Applying Quality Function Deployment to Industrial Warehousing
1. Introduction (brief)
In order to satisfy the market’s need for products and gain a competitive advantage over their competitors, manufacturing and service companies need to enhance their production processes (Lam and Dai, 2015; Mohanraj et al., 2015). Kuhlang et al. (2013) suggested that by using methods like Value Stream Mapping (VSM) and Process Management, along with techniques like the Quality Function Deployment (QFD), you can be successful and obtain measurable results like reducing operating costs and improving performance. But in order to implement a Process Management method, you need a system that consists of interconnected processes, sub-processes and procedures, with indicators to measure performance along with preventive mechanisms, based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act philosophy that discussed back in 1982. The key to the design and management of such a system is taking into consideration the customer’s requirements (Soosay et al., 2012; Walker and Jones, 2012).
This paper, tries to decide whether the application of QFD within an Industrial Warehouse can help a company make use of customer’s requirements and improve the level of service provided. Such an attempt, in the aforementioned areas, has never been made before and this is going to be our contribution to the researchers’ community.
The paper is structured as follows. In the literature review section we will present applications of QFD and successful practices, as well as pros and cons as documented until now. We will also showcase a number of examples that do not include the manufacture of a product, in order to point out why we need to adapt this technique from manufacture to services. Our research methodology follows along with the case study and in the next chapter we analyze and discuss our results, upon which we propose actions and possible further research in our final chapter.
2. Literature review
2.1 Definitions and aim of QFD
The best ways to achieve the highest possible levels of quality has been a popular subject on recent literature (Esteban-Ferrer and Trics, 2012). Many modern day companies constantly strive to find new ways to improve their productivity, their product quality and their operations (Chen et al., 2015). VSM and business process re-engineering have been the most established methods in Process Management (Motwani et al., 1998), but QFD, one of the most important activities of Total Quality Management, has also been considered as a solid systematic methodology for quality management and product development (Vinodh and Chintha, 2011; Sousa and Voss, 2012).
Several authors have tried to define QFD, either based on its processes, contribution and results or according to its components. Lam and Dai (2015) stated that “QFD is well known as a system for translating the ‘voice’ of customers into appropriate company requirement”, that need to be measurable, actionable and capable of improvement (CamgözAkdag et al., 2013). Yeh et al. (2013) proclaimed QFD as a highly effective tool for businesses to find what the customer wants, come up with ways to satisfy the customer and gain market share, while Khorshidi et al. (2016) suggested that QFD can be a factor that can affect the success of a product or a service. Garver (2012) listed a number of QFD aims including the identification of customers, the understanding and the prioritization of their requirements, value addition through quality maximization, the design of a comprehensive quality system for customer satisfaction, and finally, the development of strategies and optimization of those product and service aspects that provide the greatest competitive advantage.
2.2 Advantages of QFD
Many authors have tried to present the advantages of the QFD tool, so the relative literature is swarming (Mohanraj et al., 2015). Andronikidis et al. (2009) for starters, suggested that the QFD tool helps an organization to grow since it responds quickly to the market needs and the organization can develop a series of products that will be attractive to both new and existing customers. Products developed by the QFD tool can be custom designed according to customer requirements and result to an innovative approach, lower costs and customer satisfaction (Esteban-Ferrer and Trics, 2012). Moreover Vinodh and Chintha (2011) suggested that companies using QFD would observe a reduction in warranty claims, improved internal communications, increased sales and reduction in the number of design changes. During the design phase of a product, QFD can reduce the time needed by 50% and engineering costs by 30% (Clausing and Pugh, 1991).
The solid structure and the way the process is deployed, is QFD’s main advantage. QFD derives from Total Quality Management (TQM), but unlike other theories that originate from TQM, it is a quantitative approach with tools, graphs and statistics to measure quality (Ikiz and Masoudi, 2008). The tool we choose to use in order to exercise QFD is called “House of Quality (HOQ)” (Khorshidi et al., 2016). We gather the data we need for HOQ from various sources, such as surveys, interviews, listening to salespeople, trade shows and customer complaints (Esteban-Ferrer and Trics, 2012). HOQ is basically a two dimensional matrix, where we write down the customer requirements (the “whats”), the technical requirements (the “hows”) and how these two relate to one another, as well as the criteria upon which we decide what are the “whats” and “hows” that are going to satisfy the customer to the highest possible degree (Chahal and Thareja, 2012; Zare Mehrjerdi, 2011).
Prior to Mehrjerdi’s (2011) suggestion that QFD apart from the design phase, helps the function of an organization on its whole if applied correctly, Carnevalli and Miguel (2008) listed a number of difficulties in the model, that discourage people from using it and suggested that if people were to use it in the future, they must first acknowledge themselves why they are using it, the difficulties in its executions and the advantages of its application. These difficulties include the definition of relationships between the customer requirements and the technical characteristics of a product (Chan and Wu, 2002) and what Martins and Aspinwall (2001) have added to the subject; the correct and accurate interpretation of the customer’s sayings, the problem of working successfully in teams for the purposes of QFD, and dealing with the lack of knowledge.
Finally, there are a number of prerequisites if the application of the QFD is to be successful, with the single most important being the support of this exercise by the top management (Das et al., 2011), since the people involved need continuous education and training in order to be able to construct, interpret and apply the QFD philosophy (Chan et al., 2009). Furthermore, instead of managing based on results, QFD benefits by creating, communicating, and maintaining policies and procedures within an organization.
2.3 Alternative QFD applications
As we said earlier the QFD was first developed for the development of new products, but over the years QFD was also applied in the service sector, by altering a small number of characteristics and Chan and Wu (2002) suggested that the main reason for this shift towards services, is the design and development of quality services. From product to service, the main differences are the ways we identify our customer, the methods we use to discover their requirements, the inseparability of the service offering and delivery, and finally the definition of the quality elements (Andronikidis et al., 2009). Lim et al. (1999) named three benefits from the application of QFD in a non-manufacturing environment. QFD makes an interpretation of clients' desires into suitable service quality specifications, identifies the client needs in order to gain competitive advantage, and gives guidelines to improve service quality while helping organizations to think in terms of the whole framework and not simply disconnected service elements or customer desires.
Esteban-Ferrer and Trics (2012) and Sivasamy et al.(2015) discussed in their work the application of QFD in the service industry. Buttigieg et al. (2016) tried to apply QFD in the healthcare industry, in order to improve customer care during after an accident or an emergency call, and Llinares and Page (2011) tried to use QFD in order to establish a connection between the buyers emotions and the buying decision in real estate. In the education sector, Lam and Zhao (1998) tried to improve teaching effectiveness and the satisfaction of students through QFD. Ho et al. (2010) practiced the application of QFD in the decision-making process, while Partovi (2001) proposed an analytic model that adds quantitative precision and fine-tuning to an otherwise qualitative decision-making process.
Literature indicates that there is little evidence regarding the QFD application within the logistics sector. Lam and Dai (2015) tried to adopt the QFD approach in sustainable and environmentally friendly logistic services. Vural and Tuna (2015) applied a fuzzy version QFD to logistics service providers, in order to categorize and prioritizes logistic centers’ customer expectations and service characteristics. However, there is a need for further research to be undertaken in determining the QFD and simpler methods of application within the industrial warehousing sector. Consequently, the objectives of this research are to gain a deeper understanding of this phenomenon and to assess the way HOQ has been implemented within the study area. For this to be achieved, the following research question has been developed:
Can HOQ be used for the processes inside an industrial warehouse, utilizing customer requirements as the benchmark?