Author:
Raharjo Hendry,Hin Chai Kah,Xie Min,Brombacher Aarnout C.
Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide a methodology to integrate both the dynamics of competitors' performance and the dynamics of customer preference, along with their interaction, into a quality function deployment (QFD) analysis.Design/methodology/approachA systematic dynamic benchmarking methodology is proposed with an illustrative example.FindingsThe analytic hierarchy process's (AHP's) relative measurement might serve as a better way to elicit the customer's judgment over time in the QFD, not only in the importance rating part, but also in the competitive benchmarking part. It is also possible to quantitatively model the AHP priorities' change over time, and incorporate it in the QFD decision‐making process.Research limitations/implicationsIt might take a certain amount of time and efforts to collect the necessary data over time. However, it might be justified considering the improved accuracy of the QFD results. It is also important that the data collection should be carried out in a specific customer segment.Practical implicationsQFD practitioners may find a more systematic method to continually evaluate the current performance, identify areas for improvement, and eventually set goals for the future.Originality/valueThere are two novel approaches used in the methodology. First, it is the use of an exponential smoothing‐based forecasting technique to model the trend of the AHP‐based importance rating values and the competitive benchmarking information. Second, it is a strength‐weakness‐opportunity‐threat‐based competitive weighting scheme, which serves as a more systematic way to substitute the traditional QFD customer competitive target setting and sales point value determination.
Subject
Business and International Management,Strategy and Management
Reference49 articles.
1. 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.
2. Bergman, B. and Klefsjö, B. (2003), Quality from Customer Needs to Customer Satisfaction, Studentlitteratur, Lund.
3. Braadbaart, O. (2007), “Collaborative benchmarking, transparency and performance: evidence from The Netherlands water supply industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 677‐92.
4. Camp, R.C. (1995), Business Process Benchmarking: Finding and Implementing Best Practices, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
5. Carnevalli, J.A. and Miguel, P.A.C. (2008), “Review, analysis and classification of the literature on QFD: types of research, difficulties and benefits”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 114, pp. 737‐54.
Cited by
16 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献