Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 367–377 | Cite as

A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment

  • C. K. Kwong
  • H. Bai


Quality function deployment (QFD) is an important tool in product planning that could contribute to increase in customer satisfaction and shorten product design and development time. During the QFD process, determination of the importance weights of customer requirements is a crucial and essential step. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been used in weighting the importance. However, due to the vagueness and uncertainty existing in the importance attributed to judgement of customer requirements, the crisp pairwise comparison in the conventional AHP seems to be insufficient and imprecise to capture the degree of importance of customer requirements. In this paper, fuzzy number is introduced in the pairwise comparison of AHP. An AHP based on fuzzy scales is proposed to determine the importance weights of customer requirements. The new approach can improve the imprecise ranking of customer requirements which is based on the conventional AHP. Finally, an example of bicycle splashguard design is used to illustrate the proposed approach.

Fuzzy AHP quality function deployment customer requirements importance weights product design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akao, Y. (1990) Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Armacost, R. T., Componation, P. J., Mullens, M. A. and Swart, W. W. (1994) An AHP framework for prioritizing custom requirements in QFD: An industrialized housing application. IIE Transactions, 26(4), 72–79.Google Scholar
  3. Aswad, A. (1989) Quality function deployment: A systems approach, in Proceedings of the 1989 IIE Integrated Systems Conference, Institute of Industrial Engineers, Atlanta, GA, pp. 27–32.Google Scholar
  4. Boender, C. G. E., de Grann, J. G., Lootsma, F. A. (1989) Multicriteria decision analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 29, 133–143.Google Scholar
  5. Buckley, J. J. (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17, 233–247.Google Scholar
  6. Chan, L. K., Kao, H. P., Ng, A. and Wu, M. L. (1999) Rating the importance of customer needs in quality function deployment by fuzzy and entropy methods. International Journal of Production Research, 37(11), 2499–2518.Google Scholar
  7. Che, A., Lin, Z. H. and Chen, K. N. (1999) Capturing weight of voice of the customer using artificial neural network in quality function deployment. Journal of Xi'an Jiaotong University, 33(5), 75–78.Google Scholar
  8. Cheng, C. H. and Mon, D. L. (1994) Evaluating weapon system by analytical hierarchy process based on fuzzy scales. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 63, 1–10.Google Scholar
  9. Griffin, K. and Hauser, J. R. (1993) The voice of the customer. Marketing Science, 12(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  10. Gustafsson, A. and Gustafsson, N. (1994) Exceeding customer expectations. The Sixth Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, Novi, Michigan.Google Scholar
  11. Harman, T. L. (1997) Advanced Engineering Mathematics Using MATALAB, PWS Pub. Co., Boston.Google Scholar
  12. Hauser, J. R. and Clausing, D. (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Business Review, 66, 63–73.Google Scholar
  13. Lai, Y. J., Ho, E. S. S. A. and Chang, S. I. (1998) Identifying customer preferences in quality function deployment using group decision-making techniques, in Usher, J., Roy, U. and Parsaei, H. (ed.), Integrated Product and Process Development, Wiley, New York, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  14. Lee, A. R. (1999) Application of Modified Fuzzy AHP Method to Analyze Bolting Sequence of Structural Joints, UMI Dissertation Services, A Bell & Howell Company.Google Scholar
  15. Lu, M. H., Madu, C. N., Kuei, C. and Dena Winokur (1994) Integrating QFD, AHP and benchmarking in strategic marketing. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 9(1), 41–50.Google Scholar
  16. Saaty, T. L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Ullman and David G. (1992) The Mechanical Design Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Van Laarhoven, P. J. M. and Pedrycz, W. (1983) A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11, 229–241.Google Scholar
  19. Zakarian, A. and Kusiak, A. (1999) Forming teams: An analytical approach. IIE Transactions on Design and Manufacturing, 31(1), 85–97.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. K. Kwong
    • 1
  • H. Bai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Manufacturing EngineeringThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung Hom, KowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations