Quality Function Deployment Implementation Based on Fuzzy Kano Model An Application to Enhance Aesthetics Product

Yunia Dwie Nurcahyanie

Departement of Industrial Engineering, Universitas PGRI Adi Buana Surabaya

Abstract To win the market has driven enterprises to produce wider variety of products to meet consumers needs, producers need to developing new products and executing innovative processes. The main function process is to develop a system which ensures customer satisfaction and enhancing aesthetics matters. One of the important system developments is to take customer requirements into consideration. Quality function deployment (QFD) has been used for years; it is one of the structured methodologies that are used to translate customer needs into specific quality development. In traditional QFD approach, each elements interdependence and customer requirements are usually not systematically treated. Additionally, the Kano model can effectively classify customer demand attributes, but to make Kano model more objective in the course of weighing, we have also included Fuzzy mode in our discussion. This approach can fulfill two objectives, First, through the Kano model with the Fuzzy mode, it will not only discriminate out options for the required attributes it is much more accurate with the aid of the ambiguous questionnaire response method. Second, combining the Kano model and QFD, can not only provide a new way to optimize the product design but can also enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty, and minimize dissatisfaction. Keywords: Fuzzy Kano Model, Product Development, QFD

Introduction
In product development stage, customer requirements are generally not treated systematically. Even if customer requirements are collected before the design phase, they tend to be disregarded and finally vanish during the construction phase. Because of the lack of attention paid to customer requirements collection at these stages, problems in terms of design ability, delays due to incomplete designs, misunderstandings of customer expectations, rework, etc. are observed. To clearly specify
1

customer wants and needs, Quality Function Deployment (QFD) framework that is commonly discussed in the quality management literature can be used as a proactive approach to encounter quality issues instead of taking the passive approach of lunching customer complaints (Akao, 1990). The basic concept of QFD is to translate the desires of customer or voice of customer (VOC), into product technical requirements or engineering characteristics, and subsequently into parts characteristics, process plans and production requirements

QFD Implementation Based on Fuzzy Kano Model An Application to Enhance Aesthetics Product

by using a chart called House of Quality (HOQ). As competition for new markets and customers increases, level of customer satisfaction also became a key factor for long-term business success. Satisfied customers are loyal customers and ensure a lasting cash flow in the future. According to Reichfeld and Sasser (1990), a 5% increase in customer loyalty can increase the profit of a business by 100% due to the fact that satisfied customers purchase the products more often and in greater quantities. Generally, satisfied customers are less pricesensitive and more inclined to spend more on products they have tried and tested. The Kano model of customer satisfaction can determine attractive or must-be requirements which can be used in the QFD matrix to assure that most critical needs are translated into the next phases of product development (Tan & Shen, 2000). However, the selection of weights is very subjective. As a consequence, this study will use the Fuzzy mode to improve subjective linguistic scale in Kanos two dimensional quality element. The use of Fuzzy mode is for respondents to express themselves about the extent of correct attribution by membership and any numeric value. The reminder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 1 discuss about the product development and the importance in taking voice of customer into consideration , Section 2 discuss about literature review. Section 3 discusses the formulation in more detail. Section 4 provides an illustrative example of the application in development procedure. Finally, Section 5 provides concluding remarks. This study presents a novel approach for determining customer requirements. First, the requirements in discussion are considered as attributes which are categorized as attractive, must-be or one dimensional by using the Kano model method to make the requirements more
2

objective when weighing the requirements by Fuzzy mode. Second, we design the product by integrating a decision-making technique to incorporate the dependencies inherent in the QFD process.

Literature review
QFD and its application in product design The origins of QFD can be traced to Mitsubishis Heavy Industries Kobe shipyard in Japan in the late 1960s when QFD was first used to facilitate crossfunctional product development process (Day, 1993). QFD is an overall concept that provides means of translating customer requirements into appropriate technical requirements for each stage of product development and production (i.e., marketing strategies, planning, product design and engineering, process development). The need for QFD was driven by two related objectives (Gonzalez, Quesada, Picado, & Ecklman, 2004). These objectives started with the user (or customers) of a product and ended with product producers. To satisfy the objective, the Voice of the Customer is translated into the Voice of the Engineer through a matrix, which is named House of Quality (HOQ). Hauser and Clausing (1988), Day (1993), Fung, Chen, and Tang (2006) illustrated that the basic format of the HOQ consists of six sections: (1) obtaining customer attributes and their relative importance; (2) developing design requirements responsive to customer attributes; (3) planning matrix; (4) interrelationships between customer requirements and design requirements; (5) design requirement correlation; (6) action plan. QFD can improve product quality and deliver products at a lower cost, and consequently can increase the market share (Kim, 1993). QFD can also facilitate

Yunia Dwie Nurcahyanie

continuous information system improvement with an emphasis on the impact of organization learning on innovation (Partovi & Corredoira, 2002; Partovi, 2006). QFD has also been extended and modified to make it more comprehensive and applicable such as enhanced QFD (Clausing, 1994) and intelligent information system for QFD (Harding, Popplewell, Fung, & Omar, 2001). Bossert (1991) and Sarkis et al. (1994) indicated that QFD was used to determine the expectations of the potential users of the information systems. Potential users included people who would be implementing, using, Kano model and its applications in QFD Kano, Seraku, Taka hashi, and Tsuji (1984) developed a model which has been used by others to categorize the attributes of the product or service based on how well they are able to satisfy customer requirements, for example, King (1995), CQM (1993), Clausing (1994), and Cohen (1995). As Fig. 1 shows, the extent to which a quality element is provided is indicated on the x-axis. The further the arrow moves towards the right, the greater the extent to which the quality element is provided, while the further the arrow moves towards the left, the less the left, the less the extent to which the quality element is provided. Customer satisfaction is indicated on the y-axis. The higher the arrow, the higher customer dissatisfaction will be; on the other handle the lower the arrow, the higher customer dissatisfaction. Based on these axes, the following are the popularly named Kano customer requirement categories (see Fig. 1): The must-be or basic quality element: customers believe that this quality is a necessity; when it is not present, customers will be dissatisfied.
3

The attractive quality element: when present, customers will be satisfied; yet when it is not present, customer would still accept without dissatisfaction.

Figure. 1. Kanos two-dimensional quality model and five types of quality element. The one-dimensional quality element:

customers satisfaction is proportional to the level of fulfillment the higher the level of fulfillment, the higher customer satisfaction, and vice versa. The indifferent quality element: customers satisfaction will not be affected no matter whether this quality is provided or not. The reverse quality element: customers will be dissatisfied if this quality element is provided; otherwise, they will be satisfied. Two-dimensional quality was initially used in the development of the manufactured product quality (Kano et al., 1984) in a survey conducted on TV or decorative clocks. The survey results show that user conceptions of quality are not onedimensional but two-dimensional; thus, the one-dimensional quality is unable to cover user quality conceptions. The Kano model has been applied not only to new product development (Matzler & Hinterhuber, 1998) but also to new service creation (NSC) (Bhattacharyya & Rahman, 2004). The importance of the Kano model is that it involves little mathematical computation and relevant information can be quickly obtained. Recently, this technique has been applied to the development of a variety of

QFD Implementation Based on Fuzzy Kano Model An Application to Enhance Aesthetics Product

online services, such as web site (Zhang & von Dran, 2001), internet community (Szmigin & Reppel, 2004), and online ticketing (Nilsson- Witell & Fundin, 2005). Sireli, Kauffmann, and Ozan (2005) applied a similar methodology to cockpit weather information system (CWIS) design. Additionally, in the QFD literature, the Kano model is applied by assigning weights to different customer attributes. Islam and Liu (1995) indicated that customer needs can be divided into three subgroups, i.e., basic, one-dimensional and excitement. For each requirement, the raw importance is adjusted by multiplying a weight that is calculated by an analytic hierarchy process. Similarly, using the dual importance grid, Robertshaw (1995) classified the type of Kano element and suggested that customer needs should be re-prioritized: the first priority is to deliver what is expected; the second is what is specified; the last is to provide the attractive elements. Gerson (2003) showed a modified Kano method to determine the degree to which an attribute is considered attractive or must-be by customers and how to integrate into the planning matrix of the QFD. Tan, Tang, and Forrester (2004) analyzed customer satisfaction based on the Kano model and pointed out the importance of product innovation in exceeding customer satisfaction.

Classify two-dimensional quality elements by Fuzzy mode

QFD practitioners should not only know what customers want the most, but should also understand how much attention is needed for each customer attribute in order to achieve the desired customer satisfaction level. This section proposes a procedure showing Kanos model which can be integrated to adjust the raw importance. However, traditional Kanos two4

dimensional quality classifications are to conduct functional and dysfunctional questionnaires with a singular scale. It is to classify the quality attribution from respondents answer in the questionnaire item. However, the affective perception level of ones evaluation towards each item in questionnaires cannot be fully expressed with singular scale or numeric value. This deficiency is due to each respondents complicity, subjective mentality and difference of preference during the answering process (Hsu & Chen, 2001). Uncertainties exist in both the human mentality and the languages. Simultaneously, modes of acknowledgement exhibited by the interviewees vary from one another. Feelings associated with the tone of the linguistic implications in response to the questionnaire are also vague. The expression in one single numeric value is sometimes not suitable. Therefore, Zadeh (1973) believed the application of the Fuzzy linguistic in the uncertain issues will be a relatively better tool. Questionnaire interviewees apply the linguistic remarks such as never, rarely, sometimes, frequently, and always to express their degree of acknowledgement of the issues. However, the Fuzzy linguistic is able to evaluate the interviewees response to the linguistic remark one step further based on the strength of feeling exhibited by the evaluation at different linguistic implication interval, which is much more reflective of the factual circumstances and is enabled to acquire much more accurate results. As a consequence, this study will use Fuzzy mode to improve the subjective linguistic scale in Kanos two dimensional quality element. Our method allows respondents to express themselves about the extent of correct attribution by membership and any numeric value. With this method, it can pass on the overall correct mentality in

Yunia Dwie Nurcahyanie

reasonable sense under unknown circumstances. Suppose U is a universe of discourse, and are the Kanos functional and dysfunctional questions located in U. is the respondent of one set Kanos Fuzzy mode questionnaire. Meanwhile, by using Fuzzy set relations, we have defined respondent normalized membership and corresponding to linguistic variable and to calculate two-dimensional Fuzzy relation perception level. The possible classification will be defined by Kanos two-dimensional quality element according to references. All the quality element classification meeting the significant level will also be calculated under the significant membership level. Among all, and with maximum value in Kanos Fuzzy quality element classification is defined as Kanos Fuzzy mode (KFM). If there are more than two sets of Kanos Fuzzy quality element classification with the same value  then this set of data is called with multi-Fuzzy mode or multi-consensus. If the finalscoring is equal, the greatest impact on the product is determined in the following order M > O > A > I (CQM, 1993). The procedure of Kanos Fuzzy mode classification in this study is shown as follows: Step 1: To assure the number of respondents and to establish the initiating feeling set , and in functional and dysfunctional question: =  = where h represents the hth expert; s, t represents the scale used in the questionnaire; represents the
5

s initial weighted of the hth expert. Step 2: To normalize the initiating evaluation value:    =   

Step 3: To structure Fuzzy relationship set :  x  = where h = 1,2, ...,p ; s = 1,2,...,n; t = 1,2,...,m Step 4: To define Kanos two-dimensional quality element classification set and = =    supp where  and represent the Kanos two-dimensional quality element Fuzzy classification must-be, one-dimensional, attractive, indifferent, reverse, and questionable, respectively. Step 5: To calculate the extent of each Fuzzy quality element : = = where h = 1, 2,. . . ,p Step 6: To defuzzificate Kanos significant classification level (- cut) P:   
, = =    where h = 1,2,...,p ; d = 1,2,...,6;  = 0   Step 7: To obtain Kanos Fuzzy mode set (KFM):  


QFD Implementation Based on Fuzzy Kano Model An Application to Enhance Aesthetics Product

Step 8: The relationship between customer satisfaction improvement ratio and importance increment ratio is not treated as linear. According to Tan and Shen (2000), for attractive attributes, k > 1; for onedimensional attributes, k = 1; for must-be attributes, 0 < k < 1. It can be further converted to the following equation:  where s, represents customer satisfaction, c, is a constant, p, represents the product or service performance. is the adjusted improvement ratio where is the original improvement ratio and k is the adjustment for each Kano category. The possible values for k are 1/2, 1, and 2 for must-be, one-dimensional and attractive attributes, respectively. Step 9: Readjust the raw importance of each CR. In addition, the customer requirement weights of the customers requirement units CRi (i = 1, 2, . . . , I) are denote by wCR(CRi), and defined as follows:  =
 

Categorize customer requirements

The first step is identification of customer requirements. Data were obtained by interviewing high-tech exerts in Surabaya and reviewing the literatures. A total of 30 high-tech experts from Product Design and engineering were interviewed, including five professors from the Informatics Department of the domestic universities and colleges, According to the reference, the study would conclude that using Fuzzy
6

mode classification is more objective than traditional mode. Taking the customer requirements automate the change management procedure as an example, the double-sided Kano questionnaire was used to comprehend customer needs; However, the classical questionnaire response method only provided a single selection option. According to the questionnaire results, the utilization of the attribute analysis table based on the Kano model it could be identified that 30 experts considered the customer requirement to be onedimensional, 18 (=4 + 6 + 8) experts categorized it as attractive, one expert was classified as must-be, and one expert was considered to be indifferent. Based on the classical questionnaire results, it could be discovered that the attribute of the customer requirement automate the change management procedure could be considered one-dimensional. The Fuzzy Mode questionnaire provides scores in accordance with variations in magnitude. After the questionnaires are collected and analyzed through formula for example the single-expert response, revealed that displays its magnitude toward this customer requirement, which is automate the change management procedure. Simultaneously, these results, by the similar application of the attribute analysis table based on the Kano model , could identify the attribute weights assigned by the single expert to each customer requirement as attractive: 0 + 0.15 + 0.15 = 0.3, onedimensional = 0.2, must-be = 0.16, reverse = 0, and indifferent = 0.12. Because of the a = 0.3, the automate the change management procedure of this expert belong to the attractive. Finally, the results of each expert questionnaire were statistically analyzed. Thirty-four experts were selected. Attractive, fifteen were classified as onedimensional, and one belonged to must-be. customer requirements thus were considered

Yunia Dwie Nurcahyanie

attractive. We have excluded quality elements that are indifferent, reverse and questionable. We find that 15 of the 50 customer requirements selected as the most significant factors were related to customer satisfaction. In 15 service quality elements, there are six that are must-be, seven that are one-dimensional and two that are attractive.
Table 1. The traditional Kano questionnaire
CR1 like must be neutral live with dislike

Table 3. The attribute analysis based on the Fuzzy Kano model

Do you comfortable enough with your computer table, is it has enough space? Do you feel not comfortable enough with your computer table, and it is not has enough space? like like must be neutral live with dislike 0,5 x 0 0,2 x 0 0,2 x 0 0x0 0x0 must be 0,5 x 0 0,2 x 0 0,2 x 0 0x0 0x0 neutral 0,5 x 0,3 0,2 x 0,3 0,2 x 0,3 0 x 0,3 0 x 0,3 live with 0,5 x 0,3 0,2 x 0,3 0,2 x 0,3 0 x 0,3 0 x 0,3 dislike 0,5 x 0,4 0,2 x 0,4 0,2 x 0,4 0 x 0,3 0 x 0,3

Do you comfortable enough with your computer table, is it has enough space? Do you feel not comfortable enough with your computer table, and it is not has enough space?

Table 4. Customer requirements category compared with tradional Kano

PRODUCT REQUIREMENT TRADITIONAL CATEGORY QUALITY CATEGORY

Table 2. The Fuzzy Kano model questionnaire

CR1 like must be neutral live with dislike

Do you comfortable enough with your computer table, is it has enough space? Do you feel not comfortable enough with your computer table, and it is not has enough space?

0.5

0.3

0.2

Comfortable, with enough surface area Corner of the table is not sharp Strong and durable Easy to move Easy to install Easy to arrange according to office space Save place Strong table covering (not easily to peel) Design is support with the latest computer technology Design can be arranged according to the needs of product support Desk drawer Cupboard storage There is a special place for the keyboard There is a special place for the CPU There is a special place for the CD There is a special place for the printer There is a special place for Stavolt Fixed cable tidy Height of a table can be adjusted Can be converted into office desk Materials used are environmentfriendly

M A M O M O O I I I I I A I I I I O A I A

O A O O O O A M M M M M A M M M M O A M A

Conclusion
0 0 0.3 0.3 0.4

With the rapid developments in science and technology, customer requirements regarding products are constantly changing. Therefore, from the standpoint of system designers, it is obligated to maintain constant contact with customers, strive to
7

QFD Implementation Based on Fuzzy Kano Model An Application to Enhance Aesthetics Product

comprehend changes in customer needs, and attempt to satisfy those needs, if it is desired to be in an unchallengeable position in the severe market competition. Accurate analytical methods are required to help designers understand current information on customer requirements and obtain the future requirement prediction information. This study describes a method for more objectively analyzing customer requirements and thus enabling the manufacture of products that meet customer demands. As a customer-oriented, QFD involves numerous data from both customer and QFD team members. Depending on their perspective background, people give information about their personal performances in many different ways. As the determination of CR priorities is the key concept in QFD, we believe that greater emphasis has to be placed on analyzing and merging individual assessments in different formats in order to provide a systematic decision procedure for system design within the QFD process,

which has been traditionally based on expert opinions. For improving the weaknesses of the classical QFD, the contributions of this study primarily have the following focuses: first, the questionnaire design was conducted using the Fuzzy linguistic method for more accurately verifying customer requirements. Upon understanding customer requirements, these requirements were simultaneously categorized with the aid of the Kano model. If the customer requirements were considered attractive, must-be, or onedimensional, it indicated that it should be listed as design item with top priority during the system development process. On the contrary, if it was classified as the indifferent or reverse attribute, the development could be postponed or removed under the circumstances where the development costs and customer satisfaction were taken into account and; second, with regard to the system function and system.

References
1. Akao, Y. (1990). Quality function deployment: Integrating customer requirements into product design. Translated by Glenn Mazur Cambridge. MA: Productivity Press, pp. 115. 2. Belhe, U., & Kusiak, A. (1996). The house of quality in a design process. International Journal of Production Research, 34(8), 21192131. 3. Bhattacharyya, S. K., & Rahman, Z. (2004). Capturing the customers voice, the centerpiece of strategy making: A case study in banking. European Business Review, 16(2), 128138. 4. Bossert, J. L. (1991). The quality function deployment: A practitioners approach. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.

5. Burden, R. (2003). PDM: Product data management, Resource Publishing. 6. Clausing, D. (1994). Total quality development A step by step guide to worldclass concurrent engineering. New York: ASME Press. 7. Cohen, L. (1995). Quality function deployment: How to make QFD work for you. MA: Addison-Wesley. 8. CQM (1993). A special issue on Kanos methods for understanding customer-define quality, The Center for Quality of Management Journal, 2. 9. Day, R. G. (1993). Quality function deployment linking: A company with its customers Milwaukee. USA: Springer. 10. Fung, Y. K., Chen, Y., & Tang, J. (2006). Estimating the function relationship for function deployment under uncertainties. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157(1), 98120. 11. Gerson, T. (2003). Develop of customer needs in the QFD using a modified Kano 8

Yunia Dwie Nurcahyanie

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

model. Journal of the Academy of Business and Economics. Gonzalez, M., Quesada, G., Picado, F., & Ecklman, C. (2004). Customer satisfaction using QFD: An e-banking case. Managing Service Quality, 14(4), 317330. Govers, P. M. (2000). QFD is not only a tool but also a way of quality management. International Journal Production Economics, 7(1) 151159. Grieves, M. (2005). Product lifecycle management. Driving the next generation of lean thinking. McGraw-Hill. Halbleib, L., Wormington, P., Cieslak, W., & Street, H. (1993). Application of quality function deployment to the design of a lithium battery. IEEE Transactions on Components, Hybrids, and Manufacturing Technology, 16(8), 802807. Hartmann, G. (2005). Product lifecycle management with SAP: The complete guide to my SAP PLM strategy. Technology and best practices. SAP Press. Harding, J. A., Popplewell, K., Fung, Y. K., & Omar, A. R. (2001). An intelligent information framework relating customer requirements and product characteristics. Computers in Industry, 44(1), 5165. Hauser, J. R., & Clausing, D. (1988). The house of quality. Harvard Business Review, 66(3), 6373. Hsu, H. M., & Chen, Y. C. (2001). A Fuzzy reasoning based diagnosis system for control charts. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,12(1), 5764. Islam, A. & Liu, M.C. (1995). Determination of design parameters using QFD. Transactions from the 7th Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, Novi, MI, 6174. Kano, N., Seraku, K., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 3948. Kim, K.J. (1993). Fuzzy multi-criteria methodologies and design support system for quality function deployment. Unpublished PhD thesis, Purdue University.

23. King, B. (1995). Designing products and services that customer wants. Productivity Press. 24. Lasala, K. (1994). Identifying profiling system requirements with quality function deployment. In: Proceedings of the fourth annual international symposium of the national council on systems engineering. August 1012, San Jose, CA (Vol. 1, pp. 249254). 25. Liles, D. H., & Sarkis, J. (1995). Using IDEF and QFD to develop an organizational decision support methodology for the strategic justification of computer-integrated technologies. International Journal of Project Management, 13(3), 177185. 26. Liu, X. F. (2001). Software quality function deployment. IEEE Potentials, 19(5), 1416. 27. Matzler, K., & Hinterhuber, H. H. (1998). How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kanos model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment. Technovation, 18(1), 2538.