Linking quality function deployment with conjoint study for new product development process

Conjoint analysis (CA) is a popular marketer's tool for new product design. Quality function deployment (QFD) is another approach, frequently used by engineers, for design of new product. Typically, in a conjoint study, the attributes and their levels are determined through focus group discussion or market survey. On many occasions, the researchers leave out some of the more critical features altogether or include attributes with unrealistic sets of levels resulting in infeasible product profiles. In QFD, on the other hand, the new product development team attempts to identify the technical characteristics (TCs) that should be improved or included to meet the customer requirements (CRs) by using a subjective relationship matrix between CRs and TCs. QFD is not used to determine the attributes and their levels. As a result, more often than not, QFD captures what product developers "think" would best satisfy customer needs. In this paper, we link QFD with conjoint and propose a framework for objectively determining the attribute levels using the QFD approach for subsequent use in a conjoint study. For this purpose we obtain the so-called relationship matrix in QFD in a particular way that facilitates achieving our objective. We formulate an integer-programming problem for maximising the weighted sum of improvements in the product, subject to budgetary constraint and minimum percentage improvement for each or some of the attributes. We apply the framework for a commercial vehicle design problem with hypothetical data.

[1]  Gerald M. Katz,et al.  PRACTITIONER NOTE: A Response to Pullman et al.'s (2002) Comparison of Quality Function Deployment versus Conjoint Analysis , 2004 .

[2]  Yoji Akao,et al.  Quality Function Deployment : Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design , 1990 .

[3]  Ching-Torng Lin,et al.  New product go/no-go evaluation at the front end: a fuzzy linguistic approach , 2004, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[4]  Ronald G. Askin,et al.  Optimal new product design using quality function deployment with empirical value functions , 1999 .

[5]  Fiorenzo Franceschini,et al.  Quality function deployment: How to improve its use , 1998 .

[6]  Li Pheng Khoo,et al.  Framework of a fuzzy quality function deployment system , 1996 .

[7]  Jürgen Bode,et al.  Cost engineering with quality function deployment , 1998 .

[8]  M. Larry Shillito,et al.  Advanced QFD: Linking Technology to Market and Company Needs , 1994 .

[9]  Ashraf Labib,et al.  A Fuzzy Quality Function Deployment (FQFD) model for deriving optimum targets , 2001 .

[10]  Chih-Chung Lo,et al.  USING FUZZY QFD TO ENHANCE MANUFACTURING STRATEGIC PLANNING , 2003 .

[11]  E. Ertugrul Karsak,et al.  Fuzzy multiple objective programming framework to prioritize design requirements in quality function deployment , 2004, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[12]  Kwang-Jae Kim,et al.  Determination of an Optimal Set of Design Requirements Using House of Quality , 1998 .

[13]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice , 1990 .

[14]  Gary S. Wasserman,et al.  ON HOW TO PRIORITIZE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS DURING THE QFD PLANNING PROCESS , 1993 .

[15]  Richard Y. K. Fung,et al.  Product design resources optimization using a non-linear fuzzy quality function deployment model , 2002 .

[16]  William L. Moore,et al.  A Comparison of Quality Function Deployment and Conjoint Analysis in New Product Design , 2002 .

[17]  Seyed Hossein Iranmanesh,et al.  AN INVESTIGATION OF RANK RESERVAL WHEN USING FUZZY IMPORTANCE LEVELS IN QFD ANALYSIS , 2003 .