Abstract

Quality Function Deployment is a versatile methodology, which systematically helps, enhancing the quality of products, services, etc., by incorporating the wishes and needs of the customers. It can be applied in almost every field of life, including transport system, library management system, online admission system, examination system, engineering, agricultural, software, and so on. The rationale of this article is to express the versatility of QFD. This broader objective is achieved by describing what QFD is; and how it works. Relevant literature indicates its application integrated with other methodologies. Special focus of this article is how QFD be used to improve various sections of education in Pakistan. The familiarity with QFD will motivate educational practitioners, researchers and many other to apply it in their relevant fields of interest to get improved quality of product or services with less cost and time.  

Key Words

Customers, Quality Function Deployment, Education

Introduction

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is meant for translating needs, demands or requirement of potential customers into technical solutions that are, then, incorporated in the final products for the purpose of improving the quality. Sullivan (1986) says that Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is ‘‘an overall concept that provides a means of translating customers’ requirements into the appropriate technical requirements for each stage of product development and production (i.e., marketing strategies, planning, product design and engineering, prototype evaluation, production process development, production, sales’’ (P.39). Two important aspects are involved in QFD as the ultimate goal of QFD. These are Total Quality Control (TQC) and Quality. Feigenbaum (1983) explains the “Total Quality Control as an effective system for integrating the quality-development, quality-maintenance, and quality improvement efforts of the various groups in an organization” (P.6).  on the other hand, “quality can be viewed as exception, as perfection, as fitness for purpose, as value for money and as transformative” (Harvey, 1993, p.9). As far as the quality of the product is concerned, Bergman & Klegsjö (1994) mentions, “The quality of a product (article or service) is its ability to satisfy the needs and expectations of the customers” (p.16).

As QFD was primarily built up for the development of quality products in the light of voice of the customers (VOCs). However, the implication of QFD has been extended to a number of fields such as decision-making, planning, services, design, education and research and more other potential fields (Chan & Wu, 2002).

The focus of this article is to explain the QFD method and its application to various fields especially the education and research. This article would introduce this useful technique to specially the researchers in the field of education who, at present, mainly use traditional method of survey. QFD would attract the education researchers and academicians because it provides a procedure through which the practical solution of the problem under study is proposed in a way that stakeholders are involved to build the concept of improved product and services. 







Objectives




The intended objectives of this article are stated below.

i) To explain comprehensively the QFD and how it works, i.e., details of its various sections

ii) To mention how QFD helps in various fields

iii) To highlight QFD and its integration with other methodologies

iv) To draw special focus on how QFD be used to improve various aspects of education

v) To point out how QFD methodology can help improve the education in Pakistan




Quality Function Deployment: An Overview




Shigeru Mizuno and Yoji Akao originally developed QFD in Japan in 1966 as a procedure to produce quality product (Bergman & Klefsjö, 1994). However, its real onset and rise was observed in 1972 after Mitsubishi Heavy Industry and Akao’s published article in Standardization and Quality Control, 1972 (Abu-Assab, 2012).  Since after its initial development, QFD was introduced in US in 1980, and later in other countries (Chan & Wu, 2002).

QFD consists of a systematic procedure that helps in such a way whereby customers’ demands, opinions and expectations provide a guideline to design and produce a quality product or service. The explanation of terms/words coined the QFD can be helpful in understanding this technique.

• Quality - Meeting the expectations/needs of the Customer 

• Function - What is necessary to be done? It refers to focus to be given to which aspect.  

• Deployment - Who will be responsible to take action and when? 

Akao (1990) stated that the proper application of QFD successfully and significantly reduces both of the cost and time as well as development of the product or process.  The utmost aim of applying QFD is the achievement of end product or process having the enhanced qualities based on customer-driven requirements and expectations. Singh & Rawani (2018) view QFD as a quality management tool being practiced in achieving the quality product or service.

The wishes or expectations of customers are called Voice of Customer (VOC) that are actually the source of finding the technical solutions (called as voice of engineering (VOE). 

According to Soewardi and Edhi (2017), QFD is an organized and systematic methodology which helps product designers to identify the required attributes of product according to voice of customer. Sahari et al. (2017) explained the QFD as quality and planning tool which enables product designers and developers to identify the detailed information of customers’ needs and requisites before development of final product or process that qualify the standard demanded by most of the customers. 




QFD: HOQ Structure Elements




House of Quality represents a matrix that correlates the customers ‘requirements (Zare Mehrjerdi, 2010). As the top structure of House of Quality looks like a house, therefore, it was named House of Quality (Zare Mehrjerdi, 2010). The diagrammatical representation of a typical House of Quality (HOQ) is given in Figure-1.

HoQ is a matrix that helps in developing a conceptual map for designing a product (Clausing, 1994). It is the place where the gathered customers’ requirements are so organized that demonstrate various areas of customers’ interest, findings and their prioritizing. Sullivan (1986) cited five fundamental aspects linked to QFD

1. Voice of the customer (VOC) expressed as the needs of customers.

2. Representation of the customer’s voice in technical terms (technical attributes).

3. Product quality deployment- translates the voice of customer into counterpart characteristics. 

4. Deployment of the quality function. Assigning the responsibilities to specific department of person to achieve customer-required quality. 

5. Quality tables- the matrices developed to integrate the voice of customer into final product. 

The inclusion and representation of all the key relationships into diagram is known as the house of quality (Sullivan, 1986). 

Figure 1

House of Quality (HOQ)

Source: (Griffin & Hauser, 1993)

Researcher, practitioners and product developers accumulate data for HOQ by different means. In coming part, different sections of QFD and their roles are described.

 

Voice of Customers (VOC).

 

Who is Customer?

The initial step to build house of quality (HOQ) begins with the Voice of Customer, that are, in fact, their demands and needs. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to know who is the customer?

“The customer concept is vital” in QFD method as it implies ‘the people or organizations that are the reason for our activities’, i.e., those for whom we want to create value” (Bergman & Klefsjö, 1994, p.27). There may be many categories of the customers relevant to the organization whose interest or expectation may not coincide. Therefore, every organization identify its customer “for whom are we trying to create value?” (Bergman & Klefsjö, 1994, p.28).  A customer may be consumer, client or purchaser; and interested party -the person or group showing concern with the success of the organization that may include customer, owner, employees, supplier, investors, and society (Bergman & Klefsjö, 1994).

Finding the potential customer is of significant importance in conducting research under QFD. Different means are used to know about the taste and perception of prospective customers. Japanese firms use a simple way. They place their product in public place and offer potential customers to observe it. Meanwhile technical team listens and records what people comment.  But, for formal research, one to one interview or focus groups in-depth interview may be conducted (Griffin & Hauser, 1993; Tan, et al., 1998).

 

VOC Importance Rating

 

After identifying and selecting the customers’ demands and needs, the next substantial step in QFD is to rate  precisely the importance of VOCs because it largely influences the Final Weights (FWs) of the Technical solutions (TSs) based on which a quality design of a product or service is developed to the maximum satisfaction of the customers (Mehdizadeh, 2010).

Usually the customers are requested to assign importance level to each demand by applying a qualitative-numeric ordinal scale. Assigning a smaller number means low importance and large number refers to high importance. This is the most commonly used and simple way for priority rating of VOCs; and it has been observed that various types of priority rating scales for importance of WHAT are reported in literature. Table-1 summarizes some of them.

 

Table 1. Customer Importance Rating Scales

Authors	Customers Priority Rating Scale
Bouchereau & Rowlands (2000)	1, 2, 3
Dikmen, et al., (2005)	1 – 9
Tanik (2010)	1 – 10
Majid & David (1994)	1 – 5
Masui, Sakao, Kobayashi, & Inaba, (2003), Olewnik & Lewis (2008)	1, 3, 9
Park & Kim (1998)	Proportions of 1

 

Technical Solution (TSs)

 

It refers to the ‘technical descriptor’ or Voice of Engineer (or expert) who decides how to do after having been identified what to do by marketing team. Many terms are being used by the researchers, practitioners, product developers for technical characteristics that deals with HOWs, like engineering characteristics (EC), Technical Solutions (TSs), Solution of Voice of Customers, (SVOCs), etc.  Technical team selects those TSs that are expected to affect at least one or more needs and demands (Chan & Wu, 2005).  Sometimes arrow signs or positive/negative signs are used to show the direction of improvement. There should not be any ambiguity or vagueness in understanding TCs (Hauser & Clausing, 1988).

 

Relationship Matrix (RM)

 

Relationship matrix is one of the most essential segments of the QFD process. It shows the strength of the relationship between VOCs and TSs. It indicates how much each VOC relate to each TS. The relevant literature suggest that  three or five-points qualitative-numeric rating scales are usually adopted to indicate different levels of  strengths of relationships, i.e.,  weak, medium and strong. Tan, et al., (1998) applied 1, 3, 5 numeric values, while Jeong & Oh, (1998) preferred 1, 3, 10; and Bouchereau and Rowlands (2000); Dikmen et al.(2005) ; Ghiya, et al., (1999) and Majid & David (1994) reported 1,3 and 9 values. It is also revealed that five-point scales consisting of 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 values as stated by Chan et al. (1999); and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 by Crowe & Cheng  (1996) to represent Very Weak, Weak, Medium, Strong and Very Strong  relationships.

Final Weights (FWs) of Technical Solutions

The entire journey of QFD process which proceeds from the selection of VOC through formulating many other elements and finally ends at FWs of Technical Solutions. FWs set the directions that how customer’s satisfactions can be achieved one by one.




Application- How QFD Helps in Various Field.




Kabukcu (2016) applied QFD in fashion industry as “QFD is a customer-driven product development technique that translates customer’s needs into design requirements (DRs). It ensures that the voice of customers is implemented into final products or services to increase customers’ satisfaction (p.209). Kamal, et al. (2016) applied QFD in redesigning cultural fashion product and found it a useful tool in the development of product by applying effective use of Voice of Customer for the collection of customers’ needs in order to fulfill the market requirement.

Bolar et al. (2017) implemented QFD in infrastructural maintenance activities, and found it a valuable decision-making tool to address the customers’ dynamic needs and demands. These demands can be collected through well managed repeated survey or proper communication with the customer and manufacturers before starting maintaining infrastructural activities within their available limited resources. 

Tripathi et al. (2019) devised a new rounding policy by successfully adopting QFD in establishing the ICU rounding process. They also implemented this new policy and reported that principles of QFD proved to be of practical application in a multidisciplinary clinical process like rounds. 

Lin & Pekkarinen (2011) developed a QFD framework by integrating the HOQ and modular logic in designing logistic services having the capacity to dispense high-quality logistic services by converting customers’ expectations into service design. 

The requirements of patients for effective medical treatment is the critical aspect that needs to be addressed seriously. For this purpose, QFD methodology assist hospitals to identify and then convert the customers’ needs into suitable service provision (Camgöz?Akda? et al., 2013). Application of QFD is most advantageous in service industry, distinctively for hotel business or hospitality industry where execution of QFD gives profitable consequences (Paryani, 2010). 

The QFD is proved to be beneficial during implementation stages of project in the construction industry. The use of QFD not only gives short-term solution but also provides long-term solution to maximize the quality of construction or the housing projects (Dikmen et al, 2005). QFD is being applied in after sales service department of international construction machinery manufacturing firms to determine the opinion of customers regarding after sale service (Pakdil et al., 2012).  

So, Quality function deployment (QFD) has world-wide utilization in almost every field of life. It is implemented through the interpretation of Voice of customers and their technical solution or attributes.




QFD and its Integration with other Methodologies




Some extensions or adaptation of QFD are practice to make QFD more workable and effective by integrating various approaches as mentioned below. Here we deal with five variations that are mentioned more often in the literature.




Entropy Method




Entropy method developed by Shannon and Weaver (1947) to measure the expected information in the data by using following equation. 

e_i=E(p_1,…,p_m)=-k?_(i=1)^m??p_(i ) ln?(p_i)?

Where p_1,…,p_m are the probabilities and k=1?(ln?(m)) is a positive constant that normalised e_i between 0 to 1. Intuitively, larger variation from p_1  throgh p_m values comprises of larger information available in the data and small variation determines small information. In case of  no variation (all data values are constant) means that no information is available and, therefore,  entropy value becomes 1. QFD researcher and practitioners usually use this theory to compute competitive priority between competitors for each VOC. They use entropy information criteria in two ways based on the information available.

Chan, et al. (1999) used entropy theory to assign a low competitive priority in two situations as :

If a company performnce is already very good, then there is no need for improvement 

if company performance is very low then  it will be difficult for the company to improve.   

Wu and Lin (2012) used entropy theory with a different aspect. They computed competitive priority based on information- more information refers to more weight and vice versa.  The following technique indicates that more variation, more information but smaller value of entropy. So to increase its weight, subratct from 1, i.e.  

d_i=1-e_i

W_i=d_i?(?_(i-1)^n?d_i )




Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)




Saaty (1980) developed Analytical Hierachy Process (AHP) that deals with decision making about the problems related to multiple criteria. A matrix consisting of pairwise comparisons is generated to compute the importance weight of each criteria. AHP has been largely practiced by researchers and practioners due to its scope and ease of application. (Ho, 2008).  The following three steps are included in AHP to develop the priority rating.

a) creat hierarchy

b) AHP priority analysis and, then 

c) find consistency. 

AHP has extensive application in finance, environment, business, marketing, health, agricultural, industry, service, manufacturing, military, logistics, social, political and many other areas. 




Fuzzy Methods




It is to point out that the major issue related to QFD . deals with qualitative data. The whole structure of the HOQ contain qualitative data with diverse scales and different lengths. The vagueness  and  inaccuracy hidden in the qualitative data are difficult to quantify accurately (Tsai, et al., 2003). Zadeh (1965) introduced fuzzy sets theory in 1965. This method can help to use linguistic variables as fuzzy qualitative data; and can model the vagueness in a proper way. The rationale of this technique is that instead of using crisp rating (exact values), ranges of values are used. Fuzzy scales can help to reduce vagueness and is more representatives of variability, (Bouchereau and  Rowlands, 2000) 




Conjoint Analysis (CA)




Conjoint analysis (CA) is a research method used for establishing the priorities when selections are to be made among different levels. It has also been used to compute the importance of attributes of a new product. CA first introduced in 1964 by Luce & Tukey, and later suggested for market research by Green & Rao in 1971, (Green & Rao, 1971; Luce & Turkey, 1964). CA determines the preference structure for technical attributes which have multiple levels. 




Kano’s Model




Professor N. Kano introduced this model in 1984 (Kano, et al., 1984). Kano model divides the demands and needs of customers into following three different classes  (Bayraktaroglu & Özgen, 2008; Shen, et al., 2000).

One dimensional attribute

These attributes and their increased performance promote the customer’s satisfaction. Usually, customer wants to know about these. For example, in purchasing a car, the number of kilometers a car covers in one liter of fuel- more the kilometers more is the customer’s satisfaction. 

 Attractive attributes

These attributes, in fact, generate additional satisfaction of the customer. Their absence does not cause disappointment because the user does not require these. Anyhow, more attractive attributes more satisfaction of the customer. For example, power rear view mirror.  

Must-be attributes: These are the basic and important needs. Customers always require the presence of these attributes in the product/service. Absence of any attribute means dissatisfaction of the customer. For example, no scratches, standard rim etc.

Figure 2

Kano’s Model

Source: (Bayraktaroglu & Özgen, 2008; Tan & Shen, 2000)

QFD and Education




Education is the broad service providing sector of any society. Being a vital organ of the society, quality is its central concern. A number of methods, techniques and strategies are applied to achieve the ever-demanding goal of quality because the quality of education, directly or indirectly, have the impact on almost every domain of the society. 

The development in any field cannot be achieved without research keeping in view the present and future orientation of progress.  There are multiple methods of research developed by researchers to solve the problems of varied nature because any problem cannot be resolved by any method. That is why, researchers remain in continuous effort to develop new methods of research to address emerging problem that cannot be solved by existing techniques. QFD is also research method that offer a unique way to deal with the problem. QFD method is being used to conduct quality research in the field of education. 

Motwani et al. (1996) conducted a research under QFD to evaluate MBA program at Grand Valley state University focusing to extract ideas how the university could do to improve it.  

QFD, as customer-oriented and total quality management technique, was adopted by Owlia & Aspinwall (1998) in higher education for improving process and design outlining of a QFD model for quality planning based on the views of three groups of customers. Raharjo et al. (2007) used QFD and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to propose a methodology for the improvement of higher education and its quality; and concluded that higher education institutional quality could be improved if the institution take steps “to develop the overall facility, re-evaluate existing curriculum, reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, improve lecturers’ qualifications, and provide more leadership/team training” (P.1112).

Zheng et al. (2011) conducted a survey through a questionnaire about the satisfaction of students for curriculum in Nanjing Higher Vocational School, identified analytic findings by using GAP-QFD and provided direction for curriculum reform. Murgatroyd (1993) examined how Quality Function Deployment (QFD) methods could be applied for designing, developing, and delivering courses under a program through distance education. Sahney et al. (2004) writes that educational and learning organizations are also taking into account the consumer’s demands through the use of methodologies such as Total Quality Management (TQM) and QFD to enhance the performance of institution.

The application of QFD methodology in higher education guides to evaluate various ideas of enhancing the knowledge level of students and promote teaching techniques by identifying elements necessary for development (Bakhru, 2018).




How QFD Can Help Improving Education in Pakistan.




Customer Requirements and Desires (CRD)

 

It is already discussed that every organization decides about who are the customers, for whom it is going to create value. As far as the education is concerned, there could be as many customers as the stakeholder are. For example, parents, children, teachers, administrators, owners, employers, etc. The requirements of any one or many of them will be their voices (Customer Requirements and Desires-CRD). If we include parents as customers, their CRD are actually taken as Voice of parents (VoPs). In the same way, the CRD of students will be denoted as the Voice of Students (VoSs).

So, as basic first step of the project to resolve any problem for the purpose of improving education, conduct a survey to collect possible requirements and needs of customers (in this case, parents, students or any concerned person)  as their CRD or voice of customer along with how important each of the Voices is on ordinal rating scales from 1 to 5, where 1 to 5 ranges in ascending order of importance. 

After the collection of CRD or Voice of parents or any concerned customer, the next step is to find out the solution of these voices. 




Technical Solution Requirement (TSR)

 

Once the Voice of Customers as VoPs or VoSs have been identified and collected, their Importance Ratings (IRs) are determined. In the next step, the Technical Solution Requirements (TSRs) as Solution of Voice of Parents (SVoPs) or Solution of Voice of Students (SVoSs) or any other are determined. Technical Solutions Requirements (TSRs) are the technical requirement to meet Customer Requirements and Desires (CRD) or their voices.  The TSRs are the technical translation of CRDs to attain utmost gratification of clients (Bouchereau and Rowlands, 2000). Hauser and Clausing (1988) recommended that each TSR is supposed to resolve at least one CRD. The selection of TSRs are very important phase is QFD; and are called the heart or soul of QFD methodology (Govers, 1996). The research finds out and finalize SVoPs as customers with the consultation of teachers, education experts, owners and stake holders. 




Developing the Relationship Matrix (RM)




The Relationship Matrix (RM) consists of rows and columns in which rows are actually Customer Requirements and Desires (CRD) / Voice of Parents (VoPs) or any customer, and columns are the Technical Solution Requirement (TSR) / Solution of Voice of Parents (SVoPs) or any customer. RM expresses strengths of relationship between each CRD or VoPs as customers and TSR or SVoPs or any customer involved in the study. The RM explains how CRD are accomplished through TSR/SVoPs (Han et al., 2001). Using the ordinal scale is the norm where small scales represent weak relationships and bigger numbers show the strong relationship. Under the application of QFD methodology to education system, determine strength of relationship between VoPs and SVoPs or any customer(s) involved.




Determination of the Final Weights (FWs) of TSRs/SVoPs




The method used for determining FWs is calculated by the following equation 1, (Jeong and Oh, (1998); Bouchereau and Rowlands, (2000); Hoyle and Chen, (2007), Iqbal, et al. (2014). 

?FW?_j=?_(i=1)^r??R_ij*?  I_i           i=1,2,…,r,      j=1,2,…,c                           (1)

FW stands for the Final Weight of TSRs/SVPS; R denotes Relationship Matrix; ‘I’ represents the customer priority rating; ‘i’ is the number of VoPs, and ‘j’ is the number of SVoPs if the parents are included as customers.

Conclusion

The aim of under taking this research was to invite the attention of the researchers, especially in the field of education to the application of QFD, which being used extensively in almost every field of study or services. In this article, we achieved the objective by describing the nature of QFD and how it works. We described its various sections and comprehensively explained the application of QFD in various field of life. QFD combined with other methodologies can be used. This aspect is also highlighted with the intention of familiarizing the novice researcher with the development adopted by experts in using QFD. In order to improve education system in Pakistan, we have described all the important steps of QFD to be followed. Following the steps to improve education, QFD can be used to improve many other systems, for example, transport system, admission system, library management system, online admission system, examination system, banking system, hoteling services, logistics, sports, engineering, agricultural, environment, software, e-business, medicine, hospitality.  etc.  

References

• Abu-Assab,S. (2012).Integration of preference analysis methods into quality function deployment: A focus on elderly people. Springer Gabler
• Akao, Y. (1990). Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirement into Product Design.Cambridge, MA. Productivity Press,
• Bakhru, K. M. (2018). Aligning teaching methods for learning outcomes: a need for educational change in management educationusing quality function deployment approach. International Journal of Learning and Change, 10(1), 54-69.
• Bayraktaroglu, G., & Özgen, Ö. (2008). Integrating the Kano model, AHP and planning matrix: QFD application in library services. Library Management, 29(4/5), 327-351.
• Bergman,B., & Klefsjö,B. (1994).Quality: From customer needs to customer satisfaction. McGraw-Hill College.
• Bolar,A.A., Tesfamariam,S., & Sadiq,R. (2017). Framework for prioritizing infrastructure user expectations using quality function deployment (QFD).International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment,6(1), 16-29.
• Bouchereau, V., and Rowlands, H. (2000).
• Camgöz‐Akdağ,H., Tarım,M., Lonial,S., & Yatkın,A. (2013). QFD application using SERVQUAL for private hospitals: A case study.Leadership in Health Services,26(3), 175-183
• Chan, L. K., & Wu, M. L. (2005). A systematic approach to quality function deployment with a full illustrative example. Omega, 33(2), 119-139.
• Chan, L. K., Kao, H. P., & Wu, M. L. (1999). Rating the importance of customer needs in quality function deployment by fuzzy and entropy methods. International Journal of Production Research, 37(11), 2499-2518.
• Chan, L.-K., & Wu, M.-L. (2002). Quality function deployment: a comprehensive review of its concepts and methods. Quality engineering, 15(1), 23-35.
• Clausing, D. (1994). Total Quality Development: A Step-by-Step Guide to World Class Concurrent Engineering.New York: ASME Press,
• Crowe, T. J., & Cheng, C. C. (1996). Using quality function deployment in manufacturing strategic planning. International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, 16(4), 35-48
• Dikmen, I., Talat Birgonul, M., & Kiziltas, S. (2005). Strategic use of quality function deployment (QFD) in the construction industry. Building and Environment, 40(2), 245-255
• Feigenbaum, A. V. (1983).Total Quality Control(3rded.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Ghiya, K. K., Bahill, A. T., & Chapman, W. L. (1999). QFD: validating robustness. Quality engineering, 11(4), 593-611
• Govers, C.P.M. (1996). What and how about quality function deployment (QFD). International Journal of Production Economics, 46-47 (2), 575-85.
• Green,P.E., & Rao,V.R. (1971). Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data.Journal of Marketing Research,8(3), 355
• Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). The voice of the customer. Marketing science, 12(1), 1-27.
• Han, Chen, S. K., Ebrahimpour, M. and Sodhi, M. S. (2001). A conceptual QFD planning model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 796-812.
• Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993).Defining Quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9-34
• Hauser, J.R., Clausing, D. (1988). The house of quality. Harvard Business Review, 66 (3), 63-73.
• Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications-A literature review. European Journal ofOperational Research, 186(1), 211-228.
• Jeong, M., & Oh, H. (1998). Quality function deployment: An extended framework for service quality and customer satisfaction in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 17(4), 375-390.
• Kamal, M., Wang Y., & Kennon, R. (2016). Redesigning cultural product by applying quality function deployment. WIT Transactions onEngineering Sciences,113: 413-419.
• Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality, Hinshitsu. Quality. The journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control,14, 39-48
• Lin,Y., & Pekkarinen,S. (2011). QFD‐based modular logistics service design.Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,26(5), 344 356.
• Luce, D., & Turkey, J. (1964). Simulation conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 27
• Majid, J., & David, R. (1994). Total Quality Management Applied to Engineering Education. Quality Assurancein Education, 2(1), 32-40.
• Masui, K., Sakao, T., Kobayashi, M., & Inaba, A. (2003). Applying quality function deployment to enviro
• Mehdizadeh,E. (2010). Ranking of customer requirements using the fuzzy centroid‐based method.International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,27(2), 201-216.
• Motwani,J., Kumar,A., & Mohamed,Z. (1996). Implementing QFD for improving quality in education: An example.Journal of Professional Services Marketing,14(2), 149-159
• Murgatroyd, S. (1993).The house of quality: Using QFD for instructional design in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 34-48
• Olewnik, A., & Lewis, K. (2008). Limitations of the House of Quality to provide quantitative design information. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 25(2), 125-146
• Owlia,M.S., & Aspinwall,E.M. (1998). Application of quality function deployment for the improvement of quality in an engineering department.European Journal of Engineering Education,23(1), 105-115
• Pakdil, F., Işın, F. B., & Genç, H. (2012). A quality function deployment application using qualitative and quantitative analysis in after sales services. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(11-12), 1397-1411.
• Park, T., & Kim, K. J. (1998). Determination of an optimal set of design requirements using house of quality. Journal of Operations Management, 16(5), 569-581
• Paryani, K., Masoudi, A., & Cudney, E. A. (2010). QFD application in the hospitality industry: A hotel case study. Quality Management Journal, 17(1), 7-28.
• Raharjo,H., Xie,M., Goh,T.N., & Brombacher,A.C. (2007). A methodology to improve higher education quality using the quality function deployment and analytic hierarchy process.Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,18(10), 1097-1115.
• Saaty,T.L. (1990).The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. RWS Publications
• Sahari, K. S. M., Hasini, H., Hamdan, A. M., and Syahmi, A. (2017). The Dispositional Attribution of Customer Satisfaction through the Juxtaposition of QFDA and SERVQUAL in Service Industry Design. MATEC Web of Conferences, 135, 00034
• Sahney, S., Banwet, D., & Karunes, S. (2004). A SERVQUAL and QFD approach to total quality education: a student perspective. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53 (2), 143-166
• Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W. (1963). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Shen, X. X., Tan, K. C., & Xie, M. (2000). An integrated approach to innovative product development using KanoÂ’s model and QFD. European Journal of Innovation Management,3(2), 91-99.
• Singh, A. K. and Rawani, A. (2018). Application of QFD in Education Sector: A Review. Technology, 9(3), 592-599.
• Soewardi, H. and Edhi, G. S. (2017). Innovative Design of Mattress by Using TRIZ and QFD. INSIST,2(1), 58-62
• Sullivan, L.P., 1986. Quality function deployment. Quality Progress,19 (6), 39-50.
• Tan, K., & Shen, X. (2000). Integrating Kano's model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment. Total Quality Management,11(8), 1141-115
• Tan, K., Xie, M., & Chia, E. (1998). Quality function deployment and its use in designing information technology systems. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,15(6), 634-645
• Tripathi,S., Naevor,A.J., Henrekin,L.L., & Welke,K.F. (2019). Design and development of daily morning surgical rounds in ICU by quality function deployment.Pediatric Quality and Safety,4(3), e171.
• Tsai, C. Y., Lo, C. C., & Chang, A. C. (2003). Using fuzzy QFD to enhance manufacturing strategic planning. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, 20(1), 33-41.
• Utne, I. B. (2009). Improving the environmental performance of the fishing fleet by use of Quality Function Deployment (QFD). Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(8), 724-731
• Wu, H. Y., & Lin, H. Y. (2012). A hybrid approach to develop an analytical model for enhancing the service quality of e-learning. Computers & Education,58(4),1318-1338.
• Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353
• Zare Mehrjerdi,Y. (2010). Quality function deployment and its extensions.International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,27(6), 616-640.
• Zheng,Z., Shan,X., Qiu,R.G., & Mi,C. (2011). Customers' satisfaction diagnosis for higher vocational education curriculum evaluation based on GAP-QFD.Proceedings of 2011 IEEE International Conference on Grey Systems and Intelligent Services.
• Kabukcu, E. (2016). A Research on QFD-'House of Brand'in Fashion Industry. Chinese Business Review, 15(4), 207-213.