Published Dec 10, 2019
Chitra Lekha Karmaker Pobitra Halder S.M. Tazim Ahmed


Understanding the voice of the customers (VOCs) and properly incorporating their preferences and perceptions into the conceptual design process is the core step of customer-driven product development. To improve customer satisfaction and market profitability, the design team should have a customer-driven quality management and product development system. Quality function deployment (QFD) is an important customer-driven quality management tool that helps identify customer requirements and translate them into proper technical measures. This paper focuses on the application of the AHP and an entropy-based QFD approach on a manufacturing company to improve the quality of its product (blender) and determine the priorities for further improvement. The paper shows how customer requirements can be identified and applied to prioritize the design requirements for improving the quality of a blender. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is integrated to determine the final importance of the weights of the customer needs, and entropy is used to determine the set of priority ratings. This integrated framework can help achieve an effective evaluation of the final design solution for product development by overcoming the pitfalls of the traditional QFD approach. An application in a Bangladeshi company that produces blenders is presented to illustrate the performance of the proposed approach.


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 445 | PDF Downloads 44



integrated QFD, product development, customer satisfaction, AHP, entropy

Anjomshoae, A., Hassan, A. & Wong, K. Y. (2019). An integrated AHP-based scheme for performance measurement in humanitarian supply chains. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(5), 938-957. Doi:

Armacost, R. L., Componation, P. J., Mullens, M. A. & Swart, W. W. (1994). An AHP framework for prioritizing customer requirements in QFD: An industrialized housing application. IIE Transactions, 26(4), 72–79. Doi:

Chan, L. K. & Wu, M. L. (2002). Quality function deployment: A literature review. European Journal Operational Research, 143, 463–497. Doi: (02)00178-9

Chan, L. K., & Wu, M. L. (2005). A systematic approach to quality function deployment with a full illustrative example. Omega, 33, 119–139. Doi:

Chan, L. K., Kao, H. P., Ng, A. & Wu, M. L. (1999). Rating the importance of customer needs in quality function deployment by fuzzy and entropy methods. International Journal Production Research, 37(11), 2499–2518. Doi:

Chen, Y. Z., Fung, R. Y. K. & Tang, J. F. (2006). Rating technical attributes in fuzzy QFD by integrating fuzzy weighted average method and fuzzy expected value operator. European Journal Operational Research, 174, 1553–1566. Doi:

Cohen, L. (1995). Quality function deployment: how to make QFD work for you. Prentice Hall.

Curcic, S. & Milunovic, S. (2007). Product development using Quality Function Deployment (QFD). International Journal for Quality Research UDK-005.6 Professional Paper, 1(3), 243-247.

Durga Prasad, K. G., Venkata Subbaiah, K. & Narayana Rao, K. (2014). Supply chain design through QFD-based optimization. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 25(5), 712-733. Doi:

Felice, F. D. & Petrillo, A. (2010). A multiple choice decision analysis: an integrated QFD – AHP model for the assessment of customer needs. International Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology, 2(9), 25-38. Doi:

Harding, J.A., Popplewell, K., Fung, R.Y.K. & Omar, A.R. (2001). An intelligent information framework relating customer requirements and product characteristics. Computers in Industry, 44(1), 51–65. Doi: (00)00074-9

Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Braunstein, C. (2000). Market-driven product and service design: Bridging the gap between customer needs, quality management, and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Production Economics, 66(1), 77–96. Doi: (99)00114-0

Ho, E., Lai, Y. J. & Chang, S. I. (1999). An integrated group decision-making approach to quality function deployment. IIE Transactions, 31, 553–567. Doi:
Kabir, G., Hasin, M. A. A., (2011). Customer perceived quality improvement of synthetic fiber using fuzzy QFD: a case study. International Journal for Quality Research, 5(2), 75-87.

Kahraman, C., Ertay, T. & Buyukozkan, G. (2006). A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using analytic network approach. European Journal Operational Research, 171, 390–411. Doi:

Kim, K. J., Kim, D. H., & Min, D. K. (2007). Robust QFD: Framework and a case study. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 23, 31–44. Doi:

Kwong, C. K. & Bai, H. (2003). Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. IIE Transactions, 35, 619–626. Doi:

Li, Y., Tang, J., Luo, X. & Xu, J. (2009).An integrated method of rough set, Kano’s model and AHP for rating customer requirements’ final importance. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 7045–7053. Doi:

Lin, C.T. (2003). A fuzzy logic-based approach for implementing quality function deployment. International Journal of Smart Engineering Systems Design, 5, 55–62. Doi:

Lin, M. C., Wang, C. C., Chen, M. S., Chang, C. A. (2008). Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Computers in Industry, 59, 17–31. Doi:

Liu, H.-T. (2011). Product design and selection using fuzzy QFD and fuzzy MCDM approaches. Applied Mathematical Modeling, 35, 482–496. Doi:

Lu, M., Madu, C. N., Kuei, C. & Winokur, D. (1994). Integrating QFD, AHP, and benchmarking in strategic marketing. Journal Business and Industrial Market, 9(1), 41–50. Doi: