Statistical comparison of final weight scores in quality function deployment (QFD) studies

Nigel Peter Grigg · K. Govinderaju · Nicola Marie Campbell-Allen

23 citations0/0 files storedInternational Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Quality Function Deployment in Product Design Quality and Supply Management Management Systems and Quality Improvement

Abstract

Purpose – Quality function deployment (QFD) is a methodology to translate the “voice of the customer” into engineering/technical specifications (HOWs) to be followed in designing of products or services. For the method to be effective, QFD practitioners need to be able to accurately differentiate between the final weights (FWs) that have been assigned to HOWs in the house of quality matrix. The paper aims to introduce a statistical testing procedure to determine whether the FWs of HOWs are significantly different and investigate the robustness of different rating scales used in QFD practice in contributing to these differences. Design/methodology/approach – Using a range of published QFD examples, the paper uses a parametric bootstrap testing procedure to test the significance of the differences between the FWs by generating simulated random samples based on a theoretical probability model. The paper then determines the significance or otherwise of the differences between: the two most extreme FWs and all pairs of FWs. Finally, the paper checks the robustness of different attribute rating scales (linear vs non-linear) in the context of these testing procedures. Findings – The paper demonstrates that not all of the differences that exist between the FWs of HOW attributes are in fact significant. In the absence of such a procedure, there is no reliable analytical basis for QFD practitioners to determine whether FWs are significantly different, and they may wrongly prioritise one engineering attribute over another. Originality/value – This is the first article to test the significance of the differences between FWs of HOWs and to determine the robustness of different strength of scales used in relationship matrix.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

References

1998Determination of an optimal set of design requirements using house of quality 2000Methods and techniques to help quality function deployment (QFD)2003Applying Quality Function Deployment to environmentally conscious design 1999Green QFD-II: A life cycle approach for environmentally conscious manufacturing by integrating LCA and LCC into QFD matrices 1999Modern Industrial Statistics: Design and Control of Quality and Reliability 2004Strategic use of quality function deployment (QFD) in the construction industry 1998Quality function deployment 2010Quality function deployment and its extensions

Cited by

2020Revising the interrelationship matrix of house of quality by the Kano model 2015A distance-based methodology for increased extraction of information from the roof matrices in QFD studies 2020Enhancing voice of customer prioritisation in QFD by integrating the competitor matrix 2015Enhancing prioritisation of technical attributes in quality function deployment 2018Analyzing and Dealing with the Distortions in Customer Requirements Transmission Process of QFD

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.