The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm

IJQRM QUALITY PAPER

28,9
Quality function deployment and
its profitability engagement:
910
a systems thinking perspective
Received July 2010
Revised January 2011
Yahia Zare Mehrjerdi
Accepted February 2011 Department of Industrial Engineering, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

Abstract
Purpose – The paper seeks to give some reviews of quality function deployment and by using a
systems thinking perspective to show how QFD can be a useful and profit-making tool for business
decision making in general.
Design/methodology/approach – In order to show that QFD is a tool that brings profit to the
organization the paper has designed various loops using systems thinking perspectives and
fundamentals theorems for discussion purposes and facts verification.
Findings – The task of successful product development must encompass the management
commitment in giving value to the voice of the customer by using quality function deployment. This is
because this quality function tool can make a significant contribution to business success through
profit generation and competiveness enhancement.
Practical implications – This research helps the pros and cons of quality function deployment in
getting a better understanding and usefulness of the QFD.
Original/value – This paper helps management in getting a better understanding of the quality
function deployment, its power of profit-making and productivity enhancement and the role that
systems thinking can have in better describing the problem to the middle and top management.
Keywords Quality function deployment, Systems thinking perspectives, Voice of customers,
Profitability engagement, Decision making
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
System thinking is a conceptual framework for problem-solving that considers problems
in their entirety. Problem solving in this way involves pattern finding to enhance
understanding of, and responsiveness to, the problem. Outcomes from systems thinking
depend heavily on how a system is defined because systems thinking examine
relationships between the various parts of the system. Boundaries must be set to
distinguish what parts of the world are contained inside the system and what parts are
considered the environment of the system. The environment of the system will influence
problem solving because it influences the system, but it is not part of the system.
What makes using system thinking different from other approaches to studying
International Journal of Quality complex systems is the use of feedback loops. According to the concept of system
& Reliability Management thinking, reality is made up of circles, but people usually see straight lines, which is a
Vol. 28 No. 9, 2011
pp. 910-928 major limitation to see and understand the system and make the right decision related to
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited that system. Peter M. Senge (1990), Director of the Centre for Organizational Learning at
0265-671X
DOI 10.1108/02656711111172513 MIT’s Sloan School of Management described the systems thinking technique in his
book. The concept of system thinking is derived from a computer simulation model Quality function
developed by Jay W. Forrester (1961, 1969) to deal with management problems. deployment
Although, quality function deployment (QFD) was started in Japan in 1970s it was
not until 1980s that it was truly recognized by western world. Quality function
deployment as a tool is used successfully in a large number of Japanese organizations
for the purpose of improving processes and building competitive advantages.
Companies are using QFD as a powerful tool that addresses strategic and operational 911
decisions in businesses. Kelsey Hayes (1986) used QFD for developing a coolant sensor,
which fulfilled critical customer needs such as “easy-to-add coolant”, “easy-to-identify
unit”, and “provide cap removal instructions” (King, 1987; Prasad, 1998). QFD provides
a 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, prototype evaluation, production process
development, production, sales) (Sullivan, 1986).
Researchers such as Sullivan (1986), Hauser and Clausing (1988), Zairi and Youssef
(1995), Chan and Wu (2002), and Terninko (1995) have discussed on the benefits of
QFD. However, these benefits, as are pointed out by researchers in the literature, can be
summarized as follows:
.
can help in making trade-offs between what the customer demands and what the
company can afford to produce;
.
can enhance team work among the engineers in the department;
.
can increase customer satisfaction (this is done by taking customers
requirements into consideration and brought them into the product
development process);
. can shorten the time to market;
.
can cause employees to make sufficient documentation because of seeing the
importance of information; and
.
can improve effective communication between company divisions.

The plan of this paper is as follows: section 2 describes research methodology. Section
3 gives an overview of systems perspective. QFD and its applications are discussed in
section 4. The strength and weaknesses of QFD is the topic of section 5. Section 6 gives
some descriptions on the qualitative politicized influence diagrams technique. Systems
thinking perspective of QFD is the topic of section 7 while the role of QFD on
productivity improvement and cost reduction is discussed in section 8. Section 9 gives
some discussion on the role of QFD on product design while section 10 discusses the
role of QFD on timely delivery to market and competition. The role of QFD on
productivity enhancement and profitability is discussed in section 11 and on value
generation and organizational learning are given in sections 12 and 13 respectively.
Managerial implications are the topic of section 14 while section 15 gives the
conclusion of the article.

2. Research methodology
The aim of this article is to show the power of quality function deployment in
profitability engagement and profit generation through the use of systems thinking
perspective. After giving a description of systems thinking the roles of QFD:
IJQRM .
on productivity improvement and cost reduction;
28,9 .
on product design;
.
on “timely delivery to market” and competition;
.
on productivity enhancement and profitability;
.
on value generation; and
912 .
on organizational learning

are discussed.

3. A systems perspective
Senge and Lannon (1990) indicated that most problems in our society are full of
dynamic complexity. Causal loop diagram is used to represent the conceptual feedback
structure of systems (Sterman, 2000). Systems archetype is composed of nine major
systems as was originally classified by Senge and Lannon (1990). The causal loop
diagrams can be interpreted as follows:
.
In each causal link, the variable at the tail of the arrow is called as the
independent variable and the variable at the head of the arrow is called as the
dependent variable.
.
A positive sign (þ ) causal link means that when the independent variable
increases (decreases), the dependent variable increase above (decreases below)
what would have been if the independent variable did not change.
.
A negative sign (2 ) causal link means that when the independent variable
increases (decreases), the dependent variable decreases below (increases above)
what would have been if the independent variable did not change.

There is a body of knowledge in the field of simulation that can be drawn on in order to
develop a powerful model, which can be used to explore the impact of changes to
individual factors and to link the factors directly to project outcomes.
Systems archetype is composed of many circulations formed as a result of all kinds
of problems that affect one another in society. Senge and Lannon (1990) classified these
circulations into nine major systems archetypes as follows:
(1) Delayed balancing process.
(2) Limitation to goals.
(3) Shifting the burden.
(4) Temporary solution.
(5) Escalation.
(6) Success.
(7) Common tragedy.
(8) Failure.
(9) Growth and under-investment.

Reinforcing feedbacks are the engines of growth. Whenever you are in a situation
where things are growing, you can be sure that reinforcing feedback is at work.
Reinforcing feedback can also generate accelerating decline – a pattern of decline Quality function
where small drops amplify themselves into larger and larger drops, such as the decline deployment
in bank assets when there is a financial panic. In a reinforcing process, a small change
builds on itself. Whatever movement occurs is amplified, producing more movement in
the same direction. Figure 1 depicts a typical reinforcing feedback.
Balancing feedback operates whenever there is a goal-oriented behaviour. If the goal
is to be not moving, then balancing feedback will act the way the brakes in a car do. If 913
the goal is to be moving at 100kms per hour, then balancing feedback will cause you to
accelerate to 100 but no faster. The “goal” can be an explicit target, as when a firm
seeks a desired market share, or it can be implicit, such as bad habit. In a balancing
system, there is a self-correction that attempts to maintain some goal or target. Hiring
new employees is a balancing process with the goal of having a target workforce size
or rate of growth. Balancing feedback processes underlie all goal-oriented behaviour
(see Figure 2). What makes balancing processes so difficult in management is that the
goals are often implicit, and no one recognizes that the balancing process exists at all.
And often this has something to do with corporate culture. But identifying these
balancing processes is crucial for system dynamics modelling.
Many feedback processes contain “delays”, interruptions in the flow of influence
which make the consequences of actions occur gradually. Delays are interruptions
between actions and their consequences. Delays exist everywhere in business systems.

Figure 1.
A reinforcing feedback

Figure 2.
A balancing feedback
IJQRM We invest now, to reap a benefit in the distant future; we hire a person today but it may
28,9 be months before he or she is fully productive. But delays are often unappreciated and
can lead to instability or even breakdown, especially when they are long. According to
system dynamics, a complete dynamic system can be modelled by combining these
different elements, like reinforcing feedbacks, balancing feedbacks, and delays.

914 4. QFD and its application

Quality function deployment is a structured approach to seek out customers,
understand their needs, and ensure that their needs are met. QFD is probably the most
important management tool developed to assure quality in new or improved products
and services (Han et al., 2001). Griffin (1992) believe that there are more than 100 major
companies using QFD in the US. To find companies willing to use QFD technique in
their decision-making process refer to the annual USA quality function deployment
symposium transactions. QFD is used in various fields for determining customer needs
(Stratton, 1989), developing priorities (Han et al., 1998), formulating annual policies
(Philips et al., 1994), manufacturing strategies (Crowe and Cheng, 1996; Jugulum and
Sefik, 1998), benchmarking (Kochhar and Eguia, 1998; Kochhar and Saeed, 1999; Pfohl
and Ester, 1999), and environmental decision-making (Berglund, 1993).
Kim et al. (2000) have proposed a fuzzy multi objective modeling to QFD, assuming that
the functional relationships between Customer Requirements (CRs) and Design
Requirements (DRs) and that among the DRs can be identified using benchmarking
data of customer competitive analysis. But, it seems to be difficult when an entirely new
product needs to be developed. Other variants of fuzzy modeling as such as fuzzy and
entropy method (Chan et al., 1999; Chan and Wu, 2002), weighted sum method (Chen and
Weng, 2006; Wasserman, 1993), fuzzy weighted average (FWA) (Chen et al., 2005; Chen
and Weng, 2006; Liu, 2005; Vanegas and Labib, 2001), fuzzy outranking approach (Wang,
1999) and grey model (Wu, 2006) have all been suggested and used in the literature of QFD.
Adiano and Roth(1994) have proposed a dynamic approach to QFD for translating
customer wants and needs into relevant product and process parameters. Using
feedback loops, this new approach incorporates updated customer satisfaction data and
dynamically links evolving requirements directly back into manufacturing and related
processes. After authors have introduced the concept and illustrated the mechanics of the
approach they described how it could benefit an IBM assembly plant. Boeing Airlift and
Tanker Programs (A&T) uses the criteria for performance excellence as its road-map to
business excellence. Researcher has employed a house of quality to facilitate a detailed,
quantitative analysis of how well the various strategic thrusts and initiatives at A&T
address the individual items within the criteria. This unique application of QFD will
demonstrate applicability to the design and development of a large organization.
Gonzalez et al. (2004) have proposed a modified approach to QFD, called “QFD
strategy house”, as a systematic means of incorporating intelligence on markets,
consumers and technologies in strategy development. It links marketing and
manufacturing strategies by first developing a continuous improvement strategy. Both
the marketing and manufacturing literatures have reported that an alignment between
the two constituent strategies confers a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
Karsak and Ozogul (2007) have developed a decision framework for ERP software
selection based on the quality function deployment, fuzzy linear regression, and
zero-one goal programming tools. This framework allows company to consider
demand characteristics as well as the ERP system characteristics while providing the Quality function
means for incorporating not only the relationships between company demands and deployment
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system characteristics, but also the interactions
between ERP system characteristics through adopting the QFD principles. The
application of proposed decision-making framework is illustrated in the same article as
well (Karsak and Ozogul, 2007).
915
5. Strengths and weaknesses of QFD
The strengths and the weaknesses of QFD for food product development have been
analyzed based on the available literature and our own experience. These lists indicate
that QFD is only suitable for product improvements at this stage and not for the
development of truly innovative products. The QFD approach ensures that the product
is developed according to the wishes of the target group. It takes a large effort and a lot
of time to conduct QFD for the first time. However, once it has been executed it will
speed up the time-to-market and enable the company to improve the product at less
cost. Moreover, the QFD approach will enable the company to produce a better product
with a higher chance of success once the right consumer wishes have been determined.
Some of the strengths and weaknesses of QFD are discussed in the following:

Strengths
.
Improves the communication.
.
Provides a link between consumer wishes and the production characteristics.
. Matrices allows very complex relationships.
.
Increases the potential market share of the product if customer wishes are
interpreted correctly at the time of incorporating that into the product design.
.
Reduces the final production cost because of the high degree of conceptual research.

Weaknesses
.
Customer gets involve only in the first stage of product development. Their
feedback is not taken into supported implicitly.
.
Customer wants can be very diverse and variable. This can produce a problem
for the management since the lists of “wants” and “how” may get very extensive
and out of control.
.
It is very time consuming to complete the matrices.
.
Benefits service developers more than product developers.
.
It is more suitable for products that are built by assembling individual parts
together.
.
It is very hard to establish the customer wishes. If customer wishes are
interpreted wrongly and incorporated into product design then there is a risk of
not having a successful product in the market.

6. The QPID technique

As Coyle (1996, 1983) and Sterman (2000) stated the Qualitative politicized influence
diagrams (QPID) is a variation of the well-known system dynamic (SD) approach in its
IJQRM qualitative form. System dynamics uses a diagrammatic approach known as influence
28,9 diagrams (IDs) to map the causal links between the components of a system. There are a
huge number of applications and application fields for the use of system dynamics
technique. There are potentials for solving many new problems as they arise in the world
through the use of system dynamics. Some of its current applications, are in the areas of
supply chain management, health management, ecological problems, military systems
916 (Coyle and Alexander, 1996), to purely business contexts (Coyle and Millar, 1996). Table I
shows some applications in various fields using qualitative politicized influence
diagrams, while Table II presents applications with the use of system dynamics.

Row Subject Author

1 Knowledge and competence mapping using QPID Powell and Swart (2003)
2 This is what the fuss is about: a systemic modeling for Powell and Swart (2003)
organizational knowing
3 RFID adoption: a systems thinking perspective through Zare Mehrjerdi (2011)
profitability engagement
4 Advancing systems thinking and building micro-worlds in Woodside (2006)
business and industrial marketing
5 A dynamic model of product quality and pricing decisions Narasimhan et al. (1993)
6 Managing IT with systems thinking Dutta (2003)
7 Systems thinking: creative holism for managers Jackson (2003)
Table I. 8 Systems thinking, systems practice Checkland (1981)
Applications with the use 9 Business dynamics – systems thinking and modeling for a Sterman (2000)
of QPID complex world

Row Subject Authors

1 System enquiry Wolstenholme (1990)

2 The security-strategy interface: using qualitative process Powell and Bradford (1998)
models to relate the security function to business dynamics
3 Directing strategic change: a dynamic holistic approach Bougon and Komocar (1990)
4 Industrial dynamics modeling of supply chains Towill (1996)
5 Developing Indian grain supply chain cost model: a system Sachan et al. (2004)
dynamics approach
6 Using systems dynamics for human resources management in Trček (2006)
information systems security,
7 Library expense control: a system dynamics approach Zare Mehrjerdi (2011)
8 Dynamic analysis of a production-inventory model Wikner (2005)
9 The system simplification approach in understanding the Wikner et al. (1992)
dynamic behavior of a manufacturing supply chain
Table II. 10 Smoothing supply chain dynamics Wikner et al. (1991)
Applications with the use 11 System dynamics approach for change management in new Rodrigues et al. (2006)
of SD product development
Among these methodologies numerical simulation version is the most popular and Quality function
powerful but it has some serious drawbacks for the complex system studies. This is also deployment
recognized and discussed by researchers such as Coyle (1996, 1983). This is mainly
because systems dynamic requires that each system component to be described by a
variable which is expressible in numerical terms. While this may be wholly appropriate
for such things as revenue, profit, reliability or fuel flow it is less easy to see the validity
of such a requirement when dealing with competence, reputation, customer satisfaction 917
or quality of service. One can express these variables numerically but there is always a
feeling of dissatisfaction at having to shoehorn essentially qualitative matters into a
numerical structure. Some of the applicants of system dynamics have chosen a
non-numerical approach, using the concept of a causal map (in essence the ID) to capture
the system under consideration but then using topological analysis (instead of
simulation) to explore the likely dynamic behavior of the system (Wolstenholme, 1990;
Powell and Bradford, 1998). The procedure used in this study is listed in the following:
(1) Establish the explicit system model (the Influence Diagram) in the standard
manner.
(2) Using the QPID approach, attach to each causal arrow the actions that separately
or together control the strength of the linkage represented by that arrow.
(3) (Optionally) identify the loops in the ID and characterize them according to their
strength and speed of operation. This allows prioritization of effort. Strong, fast
loops are analyzed before slow weak ones.
(4) Loop by loop, establish, for each of the actors in each arrow in the loop what
information and knowledge is required for them to fulfill that function.
Similarly for the skill/competence set needed to carry out that actors function.
(5) Generally speaking, actors will appear in more than one arrow in the diagram.
Collect together all the information/knowledge and skill/competence
requirements for each actor.

7. A systems thinking perspective of QFD

Delays are crucial component of the dynamic behavior of systems, but -like
nonlinearity – they are difficult to incorporate into optimization models. A common
simplification is to assume that all delays in the model are of the same fixed length.
The results of such models are of questionable value. Meadows (1982) indicates that
ignoring feedback can result in policies that generate unanticipated side effects or are
diluted, delayed, or defeated by the system. Figure 3 comprises loops 1 and 2 where
main loop 1 relates QFD to profitability in a logical way.
The QFD utilization gives tremendous opportunity to the management in making a
good level of tradeoffs between customer requirements and company’s ability to
provide for them. When customers’ voices are being heard by management and their
needs are being responded then customers feel satisfied and hence put the positive
words on the product and return to get more of that. This is where profitability
generates for the company.
The loop 2 indicates that with profitability increment it come the stock value
increase and hence the market value increase. However, when market values find
higher values it would have positive impact on the company profitability. Management
always gets empowered with the market values of its company in general. As a result
IJQRM
28,9

918

Figure 3.
The role of QFD in profit
making

of that the decision maker team gets interested in making better and better decision to
let the values of market increase and hence they do employ better management tools.
QFD has proven to be a good management tool for bringing the voice of customer into
the managements’ attention and implementation.
Focusing on the customer satisfaction one can find that customers loyalty (loop 3 in
Figure 4) plays big and as a result of that customers return to the company to show its

Figure 4.
The role of QFD in
customer royalty building
and profit making
satisfaction on using the product and therefore to buy more from the company which Quality function
puts a big impact on the company’s profitability. deployment
8. The role of QFD on productivity improvement and cost reduction
In 2002, Computer and Industrial Engineering Journals have published an article by
researchers Huang and Mak (2002) that reporting the design and development of a
system with QFD, which is set-up on the worldwide web. In that development, it was 919
emphasized on the teamwork and the utilization of the QFD on the web such that all
team members have the access to the systems and provide their feedback and
suggestions on time for product development purposes. However, paying attention to
the Voice of Customers (VOC) and wanting to make a difference by differentiating
what customers wants and what the product must essentially include, as a package for
being a product, requires having teams of analysts and experts. On the other hand,
team building and working as team are the essential keys for improving the level of
productivity and hence to decrease the total costs. All together, this will turn to
increasing the profitability of the company as a whole.
In Figure 5, loops 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are presented where loop 4 is about Team Building
(TB), Productivity (P), Costs (C), Profitability (PF), Stock Values (SV), Market Values
(MV), and finally the QFD. Loop 6 relates TB with team friendship (TF) and then
relates TF with the members level of activity and finally with the TB. The loop 5
relates TB with the TF, TF with the Team Productivity (TP), TP with the enhancement
of the team goal (TG), and finally team goal with the team building.

Figure 5.
The role of QFD in team
building, productivity
enhancement, and cost
reductions
IJQRM 9. The role of QFD on product design
28,9 Quality function deployment demands a great deal of information about the customer
needs, expectation and their real views on the product to make appropriate decisions
on converting their voices into the design specifications. QFD is employed as an
effective tool for product development but mostly in the early phase of the design
process. Its main purpose is to propose an integrated scheme for transforming the
920 market requirements into technical requirements and specifications at all project levels
(Chan and Wu, 2002). It had been widely applied as the basis of product development
(Lebcir, 2004; Wikner, 2005), innovation (Lee and Tunzelmann, 2005), and market
forecasting (Lyneis, 2000).
Figure 6 comprises loops 1, 2 and 7 where loops 1 and 2 are discussed in more
details before. The loop 7 points to this reality that QFD requires new information and
hence data need to be collected to design the product as customers require or in
accordance with the VOC. This in return would help customers to get a product that
meets their requirements and this would increase their satisfaction, which impacts the
sales level, revenues and company profit at the end.

10. The role of QFD on “timely delivery to market” and competition

The QFD process increases competitiveness by allowing the company to bring
customer-driven high-quality products to market more rapidly (Chen et al., 2005). The
implementation of QFD reportedly results in many significant improvements in the
product design and development process (Cristiano et al., 2001). As a tool, QFD helps
management in planning to get the product to market on time and this on timing would
have a positive impact on the competition ability of the company for better business
performance and the design of product in accordance with customers requirements
which is of high value to managements where it by itself points to the employment of

Figure 6.
The role of QFD on data
collection, design and
profitability
QFD as a tool. Figure 7, which comprises loops 1, 8, and 9 demonstrates the role of QFD Quality function
on timely product delivery to market, competition, and profitability. deployment
11. The role of QFD on productivity enhancement and profitability
Two very important elements of success in any organization are productivity and
profitability where the former is the influential element and the latter is the influenced
element. There are many elements in an organization that directly or indirectly can 921
influence on the productivity, in general. On the other hand, the productivity
enhancement can bring down the overall expenses of the company and hence to
increase the overall profit of that. Figure 8 comprises loops 1, 10, and 11 where loop 1
was discussed before.
In loops 10 and 11, QFD puts its impacts on team building (TB) function of the
organization and then team building influence the productivity (P) enhancement and
costs (in loop 10) reduction and hence increases profitability. With the increase of
profit, management gets empowered for selecting a new management tool and hence
QFD is the choice in this regard.

12. The role of QFD on value generation

Figure 9 comprises four loops 12, 13, 14, and 15 entitled as “data collection loop”,
“productivity-asset utilization” loop, “investment-customer value” loop, and
“management-customer value” loop, respectively. Loop 12 indicates that as a result
of QFD employment data collection and data analysis are in order. This would put
management in a better position to manage the staff and hence to enhance the
productivity. As a result of that, management get encourage to use QFD better and
more often in the business and decision making purposes. Loop 13 demonstrates the
impacts of productivity (P) enhancement on asset utilization (AU) and values
generation (VG), and VG on management (M) functions as well. Loop 14 relates asset
utilization with values generation and values generation with financial performance

Figure 7.
The role of QFD on time to
market, competition, and
profitability
IJQRM
28,9

922

Figure 8.
The role of QFD in team
building, productivity
enhancement, and cost
reductions

Figure 9.
The role of QFD on value
generation

(FP) and financial performance with investment (I) and investment with serving
customer (SC) and serving customer with customer values (CV). However, loop 15
relates business factors such as values generation, management, serving customer,
customer values, and asset utilization together.

13. The role of QFD on organizational learning

Thinking across the organization means effectively thinking more broadly than
financial performance and recognizing each individual operation and the asset of the
organization. Gonzalez et al. (2004) have proposed a modified approach to quality Quality function
function deployment, called “QFD strategy house”, as a systematic means of deployment
incorporating intelligence on markets, consumers and technologies in strategy
development. It links marketing and manufacturing strategies by first developing a
continuous improvement strategy. A structure shown by Figure 10 includes two
reinforcing loops engaged in the use of QFD for organizational learning. The loop 16
shows extend of the relationships exist among the VOC, QFD, organizational learning, 923
company’s goals, and the company’ strategies. The loop 17 demonstrates the
interrelation between organizational structures, company goals, strategies, and the
visions.
Figure 10 comprises loops 16 and 17 where loop 16 indicates that as a result of
employing QFD and making tradeoffs between CR and CA as discussed before
organizational learning (OL) and hence organizational structure (OS) are becoming
possible. In consequence, companies’ goals (CG), companies’ strategies (CS), and
VOC strategy can be clearly identified for the management and hence related
strategies are clearly realized. Using loop 17 we can identify company’s vision as a
results of putting hand on organizational structure, companies’ goals, and
companies’ strategies.

14. Managerial implications

Quality function deployment is a well established and tested management tool for
relating customer needs to design requirements. With the employment of a quality
function deployment approach management can get:
.
a good understanding of the customer needs;
.
what brings “value” to the customers;
.
what makes customers or end users satisfied;
.
voice of customers analysis;
.
determining what level of performance to deliver; and
.
intelligently linking the needs of the customer with design, development,
engineering, manufacturing, and service functions.

Figure 10.
The role of QFD on
organizational learning
IJQRM The key managerial implications emerging from this research are:
28,9 (1) Helping managers in getting a better understating of quality function
deployment in profitability engagement and profit making.
(2) Quality function deployment is not only a quality function tool it is a tool that
can help management to bring a stream of profit into the organization over a
long period of times.
924
(3) Quality function deployment helps management to get a better and deeper
understanding of the strategies and visions of the organization.
(4) Quality function deployment helps management in goal setting, goal seeking,
and decision making.
(5) Quality function deployment plays a big role in value generation in an
organization and productivity enhancement.
(6) Relating customers needs to design requirements is an intelligent way of
responding to the needs of the customers right at the time of delivering the
product fresh and ready to use.
(7) There is variety of quality function deployment combination forms available
that can help management to choose the right model for his/her types of
problem.
(8) How useful quality function deployment really can be? The response is that it
depends on the accuracy of the data collected on the customers’ needs and then
how it is related to the design requirements and implementations. This means that
it depends on how we want the quality function deployment work good for us.
(9) Although, customers are the real beneficiary of the quality function deployment
modeling, organization will not be in a short deal also.

15. Conclusion
Quality function deployment, a well know management tool, is primarily engaged in the
product development, quality management, and customer needs analysis. As a tool, it
has shown tremendous power in various model buildings and data analysis but it has its
own pros and cons. To show the power of quality function deployment in profitability
engagement and profit generation this author has employed systems thinking
perspective as a tool for model development. Using the models proposed, where each is
defined as a loop or a collection of loops, this author was able to find a new way for
demonstrating the profitability power generation of the quality function deployment.
The models presented in this article are comprised of loops 1 through 17 as each of them
was described one by one before. As a conclusion we can say that although customers
are the real beneficiary of the quality function deployment modeling, organization are
not in a short deal at all. This is because organizations can add value, profit, efficiency,
effectiveness, and productivity to the entire system in the long run.

References
Adiano, C. and Roth, A.V. (1994), “Beyond the house of quality: dynamic QFD”, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Berglund, R.L. (1993), “QFD: a critical tool for environmental decision making”, Transactions of
the 1993 ASQC Quality Congress, Boston, MA, pp. 593-9.
Bougon, M.G. and Komocar, J.M. (1990), “Directing strategic change: a dynamic holistic Quality function
approach”, in Huff, A.S. (Ed.), Mapping Strategic Thought, Wiley, Chichester.
deployment
Chan, L-K. and Wu, M-L. (2002), “Quality function deployment: a literature review”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 143 No. 3, pp. 463-97.
Chan, L.K., Kao, H.P., Ng, A. and Wu, M.L. (1999), “Rating the importance of customer needs in
quality function deployment by fuzzy and entropy methods”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 37 No. 11, pp. 2499-518. 925
Checkland, P.B. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.
Chen, L.-H. and Weng, M.-C. (2006), “An evaluation approach to engineering design in QFD
processes using fuzzy goal programming models”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 172 No. 1, pp. 230-48.
Chen, Y., Fung, R.Y.K. and Tang, J. (2005), “Fuzzy expected value modeling approach for
determining target values of engineering characteristics in QFD”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 17, pp. 3583-604.
Coyle, G. (1983), “Who rules the waves? A case study in system description”, Journal of
Operational Research Society, Vol. 34, pp. 885-98.
Coyle, R.G. (1996), System Dynamics Modeling. A Practical Approach, Chapman & Hall, London.
Coyle, G. and Alexander, M.W.D. (1996), “Two approaches to qualitative modeling of a nation’s
drugs trade?”, Systems Dynamic Review, Vol. 13, pp. 205-22.
Coyle, G. and Millar, C.J. (1996), “A methodology for understanding military complexity: the case
of the Rhodesian counter-insurgency campaign”, Small Wars and Insurgencies, Vol. 7,
pp. 360-78.
Cristiano, J.J., Liker, J.K. and White, C.C. III (2001), “Key factors in the successful application of
quality function deployment (QFD)”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 81-95.
Crowe, T.J. and Cheng, C.C. (1996), “Using quality function deployment in manufacturing
strategic planning”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 35-48.
Dutta, A. (2003), “Managing IT with systems thinking”, IEEE Computer, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 96-7.
Forrester, J.W. (1961), Industrial Dynamics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Forrester, J.W. (1969), Urban Dynamics, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gonzalez, M.E., Quesada, G., Mueller, R. and Mora-Monge, C.A. (2004), “QFD strategy house:
an innovative tool for linking marketing and manufacturing strategies”, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 22, pp. 335-48.
Griffin, A. (1992), “Evaluating QFD use in US firms as a process for developing products”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 171-87.
Han, C.H., Kim, J.K., Choi, S.H. and Kim, S.H. (1998), “Determination of information system
development priority using quality function deployment”, Computers and Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 35 Nos 1-2, pp. 241-4.
Han, S.B., 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.
Hauser, J.R. and Clausing, D. (1988), “The house of quality”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66,
pp. 63-73.
Huang, G.Q. and Mak, K.L. (2002), “Synchronous Quality Function Deployment (QFD) over
worldwide web”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 42, pp. 425-31.
IJQRM Jackson, M.C. (2003), Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers, Wiley, Chichester.
28,9 Jugulum, R. and Sefik, M. (1998), “Building a robust manufacturing strategy”, Computers and
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 35 Nos 1-2, pp. 225-8.
Karsak, E.E. and Ozogul, C.O. (2007), “An integrated decision-making approach for ERP system
selection”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 660-7.
Kim, K-J., Moskowitz, H., Dhingra, A. and Evans, G. (2000), “Fuzzy multi-criteria models for quality
926 function deployment”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 121, pp. 504-18.
King, B. (1987), “Listening to the voice of the customer: using the quality function deployment
system”, National Productivity Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 277-81.
Kochhar, A.K. and Eguia, F.J. (1998), “A quality function deployment approach to performance
measurement and benchmarking in manufacturing control systems”, in Morel, G. and
Vernadat, F.B. (Eds), Information Control in Manufacturing (INCOM_98): Advances in
Industrial Engineering – Proceedings of the 9th IFAC Symposium, Nancy-Metz, France,
June 24-26, Vol. 2, Elsevier, Kidlington, pp. 815-20.
Kochhar, A.K. and Saeed, M.K. (1999), “A Quality Function Deployment Model of best practices
in customer-supplier relationships”, in Mertins, K., Krause, O. and Schallock, B. (Eds),
Global Production Management: Proceedings of the IFIP WG5.7 International Conference
on Advances in Production Management Systems, Berlin, September 6-10, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp. 235-42.
Lebcir, R.M. (2004), “Integrative mechanisms in new product development projects: effect of project
complexity on project performance a system dynamics approach”, paper presented at 20th
International Conference of System Dynamics.
Lee, T.L. and Tunzelmann, N. (2005), “A dynamic analytic approach to national innovation
systems. The IC industry in Taiwan”, Research Policy, Vol. 34, pp. 425-40.
Liu, S.T. (2005), “Rating design requirements in fuzzy quality function deployment via a
mathematical programming approach”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 497-513.
Lyneis, J.M. (2000), “System dynamics for market forecasting and structural analysis”, System
Dynamics Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 3-25.
Meadows, D.H. (1982), “Whole earth models and systems”, CoEvolution Quarterly, Summer,
pp. 98-108.
Narasimhan, R.S., Ghosh, S. and Mendez, D. (1993), “A dynamic model of product quality and
pricing decisions”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 24, pp. 893-908.
Pfohl, H.C. and Ester, B. (1999), “Benchmarking for spare parts logistics”, Benchmarking,
An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 22-45.
Philips, M., Sander, P. and Govers, C. (1994), “Policy formulation by use of QFD techniques: a case
study”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 46-58.
Powell, J. and Bradford, J. (1998), “The security-strategy interface: using qualitative process
models to relate the security function to business dynamics”, Security Journal, Vol. 10,
pp. 151-60.
Powell, J. and Swart, J. (2003), “Knowledge and competence mapping using QPID: Fanshawe
Lofts Ltd”, Omega (in press).
Prasad, B. (1998), “Review of QFD and related deployment techniques”, Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 221-34.
Rodrigues, L.L.R., Dharmaraj, N. and Shrinivasa Rao, B.R. (2006), “System dynamics approach
for change management in new product development”, Management Research News,
Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 512-23.
Sachan, A., Sahay, B.S. and Sharma, D. (2004), “Developing Indian grain supply chain cost Quality function
model: a system dynamics approach”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 187-205. deployment
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday/Currency, New York, NY.
Senge, P.M. and Lannon, C. (1990), “Managerial microworlds”, Technology Review, Vol. 93 No. 5,
pp. 62-8.
Sterman, J.D. (2000), Business Dynamics – Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, 927
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Stratton, B. (1989), “The refined focus of automotive quality”, Quality Progress, Vol. 22 No. 10,
pp. 47-50.
Sullivan, L.P. (1986), “Quality function deployment”, Quality Progress, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 39-50.
Terninko, J. (1995), Step-by-Step: QFD Customer-Driven Product Design, American Supplier
Institute, Dearborn, MI.
Towill, D.R. (1996), “Industrial dynamics modeling of supply chains”, Logistics Information
Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 43-56.
Trček, D. (2006), “Using systems dynamics for human resources management in information
systems security”, Kybernetes, Vol. 35 Nos 7/8, pp. 1014-23.
Vanegas, L.V. and Labib, A.W. (2001), “A fuzzy quality function deployment (FQFD) model for
deriving optimum targets”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 99-120.
Wang, J. (1999), “Fuzzy outranking approach to prioritize design requirements in quality
function deployment”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 899-916.
Wasserman, G.S. (1993), “On how to prioritize design requirements during the QFD planning
process”, IIE Transactions, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 59-65.
Wikner, J. (2005), “Dynamic analysis of a production-inventory model”, Kybernetes, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 803-23.
Wikner, J., Naim, M.M. and Towill, D.R. (1992), “The system simplification approach in
understanding the dynamic behavior of a manufacturing supply chain”, Journal of System
Engineering, No. 2, pp. 164-78.
Wikner, J., Towill, D.R. and Naim, M.M. (1991), “Smoothing supply chain dynamics”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 231-48.
Wolstenholme, E.F. (1990), System Enquiry – a System Dynamics Approach, Wiley, Chichester.
Woodside, A.G. (2006), “Advancing systems thinking and building micro worlds in business and
industrial marketing”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 24-9.
Wu, H.C. (2006), “Linear regression analysis for fuzzy input and output data using the extension
principle”, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, Vol. 45 No. 12, pp. 1849-59.
Zairi, M. and Youssef, M.A. (1995), “Quality function deployment – a main pillar for successful
total quality management and product development”, International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 9-23.
Zare Mehrjerdi, Y. (2011), “RFID adoption: a systems thinking perspective through profitability
engagement”, Assembly Automation (forthcoming).
Zare Mehrjerdi, Y. (2011), “Library expense control: a system dynamics approach”, The Electronic
Library (forthcoming).
IJQRM Further reading
28,9 Kim, D. (1992), Systems Archetypes, Pegasus Communications, Cambridge, MA.

About the author

Yahia Zare Mehrjerdi, PhD, is Associate Professor at Yazd University, Department of Industrial
Engineering, where he teaches at the graduate and undergraduate levels. His research areas are:
928 dynamic systems, multi criteria decision making, health economics, and supply chain
management with RFID technology integration. He enjoys teaching theory of decision making,
dynamic systems, simulation optimization and advanced engineering economics at the graduate
level. He is the author of six books in Farsi and one unpublished book in English. He has
published in scientific journals including: European Journal of Operational Research, Applied
Soft Computing, International Journal of Assembly Automation, International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, The Electronic Library, Journal of Performance Measurement and
Metrics, to mention but a few. He has presented many articles at the national and international
conference levels. Yahia Zare Mehrjerdi can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints