Skip to main content
Log in

A quality function deployment methodology with signal and noise ratio for improvement of Wasserman’s weights

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quality function deployment (QFD) has attracted much attention in not only the quality management field but also other engineering fields. The original concept of QFD is focused only on the voice of customers, which means that the needs of customers should be satisfied from the design stage of products. However, some problems were found in using subjective and qualitative data when constructing a house of quality (HOQ). To solve the problems, Wasserman presented a methodology to consider correlation weights on the top matrix of HOQ, but the weights are subjective data and can not guarantee consistency and objectivity. The Wasserman’s weights are randomly determined under subjective conditions. This research applies Taguchi’s robust design method as another method for obtaining the HOQ top matrix weights. With the new weights, S/N-QFD is deployed, and the result of S/N-QFD is compared with W-QFD. As an application example, with a real process and quality data of a representative company product, the relationship and the correlation between the process characteristics and the quality characteristics are analyzed. Finally, this paper presents a new QFD processing methodology to determine the weights with more consistent and objective data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kang JH (1999) Evaluation method of design quality in deployment of quality functions. Dissertation, Myong Ji University

  2. Kang JH, Park MK (2000) A study for method to determine the quality characteristics through deployment of quality functions. Safety Manage J 2(4):113–124

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kim HS, Yang HJ, Lim KT, Cheon TJ, Cheong CB, Madhav SP (1992) Quality Engineering With Robust Designs. Min Young Sa, Seoul, Korea

  4. Armacost RL, Componation PJ, Mullens MA, WW Swart (1994) An AHP framework for prioritizing customer requirements in QFD: an industrialized housing application. IIE Trans 26(4):72–79

    Google Scholar 

  5. Govers CPM (1996) What and how about quality function deployment (QFD). Int J Prod Econ 46–47:575–585

    Google Scholar 

  6. Govers CPM (2001) QFD not just a tool but a way of quality management. Int J Prod Econ 69:151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Partovi FY (1999) A qulity function deployment approach to strategic capital budgeting. Eng Econ 44(3):239–260

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wasserman GS (1993) On How to Prioritize Design Requirements During the QFD Planning Process. IIE Transaction 25(3):59–65

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sullivan LP (1986) Quality function deployment. Qual Prog 19(6):39–50

    Google Scholar 

  10. Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process (Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation). McGraw-Hill, USA

  11. German Standard DIN 70 907, Goetze ag, D-5093 Buchscheid

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jae Hyun Park.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Park, J., Yang, K. & Kang, K. A quality function deployment methodology with signal and noise ratio for improvement of Wasserman’s weights. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 26, 631–637 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-003-2036-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-003-2036-9

Keywords

Navigation