Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An integrated group decision-making approach to quality function deployment

  • Published:
IIE Transactions

Abstract

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a multi-disciplinary team process in which team member preferences are often in conflict with respect to varied individual objectives. Successful applications of QFD, thus, rely on: (1) effective communication among team members to reach a consensus; (2) assigning importance levels that reflect each individual member's preferences; and (3) mutual interaction of these two factors. No previous paper in the QFD literature has attempted to aggregate team members' opinions in the case where each individual has his or her own criteria. In this study, we consider both agreed criteria, if any, and individual criteria, simultaneously; whereas AHP, MAUT, and others are based only on an agreed set of criteria. Specifically, we modify the nominal group technique to obtain customer requirements, and integrate agreed and individual criteria methods to assign customer's importance levels in general situations where some members in a team have an agreed criteria set while others prefer individual criteria sets. By using voting and linear programming techniques, the proposed approaches consolidate individual preferences into a group consensus in situations starting with or without (partial) agreed criteria sets. This integrated group decision-making system minimizes inconsistency over group and individual preferences and provides preference ordering for alternatives through iterative communication and the resolution of any inconsistencies that exist between the group and individuals, and amongst the individuals themselves.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Akao, Y. (1990) Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Day, R.G. (1993) Quality Function Deployment: Linking a Company with its Customers, ASQC Press, Milwaukee, WI.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bossert, J.L. (1991) Quality Function Deployment, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hales, R. (1995) Adapting QFD to the US. IIE Solutions, 27, 15–18.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Freeze, D.E. and Aaron, H.G. (1990) Customer requirements planning process CRPII (beyond QFD), in Proceedings of the Mid-America '90 Manufacturing Conference, pp. 1–27.

  6. Hwang, C.L. and Lin, M.J. (1987) Group Decision Making under Multiple Criteria, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Khoo, L.P. and Ho, N.C. (1996) Framework of a fuzzy quality deployment system. International Journal of Production Research, 34(2), 299–311.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hauser, J.R. and Clausing, D. (1987) The house of quality. Harvard Business Review, 66(3), 63–73.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Prasad, B. (1994) Product planning optimization using QFD, in Artificial Intelligence in Optimal Design and Manufacturing, Dong, Z. (ed), Prentice Hall, NY, pp. 117–151.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Armacost, R.L., Componation, P.J. and Swart, W.W. (1994) An AHPframework for prioritizing customer requirements in QFD: an industrialized housing application. IIE Transactions, 26(4), 72–78.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lyman, D. and Richter, K. (1995) QFD and personality type: the key to team energy and e.ectiveness. Industrial Engineering, 27, 57–61.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Camacho, L.M. and Paulus, P.B. (1995) The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1071–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lai, S.K. (1995) A preference-based interpretation of AHP. Omega, 23(4), 453–462.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Saaty, T.L. (1990) The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Perez, J. (1995) Comments on Saaty's AHP. Management Science, 41(6), 1091–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Carlsson, C. and Walden, P. (1995) AHP in political group decision: a study in the art of possibilities. Interfaces, 25(4), 14–29.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wasserman, G.S. (1993) Technical note: how to prioritize design requirements during the QFD planning process. IIE Transactions, 25(3), 59–65.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Belhe, U. and Kusiak, A. (1995) The house of quality in analysis of product development processes, in Proceedings of the 4th Industrial Engineering Research Conference, B.W. Schmeiser and R. Uzsoy (eds), IIE, Norcross. pp. 996–1003.

  19. Locascio, A. and Thurston, D.L. (1993) Multiattribute design optimization with QFD, in Proceedings of the 2nd Industrial Engineering Research Conference, D.A. Mitta et al. (eds), IIE, Norcross. pp. 82–86.

  20. Osborn, A.F. (1957) Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving, Charles Scribner's Sons, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. (1987) Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: toward a solution of the riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mullen, B., Johnson, C. and Salas, E. (1991) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: a meta analytic integration. Basic and Applied Psychology, 12, 2–23.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Paulus, P.B. and Dzindolet, M.T. (1993) Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 575–586.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hazelrigg, G.A. (1996) The implications of Arrow's impossibility theorem on approaches to optimal engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 118, 161–164.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Arrow, K.J. (1963) Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd Edn., John Wiley and Sons, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lockamy, A. and Khurana, A. (1995) Quality function deployment: a case study. Production and Inventory Management Journal, Second Quarter, 56–59.

  27. Paulus, P.B. and Brown, V. (1996) A simple dynamic model of social factors in group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 27(1), 91–114.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gallupe, R., Dennis, A., Cooper, W., Valacich, J., Bastianutti, L. and Nunamaker, J. (1992) Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350–369.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Henrich, T.R. and Greene, T.J. (1991) Using the NGT to elicit roadblocks to an MRP II implementation. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 21(1–4), 335–338.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zuech, N. (1992) Identifying and ranking opportunities for machine vision in a facility. Industrial Engineering, 24, 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Thomas, J.B., McDaniel, R.R. and Dooris, M.J. (1989) Strategic issue analysis: NGT + decision analysis for resolving strategic issues. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25(2), 189–200.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Delbecq, A.L., van de Ven, A.H. and Gustafson, D.H. (1986) Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes, Green Briar Press, Middleton, WI.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Beruvides, M.G. (1995) Group decision support systems and consensus building: issues in electronic media. Computers in Industrial Engineering, 29(1–4), 601–605.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sink, D.S. (1983) Using the nominal group technique e.ectively. National Productivity Review, Spring, 173–184.

  35. Kolano, F. (1991) Using the nominal group technique in value engineering. Society of American Value Engineers, Proceedings, 189–195.

  36. Holt, K. (1996) Brainstorming – from classics to electronics. Journal of Engineering Design, 7(1), 77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Saari, D.G. (1994) Geometry of Voting, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Marshall, K.T. and Oliver, R.M. (1995) Decision Making and Forecasting, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Saaty, T.L. (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces, 24(6), 19–43.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Masud, A.S.M. and Dean, E.B. (1993) Using fuzzy sets in quality function deployment, in Proceedings of the 2nd Industrial Engineering Research Conference, D.A. Mitta et al. (eds), IIE, Norcross. pp. 270–274.

  41. Lai, Y.J. and Hwang, C.L. (1992) Fuzzy Mathematical Programming, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lai, Y.J. and Hwang, C.L. (1994) Fuzzy Multiple-Objective Decision Making. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Fishburn, P.C. and Little, J.D.C. (1988) An experiment in approval voting. Management Science, 34(5), 555–568.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA

    ENG SHWE SEIN AYE Ho & SHING I Chang

  2. Corporate Strategic Planning, Phillips Petroleum Company, 15B4 Phillips Building, Bartlesville, OK, 74004, USA

    YOUNG-JOU Lai

Authors
  1. ENG SHWE SEIN AYE Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. YOUNG-JOU Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. SHING I Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to YOUNG-JOU Lai.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ho, E.S.S.A., Lai, YJ. & Chang, S.I. An integrated group decision-making approach to quality function deployment. IIE Transactions 31, 553–567 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007654407406

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007654407406

Keywords

Search

Navigation