Sensitivity analysis of relative worth in quality function deployment matrices

Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 195-202

  Takai, Shun ^a   Kalapurackal, Robins Mathai ^b  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ITW Military GSE   (United States)

Author keywords

Quality function deployment; rating scale; relative worth; sensitivity analysis; worth calculation

Indexed keywords

DESIGN DECISIONS; JOURNAL ARTICLES; PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS; RATING SCALE; RELATIVE WORTH;

DESIGN; QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT; RATING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

MATRIX ALGEBRA;

EID: 84867023395     PISSN: 1063293X     EISSN: 15312003     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1063293X12442411     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Akao Y, Harada A, Matsumoto K Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design. Akao Y, ed. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press ; 1990: 147-179.
2. Chen M-S, Lin C-C, Tai Y-Y, et al. A grey relation approach to the integrated process of QFD and QE. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications. 2011 ; 19 (1). 35-53
3. Clausing D Total Quality Development: A Step-By-Step Guide to World-Class Concurrent Engineering. New York: ASME Press ; 1993 :
4. Glushkovsky EA, Florescu RA, Hershkovits A, et al. Avoid a flop: use QFD with questionnaires. Quality Progress. 1995 ; 28 (6). 57-62
5. Goncalves-Coelho AM, Mourao AJF, Pereira ZL. Improving the use of QFD with axiomatic design. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications. 2005 ; 13 (3). 233-239
6. Iranmanesh SH, Thomson V, Salimi MH. Design parameter estimation using a modified QFD method to improve customer perception. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications. 2005 ; 13 (1). 57-67
7. Killen CP, Walker M, Hunt RA. Strategic planning using QFD. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 2005 ; 22 (1). 17-29
8. LaSala KP. Identifying profiling system requirements with quality function deployment. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual International Symposium of the National Council on Systems Engineering ; 1994 ; 1994. 249.
9. Lin M-C, Wang C-C, Chen T-C. A strategy for managing customer-oriented product design. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications. 2006 ; 14 (3). 231-244
10. Lyman D Transactions From a Second Symposium on Quality Function Deployment. Ann Arbor, Michigan: QFD Quality Press ; 1990: 307-315.
11. Maekawa Y, Ohta K Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design. Akao Y, ed. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press ; 1990: 211-235.
12. Mitsufuji Y, Uchida T, et al Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design. Akao Y, ed. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press ; 1990: 51-81.
13. Olewnik A, Lewis K. Limitations of the house of quality to provide quantitative design information. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 2008 ; 25 (2). 125-146
14. Prasad B. A concurrent function deployment technique for a workgroup-based engineering design process. Journal of Engineering Design. 2000 ; 11 (2). 103-119
15. Takai S, Ishii K. Integrating target costing into perception-based concept evaluation of complex and large-scale systems using simultaneously decomposed QFD. Journal of Mechanical Design. 2006 ; 128 (6). 1186-1195
16. Wasserman GS. On how to prioritize design requirements during the QFD planning process. IIE Transactions. 1993 ; 25 (3). 59-65
17. Yung KL, Ko SM, Kwan FY, et al. Application of function deployment model in decision making for new product development. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications. 2006 ; 14 (3). 257-267