.B. (2002), Benchmarking information technology practices in small firms, European
Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 267-81. 309
Dube, L., Johnson, M.D. and Renaghan, L.M. (1999), Adapting the QFD approach to extended
service transactions, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 301-17.
Harding, J.A., Omar, A.R. and Popplewell, K. (1999), Applications of QFD within a concurrent
engineering environment, International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol. 1
No. 2, p. 88.
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

Huarng, F. and Chen, Y. (2002), Relationships of TQM philosophy, methods and performance: a
survey in Taiwan, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 102 Nos 3/4, pp. 226-34.
Hwarng, H.B. and Teo, C. (2001), Translating customers voices into operations requirements a
QFD application in higher education, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, p. 195.
Kathawala, Y. and Motwani, J. (1994), Implementing quality function deployment a systems
approach, TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 31-5.
Kauffmann, P., Ricks, W.R. and Shockcor, J. (1999), Research portfolio analysis using extensions
of quality function deployment, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 3-9.
Kumar, R. and Midha, P.S. (2001), A QFD based methodology for evaluating a companys PDM
requirements for collaborative product development, Industrial Management Data
Systems, Vol. 101 Nos 3/4, pp. 126-31.
Li, D., McKay, A., de Pennington, A. and Barnes, C. (2001), A web-based tool and a heuristic
method for cooperation of manufacturing supply chain decisions, Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, Vol. 12 Nos 5-6, p. 433.
Lockamy, A. III and Khurana, A. (1995), Quality function deployment: total quality
management for new product design, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 73-84.
Lu, M.H. and Kuei, C. (1995), Strategic marketing planning: a quality function deployment
approach, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 85-96.
Lu, M.H., Madu, C.N., Kuei, C. and Winokur, D. (1994), Integrating QFD, AHP and
benchmarking in strategic marketing, The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 41-50.
Olhager, J. and West, B.M. (2002), The house of flexibility: using the QFD approach to deploy
manufacturing flexibility, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 50-79.
Philips, M., Sander, P. and Govers, C. (1994), Policy formulation by use of QFD techniques: a
case study, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 5,
pp. 46-58.
Pitman, G., Motwani, J., Kumar, A. and Cheng, C.H. (1995), QFD application in an educational
setting: a pilot field study, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 63-72.
Pun, K.F., Chin, K.S. and Lau, H. (2000), A QFD/hoshin approach for service quality deployment:
a case study, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 3, p. 156.
 BIJ Saaty, T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
13,3 Shen, X.X., Tan, K.C. and Xie, M. (2001), The implementation of quality function deployment
based on linguistic data, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 65.
Shin, J. and Kim, K. (2000), Complexity reduction of a design problem in QFD using
decomposition, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 11 No. 4, p. 339.
Shin, J., Kim, J. and Chandra, M.J. (2002), Consistency check of a house of quality chart, The
310 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 471-84.
Shwe Sein Aye Ho, E., Lai, Y. and Chang, S.I. (1999), An integrated group decision-making
approach to quality function deployment, IIE Transactions, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 553-67.
Tan, K.C. and Pawitra, T.A. (2001), Integrating SERVQUAL and Kanos model into QFD for
service excellence development, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 6 No. 11, pp. 418-30.
Zairi, M. and Youssef, M.A. (1995), Quality function deployment, The International Journal of
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 9-23.

Corresponding author
Ashok Kumar can be contacted at: kumara@[Link]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@[Link]

Or visit our web site for further details: [Link]/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Alan Davies, Elwyn John, Andrew Thomas. 2014. Corporate strategy development via numerical situation
analysis. Benchmarking: An International Journal 21:4, 619-633. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Vinayak Kalluri, Rambabu Kodali. 2014. Analysis of new product development research: 1998-2009.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 21:4, 527-618. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. D. Talebi, H. Farsijani, F. Sedighi, M. Shafiei Nikabadi. 2014. The Role of Quality Benchmarking
Deployment to World-Class Manufacturing. Quality Engineering 26, 206-214. [CrossRef]
4. Masoomeh Zeinalnezhad, Muriati Mukhtar, Shahnorbanun Sahran. 2014. An investigation of lead
benchmarking implementation. Benchmarking: An International Journal 21:1, 121-145. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
5. Kalluri Vinayak, Rambabu Kodali. 2013. Benchmarking the quality function deployment models.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 20:6, 825-854. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)

6. So-Hyun Park, Sunny Ham, Min-A. Lee. 2012. How to improve the promotion of Korean beef barbecue,
bulgogi, for international customers. An application of quality function deployment. Appetite 59:2,
324-332. [CrossRef]
7. Paul Hong, David Dobrzykowski, Young Won Park, Paul Hong, Soon W. Hong, James Jungbae Roh,
Kihyun Park. 2012. Evolving benchmarking practices: a review for research perspectives. Benchmarking:
An International Journal 19:4/5, 444-462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Daryl D. Green, Jack McCann. 2011. Benchmarking a leadership model for the green economy.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 18:3, 445-465. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Jos Antonio Carnevalli, Paulo Augusto Cauchick Miguel, Felipe Arajo Calarge. 2010. Axiomatic design
application for minimising the difficulties of QFD usage. International Journal of Production Economics
125:1, 1-12. [CrossRef]
10. Hendry Raharjo, Kah Hin Chai, Min Xie, Aarnout C. Brombacher. 2010. Dynamic benchmarking
methodology for quality function deployment. Benchmarking: An International Journal 17:1, 27-43.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Daryl D. Green, Deshaun H. Davis. 2010. Benchmarking the impacts of US magnet schools in urban
schools. Benchmarking: An International Journal 17:1, 144-163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Sanjay Kumar Singh. 2010. Benchmarking leadership styles for organizational learning in Indian context.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 17:1, 95-114. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Panchapakesan Padma, Chandrasekharan Rajendran, L. Prakash Sai. 2009. A conceptual framework of
service quality in healthcare. Benchmarking: An International Journal 16:2, 157-191. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
14. Vinh Sum Chau. 2009. Benchmarking service quality in UK electricity distribution networks.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 16:1, 47-69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Paulo Augusto Cauchick Miguel, Jos Antonio Carnevalli. 2008. Benchmarking practices of quality
function deployment: results from a field study. Benchmarking: An International Journal 15:6, 657-676.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Van Truong Luu, Soo-Yong Kim, Tuan-Anh Huynh. 2008. Improving project management performance
of large contractors using benchmarking approach. International Journal of Project Management 26:7,
758-769. [CrossRef]
 17. Jose A. Carnevalli, Paulo Cauchick Miguel. 2008. Review, analysis and classification of the literature on
QFDTypes of research, difficulties and benefits. International Journal of Production Economics 114:2,
737-754. [CrossRef]
18. G. Anand, Rambabu Kodali. 2008. Benchmarking the benchmarking models. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 15:3, 257-291. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 11:50 21 December 2014 (PT)