Improving the Predictive Validity of Quality Function Deployment by Conjoint Analysis: A Monte Carlo Comparison

  • Daniel Baier
  • Michael Brusch
Part of the Operations Research Proceedings book series (ORP, volume 2005)

4 Conclusion and outlook

The “new” CA based approach for QFD shows a number of advantages in comparison to the traditional approach. PA importances as well as PC influences on PAs are measured “conjoint” resp. simultaneously. Furthermore, the calculated weights are more precise (real valued instead of 0-, 1-, 3-, or 9-values) which resulted in a higher predictive validity. The Monte Carlo comparison has shown a clear superiority in a huge variety of simulated empirical settings.


Conjoint Analysis Quality Function Deployment Product Innovation Management Adaptive Conjoint Analysis High Predictive Validity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Akao Y (1990) QFD, Integrating customer requirements into product design. Productivity Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Askin RG, Dawson D (2000) Maximizing customer satisfaction by optimal specification of engineering Characteristics. IIE Transactions 32:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baier D, Brusch M (2005) Linking quality fuction deployment and conjoint analysis for new product design. In: Baier, D, Decker, R, Schmidt-Thieme, L (eds) Data analysis and decision support. Springer, Berlin, 189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baier D, Gaul W (1999) Optimal product positioning based on paired comparison data. Journal of Econometrics 89:365–392zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baier D, Gaul W (2003) Market simulation using a probabilistic ideal vector model for conjoint data. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (eds) Conjoint measurement-methods and applications. 3rd ed., Springer, Berlin, 97–120Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brusch M, Baier D, Treppa A (2002) Conjoint analysis and stimulus presentation: a comparison of alternative methods. In: Jajuga K, Sokolowski A, Bock HH (eds) Classification, clustering, and analysis. Springer, Berlin, 203–210Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cristiano JJ, Liker JK, White CC (2000) Customer-driven product development through Quality Function Deployment in the U.S. and Japan. Journal of Product Innovation Management 17:286–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chan LK, Wu ML (2002) Quality Function Deployment: a literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 143:463–497zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gustafsson A (1996) Customer focused product development by conjoint analysis and Quality Function Deployment. Linköping University Press, LinköpingGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hauser JR, Simmie P (1981) Profit maximizing perceptual positions: an integrated theory for the selection of product features and price. Management Science 27:33–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pullman ME, Moore WL, Wardell DG (2002) A comparison of Quality Function Deployment and conjoint analysis in new product design. Journal of Product Innovation Management 19:354–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Urban GL, Hauser JR (1993) Design and marketing of new products. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yoder B, Mason D (1995) Evaluating QFD relationships through the use of regression analysis. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, ASI&GOAL/QPC. American Supplier Institute, Livonia, MI, 239–249Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Baier
    • 1
  • Michael Brusch
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Marketing and Innovation ManagementBrandenburg University of TechnologyCottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations