Teknomekanik, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.

72-79, December 2022

e-ISSN: 2621-8720 p-ISSN: 2621-9980

Quality function deployment analysis of smartphones

Akhil NSB1, Vimal Kumar2, Tanmoy De3, Suriya Kalangrit2
1
Department of Operations Management, Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Hyderabad, INDIA
2
Department of Information Management, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung, TAIWAN
3
Faculty of Management, SIBM-Hyderabad Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Hyderabad,
INDIA

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Received Aug. 19th, 2022; Revision Sep. 20th, 2022; Accepted Oct. 08th, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24036/teknomekanik.v5i2.14372

ABSTRACT
To utilize the concept of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and apply it accordingly to address the design
decisions concerning the quality of cellular phones by building the simplified version of House of Quality
(HoQ). Real Customer Requirements (CRs) are easier to collect when QFD is employed because it puts the
emphasis where it should be on the customer and their demands. After getting various users’ opinions on
various smartphone brands and brainstorming among the group and conducted an online survey with mobile
users in Taichung, Taiwan, the study highlights the items preferred by most of the users such as long-lasting
battery, high quality camera, reliable, wide screen, easy to use, and lightweight. It aids businesses in
translating CRs to the primary Design Requirements (DRs) so that it may create superior goods that are in
line with consumer demands.
Keywords: Pipeline; Material selection; CO2 corrosion; Value engineering
How to Cite:
A. NSB, V. Kumar, T. De, S. Kalangrit. “Quality Function deployment analysis of smartphones”,
Teknomekanik, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 72-79, Dec. 2022. https://doi.org/10.24036/teknomekanik.v5i2.14372

Copyright © Akhil NSB, Vimal Kumar, Tanmoy De, Suriya Kalangrit. Published by
Universitas Negeri Padang. This is an open access article under the:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. INTRODUCTION
To succeed in today's market, a company must be able to anticipate and fulfill client wants and
requirements more effectively than its rivals [1]. Companies aim to apply efficient management to speed up
product creation in response to rising global competition and decreasing product life cycles. However,
timetable overruns are a common problem in product development projects [2]. In 1966, it was determined for
the first time that there was a need for essential points of Quality Assurance (QA) to be carried out through
design and production [3]. 1978th saw the publication of studies that would eventually lead to a significant rise
in the use of quality deployment across Japan. Through his research and consultation at Futaba and other
companies in the early 1980s, Akao linked QFD with value engineering and other tools for cost deployment.
These tools included others. In October 1983, the idea of QFD was first presented outside of Japan to the United
States of America by way of an essay written by Dr. Yoji Akao titled "Quality function deployment and CWQC
in Japan." This article was published in the USA. The purpose of Akao's creation of the target-means matrix
was to assist in ensuring that the Japanese manufacturing sector would fulfill its quality, cost, and delivery
objectives. The QFD approach is built on this matrix, which serves as its foundation.
The primary characteristics of QFD are its focus on the customer's point of view and its supply of a
methodical way of ensuring that customer or marketplace expectations are accurately translated into correct
technical requirements and actions throughout each stage of product development. Both characteristics are
important for guaranteeing that a product meets the needs of its target market. This makes use of a series of
matrices that are collectively referred to as the Quality Chart or the House of Quality.
In general, the process of developing a product is a complicated one that involves significant amounts of
information processing and actions including decision making. Therefore, it is always a necessary
responsibility to identify the genuine wants of consumers and then employ strategies of decision-making to
translate these demands efficiently and successfully into new goods and services at lower costs and shorter

72
Teknomekanik, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 72-79, December 2022
e-ISSN: 2621-8720 p-ISSN: 2621-9980

time to market. On the other hand, buyers and designers communicate in very different ways. As a result,
gaining knowledge of the Voice of Consumers (VOCs) is not as simple as it may first seem [4].
By raising product quality and decreasing manufacturing time and cost, QFD is a potent instrument for
increasing customer satisfaction. Using this method, businesses may learn exactly what features their
consumers want to be included in their product [3]. Using surveys, QFD takes into consideration the wants and
needs of consumers in relation to a product. These hankerings are dealt with as a collection of requirements
from our clients (CNs). To achieve the highest possible level of customer satisfaction, several technical
requirements (TRs) that are applicable to CNs have also been defined by domain experts. By prioritizing CNs
and TRs via a procedure called a house of quality (HOQ), which ties CNs (known as 'WHATs' in QFD) to TRs
(known as 'HOWs' in QFD), QFD makes decision-making in product development management easier. QFD
does this by prioritizing CNs and TRs [5]. However, the QFD analysis may be a hard decision-making process
since it requires the interpretation of hazy and subjective impressions that are sought from both consumers and
engineers [6]. Establishing customer objectives or criteria and translating them into specific production plans
using the QFD technique will result in products that meet those objectives.
These spoken and implicit client preferences or expectations are referred to as the "Voice of the
Customer." A variety of methods are used to capture customer voices, such as direct conversation or interviews,
surveys, focus groups, customer requirements, observation, warranty information, field reports, etc. A product
planning matrix, often known as a "house of quality," is then used to synthesize this understanding of client
expectations. These matrices are used to translate higher-level "WHATs" or wants into lower level "HOWs,"
such as product requirements or technical attributes, to satisfy these needs [7]. To produce a product, a team of
people from many functional areas, such as marketing, design engineering, quality assurance,
manufacturing/manufacturing engineering, test engineering, finance, product support, and so forth, must be
involved. At each stage of this translation process, the active participation of these departments can lead to a
balanced consideration of the requirements or "what's," as well as a mechanism to communicate hidden
knowledge-knowledge that is held by one person or department but may not otherwise be shared throughout
the organization [8].
The purpose of the HOQ is to identify client needs and product weights (WHATs), and to transform these
needs into technical requirements (HOWs). HOQ provides significant advantages that blend client demands
and technological requirements for designers. The manufacturers may then assist the organization in providing
better products, increasing market competitiveness, and increasing customer happiness. Every stage of the
process is represented by a matrix, and each matrix represents a phase [9]. The study is divided into five
sections. Section 2 reflects on the past literature on the topic of QFD and smartphones. Section 3 illustrates the
methodology adopted for carrying out the analysis. Section 4 presents the results and discussion of the study
followed by the conclusions in section 5.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Technology is evolving quickly, and organizations must constantly adapt to remain competitive.
Examining the many innovation processes that have led to the various forms of evolution that are already in
place is essential when thinking about the function of new technologies. When it comes to innovations and
how they evolved, closed innovation is at 1.0, collaborative innovation is at 2.0, open innovation is at 3.0, and
co-innovation is at 4.0. The latter is the most emblematic example of industry 4.0 since it promotes growth
through the collaborative analysis of shared data. QFD's purpose is to quantitatively realize consumer
expectations and allow decision makers to steer them toward the desired product or service standards. Studies
in fields as diverse as logistics and supply chain management, design and engineering, and marketing all
included QFD among their topics. QFD may help decision-makers in a system learn what makes customers
happy and then find ways to improve on those things. Because of the limited prior research on QFD's potential
use in the development of Smart Phones, the current study is driven to fill that void and meet the demands of
consumers [10].
In QFD, correctly prioritizing needs is stressed more than any other task. Customers' expectations are
prioritized since requirements' significance varies depending on the stakeholder group. This is often done
through collaborative decision-making in which individuals assess the relevance of various needs and seek for
weights that reflect their own values. Moreover, DMs often provide information about their preferences in a
variety of ways, statistically or verbally, based on their cultural, educational, and moral systems. Given the
wide range of opinions expressed by DMs, a group's preference must be derived from a variety of individual
preference types [11].
As we discussed in the introduction, the QFD technique and the house of the quality matrix may be used
to transform customer information into operational considerations. Typically, analysts (system administrators)
collect such data using quantitative values for approximate computation; however, it is more common for
analysts to collect qualitative or linguistic values when there is doubt about a customer's expectations. Multi-

73
Teknomekanik, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 72-79, December 2022
e-ISSN: 2621-8720 p-ISSN: 2621-9980

criteria decision-making procedures are powerful instruments for tackling such challenging decision-making
issues since they consider not just consumer needs but also technical indications and alternative situations.
“Design is a team effort but how do marketing and engineering communicate with each other? The answer is
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)”. The QFD management strategy was developed in 1972 at Mitsubishi's
Kobe shipbuilding location. There are certain examples of product design and development techniques that
have been tried and tested. Approaches like Taguchi, reverse engineering focus primarily on the features of the
product, rather than the needs of the consumer. On the other hand, Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a
well-known approach to assessing the features and functions that have an impact on a product's quality to
ensure it meets the needs of its customers [12]. In essence, QFD is a collection of planning and communication
procedures that concentrates and coordinates abilities inside an organization, first for the design of, then for
the manufacture of, and last for the marketing of things that customers want to buy and will continue to buy.
The House of Quality is a fundamental design tool used in the QFD approach. An inter-functional
planning and communication tool, the House of Quality is a type of conceptual map. The core principle of the
House of Quality is that from the moment a product is first imagined, marketing professionals, design
engineers, and manufacturing personnel must all collaborate closely. Products should be developed to suit
customers' preferences and needs. The most crucial input for the House of Quality is the preferences and tastes
of the consumer, commonly known as the voice of the customer. Companies use a variety of marketing
strategies to gauge, monitor, and compare consumer views of their offerings. Manufacturers can cut down on
pre-launch time and post-launch tinkering by first focusing on consumer needs, then developing across
corporate functions.
It is an integrated set of tools for identifying engineering features that meet user requirements, trade-offs
that could be required between engineering features, and user demands. There have been many different
definitions of QFD given, which is reflective of the fact that it has many different aspects. QFD, on the other
hand, is essentially a people-based approach. Without humans, nothing at all can occur. It takes as its starting
point what is known as the "voice of the consumer" (VOC). Additionally, it assembles cross-functional teams
with the same goal of providing satisfactory service to the consumer. In addition to this, QFD assists in the
formation of partnerships between customers and suppliers. Either a company is overly focused on its internal
operations, in which case it creates products or provides services with only a hazy understanding of what its
clients want, or it is overly focused on its external clients, in which case it strives to constantly satisfy its clients
at the expense of its own ability to remain in business. The main trade-offs that need to be made between what
the client wants and what the firm can afford to produce can be easier for businesses to make with the assistance
of QFD. Spending less time on redesigning and modifying the product or process will be possible if efforts are
focused on what will bring the greatest level of satisfaction to the company's clients and employees. As a result,
it is an essential component of any total quality management (TQM) or continuous improvement program or
deployment, as it enables businesses to transition away from an inspection-based strategy and toward the design
of quality into goods. QFD does not do any actions that individuals did not perform in the past; nonetheless, it
does replace erratic and intuitive decision-making processes with a more systematic method.

2.1 The QFD Process

The client requirements, which are sometimes referred to as the non-measurable aspects of a project, such
as "how it appears, how it feels, durability, etc.," are the point of departure for any QFD endeavor. After these
criteria have been analyzed, a set of technical parameters, such as "oven temperature, mold diameter, etc." will
be developed. Measurables and engineering qualities are both terms that are used to refer to this step. The QFD
procedure consists of the following four stages:

1. The product planning department is the quality control hub

2. Product design: components deployment
3. The planning of the process
4. Process control (quality control charts)

Each stage of the QFD process is depicted as a chart (or matrix) in the document. The whole QFD process
includes the construction of at least four homes that stretch throughout the entirety of the system's development
life cycle. Each of these houses is meant to represent a different phase of the QFD process. The most essential
engineering qualities, as determined by the scoring at the bottom of the house, are the ones that move on to
create the input for the succeeding step in the QFD process. This happens during the first part of the procedure.
When it comes to QFD, there are some advantages. Applying QFD can lead to the creation of superior products
at a cost that customers are ready to pay [13]. In addition, depending on its use in various businesses, the
following advantages and benefits have been reported: reduced lead times for products [5], enhanced teamwork

74
Teknomekanik, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 72-79, December 2022
e-ISSN: 2621-8720 p-ISSN: 2621-9980

communications [14] and better designs. Practical advantages are frequently experienced when QFD is
effectively applied: a reduction of 30–50% in the number of engineering changes, a reduction of 30–50% in
the length of design cycles, a reduction of 20–60% in start-up costs, and a reduction of 20–50% in the number
of warranty claims [15]. It ensures better coordination between marketing and engineering departments during
the early stages of product development, and it is completely painless to correct an error in vision when one is
in the brainstorming process. It is relatively inexpensive to correct a drawing or a calculation mistake when
one is in the stage where all the work is still on paper.
QFD starts with the voice of customers as input. Hence several Marketing Research techniques are applied
to identify, collect, and analyze the data from customers about what they want in a new product, and what
improvements they would like to see in an existing product. After the customers’ requirements have been
collected and analyzed they are further refined and discussed with the technical department about how they
can be met. QFD conveys the customer’s voice to the manufacturing department through several houses.
These Houses are 1. House of Quality: Transforms engineering features into customer attributes. 2. House
of Parts Deployment: This technique transforms engineering characteristics into component attributes. 3.
House of Process Planning translates the properties of parts into crucial process steps. 4. The House of
Production Planning transforms crucial process actions into production needs. Together these Houses not only
transform the customer’s requirements into product specifications.
The chart below is commonly referred to as the "house of quality". The QFD charts provide the team with
assistance in the process of setting goals concerning matters that are of the highest value to the customer as
well as the technical ways by which these goals may be accomplished. The ranking of the products that are on
sale from competitors may also be accomplished via the use of benchmarking with consumers and users who
are technically adept. The QFD chart is a flexible tool that may be used in a variety of different capacities all
around the organization. It is a way for engineers to summarize key truths in a way that may be applied to
various situations. General managers use client input, which is crucial to marketing, to find new company
prospect [16]. A traditional QFD comprises four steps, including product planning, product design, process
planning, and process control.

Figure 1: Four phases of a conventional QFD [17]

2.2 Research Gap
The feasibility of the suggested strategy is demonstrated by conducting a pilot investigation on the Millet
phone. Millet phone research and development hinges on feedback from users, and the product is gaining
popularity as a result. With an Internet-based open ecosystem allowing for the free expression of user needs,
the Millet phone's critical requirements (CRs) are evaluated to determine how much weight each engineered
characteristic should be given in the overall design. As per [18], In the millet phone case study, various
customer requirements and engineering characteristics were studied where big screen, long battery and high-
quality camera were some of the customer requirements. As discussed, quality of a product in specific is a
functional feature to carry out day to day businesses. In the current changing world, with advancements in
technology and awareness of all the products, customer requirements are changing. This study focuses on
requirements which are in line with the engineering characteristics includes reliability, usability, and weight of
the smartphone.

75
Teknomekanik, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 72-79, December 2022
e-ISSN: 2621-8720 p-ISSN: 2621-9980

3. METHOD
Professors Shigeru Mizuno and Yoji Akao developed QFD in Japan in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It
was developed by the Mitsubishi Corporation to define shipbuilding needs at the Kobe Shipyards [19]. The
researchers focused on QFD as it seeks to transform clients’ requirements into product specifications. Prioritize
feasible offering specifications and develop market judgments based on weighted customer needs and ranked
competitive evaluation. To translate client needs from the initial planning stages through production control, a
matrix is employed in each of the four steps of a QFD process [20]. In the first phase, product planning the
marketing team came up with the name "House of Quality" for this phase, which records customer
requirements, warranty information, competitive opportunities, product measurements, product measure
competition, and the organization's technical capacity to meet each customer request. Phase II, Parts
Deployment, is started by the engineering division. Product ideas (goals and objectives) are formed during this
phase, and some of the requirements are documented. (iii) Process planning is the responsibility of
manufacturing engineering during Phase III. Process planning, manufacturing guidelines, flow diagrams, and
process parameters (Target Values) are all documented at this time. (iv) in Phase IV, Production Planning:
Performance indicators, maintenance plans, and operator skill development are all produced during this phase
to track the production process [21].
The questionnaire was sent to 267 mobile users in Taichung city of Taiwan, preferred only young users.
Researchers received only 231 responses. After editing, 187 responses were considered suitable and used in
this study. 44 responses were rejected which were either inaccurate or insincerely responded to. The
demographic information presented here that indicates the total 90 males (48.13%) and 97 females (51.87%).
The sample is dominated by the respondents in the age of 15-20 years as is indicated by 21.39% of respondents,
20-25 years as is indicated by 44.38% of respondents, 25-30 years as is indicated by 27.28% of respondents,
and more than 30 years as is indicated by 6.95% of respondents in the sample. The education level of all
respondents as 101 respondents (54.01%) are graduated, 57 respondents (30.48%) are post-graduated and rest
29 respondents (15.51%) are PhDs. The demographic details are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic profile of respondents (N = 187)

Demographic Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Male 90 48.13%
Gender Female 97 51.87%
Total 187 100%
15-20 Years 40 21.39%
20-25 Years 83 44.38%
Age-group 25-30 years 51 27.28%
More than 30 Years 13 6.95%
Total 187 100%
Graduation 101 54.01%
Education level Post Graduations 57 30.48%
PhD 29 15.51%
Total 187 100%

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We started by acquiring customers’ opinions on various smartphone brands. We obtained the information
through an online survey. We did some brainstorming among our group and conducted an online survey with
mobile users in Taichung, Taiwan. Based on these responses and the group discussion, we finalized the
following points that are preferred by most of the users. We ranked each item depending on the preferences of
the interviewed users. Acquired data are as follows: Long-Lasting Battery, High Quality Camera, Reliable,
Wide Screen, Easy to Use, and Lightweight.
Apple Inc. is a multinational technology firm based in the United States that specializes in internet
services, computer software, and consumer devices [22]. With an estimated $365.8 billion in revenue in 2021,
Apple is the greatest information technology business by revenue and the most valuable company in the world
as of that month [23]. Apple is the fourth-largest PC vendor and fourth-largest smartphone producer as of 2021,
respectively. Along with Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Meta (Facebook), and Amazon, it is one of
the Big Five US IT firms. The benefit for iPhone user is: (i) the iPhone is more user-friendly, (ii) iPhone have
extreme security, (iii) iPhone works beautifully with macs, (iv) we can update iOS whenever we want, and (iv)
apple pay for mobile payment [24].
One of the biggest manufacturers of electrical products worldwide is the South Korean firm Samsung
[25]. Samsung focuses on producing a wide range of consumer and business electronics, including integrated

76
Teknomekanik, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 72-79, December 2022
e-ISSN: 2621-8720 p-ISSN: 2621-9980

systems, digital media players, semiconductors, and appliances. It now ranks among the most famous names
in technology and contributes to nearly one-fifth of all exports from South Korea [26-28]. These are specials
feature of Samsung: (i) Use our phone like a Wizard with extra gestures, (ii) Reach everything with one-handed
mode, (iii) Schedule dark mode for nighttime, and (iv) Give contacts different vibration patterns.
Oppo is the biggest Chinese phone brand [29]. Oppo is one of the Chinese phone brands that is currently
becoming more well-known in the West; its reach is expanding quickly, and a variety of smartphones are
available at most price points. Although it may not be on the same level as Apple or Samsung, or even its
Chinese rivals Xiaomi and Huawei, its popularity is unquestionably rising, and we anticipate the firm will
accomplish several significant feats in 2021 and beyond. [30] It would be worthwhile to keep an eye on Oppo
and the devices it releases if we are fans of premium-looking smartphones, top camera features, and screen
advancements. The features of Oppo are: (i) Google lens integration, (ii) Privacy dashboard, and (iii) Improved
performance and battery life. As a result, we have collected the necessary feedback for the paper's Voice of
Customer [31]. HOWs are classified into six categories: expected life, operating system, speaker, battery, glass,
and weight. Following the collection and analysis of data, we created the House of Quality, as illustrated below
in Figure 2.

Correlations
+ Very Relatable
+ Relatable _
_
Not Related
_ _

_ _
+
_ + _ +

_ _ _ _ +
Operating System
Expected Life
Importance

Samsung
Speaker

Battery

Weight

Apple

Oppo
Glass

Customer Requirements

Big Screen 4 △ ⃝ ◾
️ △ 2 3 2 Symbols
Long Lasting Battery 1 ◾
️ ◾
️ ◾
️ △ 3 3 1 ◾
️ 9
High Quality Camera 2 ⃝ ⃝ 3 3 1 ⃝ 3
Reliable 3 ◾
️ ⃝ ⃝ ◾
️ ⃝ 3 2 1 △ 1
Easy To Use 5 ◾
️ 3 2 2
Lightweight 6 ◾
️ ⃝ 1 1 3
Absolute Important 40 81 15 36 99 23 3 High

Difficulty (1-5) 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 Middle

5000 Gorilla
Target 5 Yrs Fast Loud Light 1 Low
Mah Glass
A A S A
Apple A A O 3
S S O S

Samsung S S O O A O S 2

Oppo O O A 1

Figure 2: Design of house of quality

5. CONCLUSION
When creating a product, it must examine several factors, accept concessions, and make key judgments
at every step. This is the only method to produce a high-quality item and set the priority of customer
requirement. In this study, it must prioritize the customer pleasure while keeping technical needs and cost-
effectiveness in mind. The focus of QFD is to involve consumers in the product development process as soon
as possible, which is needs and wishes. It must balance these aspects if any mobile company wants to develop
a successful product. The study highlights the items preferred by most of the users such as long-lasting battery,
high quality camera, reliable, wide screen, easy to use, and lightweight. It aids businesses in translating CRs to

77
Teknomekanik, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 72-79, December 2022
e-ISSN: 2621-8720 p-ISSN: 2621-9980

the primary design requirements (DRs) so that it may create superior goods that are in line with consumer
demands. Based on this effort, we may deduce the following: (i) House of Quality is appropriate in
demonstrating how consumer expectations are closely related to the strategies and methods that businesses
may employ to meet those criteria. (ii) Different consumers have diverse requirements. (iii) QFD Chart shows
that the customers focus mostly on the battery life and camera quality. (iv) Decisions are heavily skewed in
favor of the user's preferred brand.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers, Associate Editor, and Editor-in-Chief for
their valuable comments and suggestions that helped to improve the manuscript.

DECLARATIONS
Author contribution
Akhil NSB and Vimal Kumar: Writing - Original Draft, Writing -Review & Editing, Conceptualization,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources. Tanmoy De: Investigation, Supervision. Suriya Kalangrit:
Investigation, Method verification.

Funding statement
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Competing interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or
publication of this article.

REFERENCES

[1] Y. E. Nahm, “New competitive priority rating method of customer requirements for customer-oriented
product design,” International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, pp. 1377-1385,
2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-013-0186-8
[2] T. DeMarco, “Controlling software projects: management, measurement & estimation,” 1982,
[3] Y. Akao, “Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design,”
Productivity press, 1990.
[4] M. L. Shillito, “Advanced QFD: Linking Technology to Market and Company Needs,” Wiley, 1994.
[5] J. R. Hauser, “The House of Quality,” Harvard Business Review,” pp. 63-73, May 1988.
[6] K.J. Kim, “Robustness indices and robust prioritization in QFD,” Expert systems with applications, pp.
2651-2658, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.01.067
[7] D. R. Kiran, “Total Quality Management: Key Concepts and Case Studies,” Butterworth-Heinemann,
2016.
[8] O. E. Okonta et al., “Embedding Quality Function Deployment In Software Development: A Novel
Approach,” West African Journal of Industrial and Academic Research, 2013.
[9] G. Rosnani, T. Ukurta, and P. Nismah, “Integration of Quality Function Deployment and Value
Engineering: A Case Study of Designing A Texon Cutting Tool,” 2019.
[10] A.E. Torkayesh, M. Yazdani, and D.R. Soriano, “Analysis of industry 4.0 implementation in mobility
sector: An integrated approach based on QFD, BWM, and stratified combined compromise solution
under fuzzy environment,” Journal of Industrial Information Integration, vol. 30, November 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2022.100406
[11] G. Büyüközkan, O. Feyzioğlu, and D. Ruan, “Fuzzy group decision-making to multiple preference
formats in quality function deployment,” Computers in Industry, vol. 58 (5), pp. 392-402, 2007,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2006.07.002
[12] C. &. C. S. Kahraman, “Fuzzy Quality Function Deployment Method for Smart Phone Product
Design,” Customer Oriented Product Design, Springer, pp. 57-71, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-030-42188-5_4
[13] R. Cooper, “Mix target costing, QFD for successful new products,” Marketing News, p. 18, 1995.

78
Teknomekanik, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 72-79, December 2022
e-ISSN: 2621-8720 p-ISSN: 2621-9980

[14] A. Griffin. and J. R. Hauser, “Patterns of Communication Among Marketing, Engineering and
Manufacturing—A Comparison Between Two New Product Teams,” Management Science, pp. 360-
373, 1992.
[15] L. K. Chan and M. L. Wu, “Quality function deployment: A comprehensive review of its concepts and
methods,” Quality Engineering, pp. 23-35, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1081/QEN-120006708
[16] P. S. Clausing, “Enhanced quality function deployment,” in Proceedings of the design productivity,
Massachusetts, 1991.
[17] J. L. Bossert, Quality function deployment: a practitioners approach., Milwaukee, Wisc.: ASQC
Quality Pr, 1991.
[18] S. Li, D. Tang, and Q. Wang, “Rating engineering characteristics in open design using a probabilistic
language method based on fuzzy QFD,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 135, pp. 348-358,
2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.06.008
[19] S. Berk, “Chapter 12 - Quality Function Deployment: Understanding and satisfying customer
expectation,” in Quality Management for the Technology Sector, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000, pp.
124-134.
[20] Sami, “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Data in Mixed Methods Research - Challenges and
Benefits,” Journal of Education and Learning, 2016.
[21] K. Syahputri et al., “Determination of Technical Characteristics in Panel Button and Control Seat Using
Quality Function Deployment,” in International Conference on Sustainable Engineering and Creative
Computing, Bandung, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSECC.2019.8907122
[22] V. Kumar, & R.R.K. Sharma. “An Empirical Investigation of Critical Success Factors Influencing the
Successful TQM Implementation for firms with different strategic Orientation,” International Journal
of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 34, No. 9, pp. 1530-1550, 2017. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJQRM-09-2016-0157
[23] V. Kumar, & R.R.K. Sharma, “Relating Management Problem Solving Styles of Leaders to TQM
Focus: An Empirical Study,” The TQM Journal. Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 218-239, 2017. https://doi.org/
10.1108/TQM-01-2016-0002
[24] V. Kumar, & R.R.K. Sharma, “Leadership Styles and their relationship with TQM Focus for Indian
Firms: An Empirical Investigation,” International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 67, No. 6, pp. 1063-1088, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2017-0071
[25] V. Kumar, & R.R.K. Sharma, P. Verma, K.K. Lai & Y.H. Chang, “Mapping the TQM Implementation:
An empirical investigation of the Cultural Dimensions with different strategic Orientation in Indian
firms,” Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp. 3081-3116, 2018. https://doi.org/
10.1108/BIJ-06-2017-0150
[26] V. Kumar, P. Verma, & V. Muthukumaar, “The Performances of Process Capability Indices in the Six-
Sigma Competitiveness Levels,” Eighth International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Operations Management (IEOM) held in Bandung, Indonesia, March 6-8, 2018. pp. 1945-1951 ©
IEOM Society International, http://ieomsociety.org/ieom2018/papers/524.pdf
[27] V. Kumar, P. Verma, S.K. Mangla, A. Mishra, C. Dababrata, S.C.Hsu, & K.K. Lai, “Barriers to Total
Quality Management for Sustainability in Indian Organizations,” International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 37, No. 6/7, pp. 1007-1031, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-10-
2019-0312
[28] A. Mittal, P. upta, V.Kumar, & C.C.K. Chan, “The Application of Quality Control circle to improve
the PQCDSM quality parameters: A case study,” International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPQM.2021.10046628
[29] A.Mittal, P. Gupta, V. Kumar, & P. Verma, “The Role of Barriers to TQM Success: A case study of
Deming Awarded Industry,” International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPQM.2021.10044426
[30] V.S. Murugesan, A.H. Sequeira, S.K. Jauhar, & V. Kumar, “Sustainable Postal Service Design:
Integrating Quality Function Deployment from the Customer Perspective,” International Journal of
System Assurance Engineering and Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 494-505, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-019-00906-6
[31] V. Nalluri, M.S. Reddy, & V. Kumar, “Consumers’ intention for Green Purchase: An Empirical
Analysis on Foreign Products,” Journal of Critical Reviews, Vol. 7, No. 8, pp. 961-965, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.07.01

79