96 Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 22, No.

1, 2016

Quality function deployment approach to measure

supply chain performance: a case study on garments
accessories industries

Md. Ashrafuzzaman
Institute of Appropriate Technology,
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology,
Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
Email: ashrafuzzaman.ipe@gmail.com

Abdullah Al-Maruf
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering,
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology,
Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
Email: almarufipe@gmail.com

I.M. Mahbubul*
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering,
University of Malaya,
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Email: mahbubul.ipe@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

A.B.M. Abdul Malek and A.M.M. Mukaddes

Department of Industrial and Production Engineering,
Shahjalal University of Science and Technology,
Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh
Email: abmmalek@gmail.com
Email: mukaddes1975@gmail.com

Abstract: In the competitive markets, effective management of supply chain

and realisation of customer expectations are crucial factors for the better
performance of an organisation. In the modern era, performance measurement
has a significant role to get the competitive advantage. Quality function
deployment (QFD) methodology is the most reliable and proved method to
identify customer-based strategy. The objective of this research is to determine
critical customer requirements and prioritise them to determine the critical
supply chain factors to improve supply chain performances. This is a case study
on six-selected garments accessories industries (GAI) in Bangladesh with
respect to 17 readymade garments industries and buying house as a customer.
This paper shows a new system of supply chain performance evaluation using
transformation matrix called quality function deployment. By this system, it is

Copyright 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Quality function deployment approach to measure supply chain performance 97

possible to measure supply chain performance of any kind of manufacturing

industry. Research findings can be used for the selection of manufacturing
industries supply chain strategy.

Keywords: quality function deployment; QFD; supply chain management;

SCM; readymade garments; garments accessories industries; GAI.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Ashrafuzzaman, Md.,

Al-Maruf, A., Mahbubul, I.M., Abdul Malek, A.B.M. and Mukaddes, A.M.M.
(2016) Quality function deployment approach to measure supply chain
performance: a case study on garments accessories industries, Int. J. Industrial
and Systems Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.96120.

Biographical notes: Md. Ashrafuzzaman graduated in Industrial and

Production Engineering from Shahjalal University of Science and Technology
(SUST), Bangladesh. Currently, he is a student of MSc in Management of
Technology at Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET).

Abdullah Al-Maruf graduated in Industrial and Production Engineering from

Shahjalal University of Science and Technology (SUST), Bangladesh.
Currently, he is a student of Master of Engineering in Advance Engineering
Management at Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
(BUET).

I.M. Mahbubul graduated in Industrial and Production Engineering from

Shahjalal University of Science and Technology (SUST), Bangladesh. He
obtained his Master of Engineering Science from University of Malaya,
Malaysia. He is currently a PhD student of University of Malaya.

A.B.M. Abdul Malek graduated in Mechanical Engineering from Bangladesh

University of Engineering and Technology (BUET). He obtained his Master of
Science in Industrial and Production Engineering from Bangladesh University
of Engineering and Technology. He is currently a PhD student of University of
Malaya, Malaysia. He is an Associate Professor in the Department of Industrial
and Production Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology.

A.M.M. Mukaddes graduated in Mechanical Engineering from Khulna

University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh. He obtained his
Master of Engineering and PhD from Kyushu University, Japan. He is a
Professor and currently the Head in the Department of Industrial and
Production Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology.

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled QFD (quality
function deployment) approach to measure supply chain performance: a case
study on garments accessories industries in Bangladesh presented at
Conference on Engineering Research, Innovation and Education (CERIE),
SUST, Sylhet, Bangladesh, 1113 January 2011.

1 Introduction

QFD was first implemented at Mitsubishis Kobe shipyard in the mid-1970s. In the USA,
the use of QFD was pioneered by Ford and Xerox in the mid-1980s (Griffin and Hauser,
1993). Since its creation, QFD has been applied with varying degrees of success by the
98 Md. Ashrafuzzaman et al.

auto, chemical, educational, medical, metal, and consumer-electronics industries. It is

important to notice that QFD was created in a cultural environment where consensus,
lifelong employment, and extreme de-facto vertical integration were the norm.
Several researchers have applied QFD to different service areas. Since the early
1990s, there have been a number of QFD applications in the product design, development
and performance measurement. Griffin and Hauser (1993) have considered that QFD
provides a mean of communication among product life cycle stages. Benefits which arise
from these and other reported QFD applications include lower design and service cost,
fewer and earlier design changes, reduced product development time, fewer start-up
problems, better company performance, more reliable input for marketing strategies,
improved service quality and, above all, increased customer satisfaction. Using QFD
methodology, the final processes/methods will produce the service that meets the original
customer expectations (employers expectations) (Gonzalez et al., 2008).
Performance measurement can provide important feedback to enable managers to
monitor performance, reveal progress, enhance motivation and communication and
diagnose problems (Cho et al., 2012). In supply chain management (SCM), performance
measurement can facilitate inter-understanding and integration among the supply chain
members. It also provides insight to reveal the effectiveness of strategies and to identify
success and potential opportunities. It makes an indispensable contribution to decision
making in SCM, particularly in re-designing business goals and strategies and re-
engineering processes (Kamalabadi et al., 2008).
The comprehension of business processes interactions along with supply chain is an
important factor to succeed in the fast changing and competitive business arena
(liwczyski, 2008). In the era of globalisation of markets and business process
outsourcing, many firms realise the importance of continuous monitoring of their supply
chains performance for its effectiveness and efficiency. It provides the management
important feedback to monitor performance, reveal progress, diagnose problems and
enhance transparency among the several tiers of the supply chain thus making a
phenomenal contribution to decision making, particularly in re-designing business goals
and strategies and reengineering processes (Nukala and Gupta, 2007).
Readymade garments sector is the number-one remittance source of Bangladesh.
Most of the garments factories are not composite (from top to bottom all together), and
they use the accessories from other sources. Most of the sources are buyer determined
(may be inside the home county or other countries). To compete to the world market and
to give the efficient and better customer service in a limited time, supply chain
performance improvement is necessary in this sector.
There are literatures available about the supply chain performances by QFD for
academic curriculum benchmarking (Gonzalez et al., 2008), where the authors collect
data from employers and prepare a voice of customer matrix. Based on that matrix a new
customer (employer) demand-based undergraduate academic program was designed.
Mukaddes et al. (2012) applied QFD approach to find out teaching techniques in higher
education. They developed house of quality based on the students requirements that
would help top management to improve teaching techniques with quality services.
Bykzkan and Berkol (2011) used QFD approach to determine the sustainability
requirements. The author used analytic network process integrated QFD and zero-one
goal programming to determine customer requirement and design requirement. Hadidi
et al. (2012) combined the interrelated and integrated modelling of production planning,
scheduling, maintenance and quality to identify possible future directions. Rahman et al.
 Quality function deployment approach to measure supply chain performance 99

(2012) proposed the implementation of total quality management in a power distribution

board. The authors identified some factors such as lack of higher management
commitment and monitoring, collective bargaining agent, improper training programs
that are obstacles to implement total quality management, specifically in Bangladesh
Power Development Board. Kristianto and Helo (2010) design a supply chain to make a
coordination between manufacturing and product-development process. They propose the
approach to manage the product-development process by considering strategic safety
stock allocation based on the customer order.
However, to the best of authors knowledge, there is no literature available about the
supply chain performances of garments accessories by quality system development. The
objectives of the research are: to determine the critical factors in SCM that can provide
the competitive advantages, to identify supply chain performance with respect to some
selected supply chain factors and to define a customer-based improvement strategy based
on the critical elements identified by surveyed needs and wants of the customers. In this
research, a system of performance evaluation using quality function deployment (QFD)
especially for the garments accessories industries (GAI) in Bangladesh has shown. This
evaluation system will be useful to other countries as well as other types of industries.

2 Methodology

A research methodology has been developed in this section to form and guide the
research activity in a structured way. The case study has been carried out on GAI in
Bangladesh. In this study, garments industry or garments buying house as a customer of
GAI was considered.
A QFD relationship table or house of quality was prepared based on the model from
Akao (1994). The details of the house of quality have described below (refer to steps in
Figure 1). The column on the left side are listed as the WHATs or customer needs. In
preparing the customers voice in the QFD table, it is important to distinguish between
secondary and primary needs of the customer (Gonzalez et al., 2008). In many case, the
customers need is a secondary item, and the primary need has to be input. For example,
Ease of Returns was a secondary need, while the Primary need was After Sales Support.
Next to the WHATs column, is the importance column. These state the importance of
each customer need with a score of 1 to 5. The information is extracted from absolute
weight table. The row at the top of Figure 1 shows the HOWs or important supply chain
factors that would meet customer needs. The next step is to interpret the information in
the QFD table. This is done by preparing a relationship matrix within the QFD table by
identifying the performance gaps, which are most crucial in meeting customer needs. The
relationship matrix is prepared by indicating the strength of the relationship at each
intersection of the customer needs and performance gaps. The relationships are given
based on the capability of each supply chain factor from the Literature Review and on
this researchers experience. The ratings are as follows: 1 for very weak relationship,
2 for weak relationship, 3 for medium relationship, 4 for strong relationship, 5 for
extreme relationship, no relationship was given a rating of 0, and left blank. Indicated
sign are shown in figure by: = 1 = (very low), = 2 = (low), = 3 = (medium),
= 4 = (high), = 5 = (very high).
100 Md. Ashrafuzzaman et al.

However, the relationship at each intersection point is insufficient to make a decision

on good opportunities for the GAI. Also crucial is the importance score of each customer
need. Hence, a weighted scoring for each gap comprising importance and relationship
was required. The weighted score for each relationship or cell is computed by multiplying
the relationship score by the importance score. The critical supply chain factor was
identified by determining the absolute weight by using the following equation:
Absoluteweight = (Each customer need importance score
(1)
*relationship score at intersection)

Highest value of absolute weight indicates as the most critical supply chain factor.
Finally, the weighted scores are ranked, with the highest score being ranked as number 1,
and so on. From the ranked list, it is possible to decide which supply chain factor, or
critical gap, is most important to implement the completed QFD table, with the ranked
critical supply chain gaps is shown in Table 1. The gap was determined by subtracting the
importance from performance and this value was putted into the table.

Figure 1 Model for house of quality specially developed for this study

Source: Guidelines: Akao (1994), Soin (2004)

In the section of data analysis for this research, first the matrix for determine the rank of
supply factors using absolute weight was developed, which is shown in Table 1.The main
analysis for this research is under the following fundamental section of SCM Figure 2.
This study analysed the data which area studied from focused (internal and external) to
their supply chain.
 Quality function deployment approach to measure supply chain performance 101

Table 1 QFD matrix to identify critical supply chain factors using absolute weight

Importance weight 3 3.3 4.1 4 3.8 2.3 4.1

Transportation 41. Effective method use for transportation

40. There is high employee productivity

39. Employees are trained in SC management

38. Designing effective conflict resolution tech.
Human resource
management
37. There is high employee morale

36. Employees are empowered to make changes

35. Top management commitment

34. ECR system via electronic data interchange

Information and 33. Use of customize software for resource planning

communication
32. high Speed data communication

technology

31. E-procurement

30. Responding to demand variable

29. Responding to item variable

Lean and agile practice
28. Reconfigurable business process

27. Practice on lean manufacturing

26. Order fill rate to customer

25. Cycle times from supplier to customer delivery

24. Multiple system to capture the customer

Customer relationship
management
23. A process to manage customer complaints

22. Acceptance of customer complaints

21. Monitoring customer service level

Notes: Relationship symbols: = 1 = (very low); = 2 = (low); = 3 = (medium); = 4 = (high); = 5 = (very high)

20. Statistical quality control.(SQC)

19. Total quality management (TQM)

18. Zero-defect manufacturing

17. Product design for recycling need

Technology
16. Outsourced product development

management
15. Product customization to meet cstmr. need

14. Responsiveness to meet engg. change

13. Effective use of MRP systems

12. Effective use of CAD, CAE, and CAM systems

11. Lowest inventory driven costs

Inventory management
10. Vendor managed inventory at production sites

9. Lead time based procurement

Procurement and

8. LC-based payment policy

accounting
7. Direct cash payment policy

6. supplier involvement in design phase

5. Information sharing with SC partners

4. Design from customers point view

Logistics management
and execution
3. Provide logistics at lowest cost

2. Provide on-time delivery to customers

1. A centrally coordinated logistics function

management

Q7 Response to
Q3 Production

Q4 Reputation
consistent

complaint
Q6 Return of

customer
warranty
Q1 Payment

capacity
requirements

practice

product
support

Q5 Service

unused
period
image
Customer

Q2 Top

Presales requirements: After sales service:

102 Md. Ashrafuzzaman et al.

Table 1 QFD matrix to identify critical supply chain factors using absolute weight (continued)

Importance weight 5 4.3 4.8 3.9 2.9 2.2 2.8 4.3 4.8 5

Transportation 41. Effective method use for transportation

40. There is high employee productivity

39. Employees are trained in SC management

38. Designing effective conflict resolution tech.
Human resource
management
37. There is high employee morale

36. Employees are empowered to make changes

35. Top management commitment

34. ECR system via electronic data interchange

Information and 33. Use of customize software for resource planning

communication
32. high Speed data communication

technology

31. E-procurement

30. Responding to demand variable

29. Responding to item variable

Lean and agile practice

28. Reconfigurable business process

27. Practice on lean manufacturing

26. Order fill rate to customer

25. Cycle times from supplier to customer delivery

24. Multiple system to capture the customer

Customer relationship
management
23. A process to manage customer complaints

22. Acceptance of customer complaints

21. Monitoring customer service level

Notes: Relationship symbols: = 1 = (very low); = 2 = (low); = 3 = (medium); = 4 = (high); = 5 = (very high)

20. Statistical quality control.(SQC)

19. Total quality management (TQM)

18. Zero-defect manufacturing

17. Product design for recycling need

Technology

16. Outsourced product development

management

15. Product customization to meet cstmr. need

14. Responsiveness to meet engg. change

13. Effective use of MRP systems

12. Effective use of CAD, CAE, and CAM systems

11. Lowest inventory driven costs

Inventory management
10. Vendor managed inventory at production sites

9. Lead time based procurement

Procurement and

8. LC-based payment policy

accounting

7. Direct cash payment policy

6. supplier involvement in design phase

5. Information sharing with SC partners

4. Design from customers point view

Logistics management
and execution
3. Provide logistics at lowest cost

2. Provide on-time delivery to customers

1. A centrally coordinated logistics function

Product sample

representatives

Q16 Consistency in
Appearance of

Q15 Availability to
Q12 Product return

its customers

performance
information
the product

confidence

Q14 Up to date
Q10 Testing of

Q11 Trust and

Q17 On-time
delivery
material
product

process

Q13 Online
Q8

Q9

delivery:
Product quality ICT
`Reliable
 Quality function deployment approach to measure supply chain performance 103

Table 1 QFD matrix to identify critical supply chain factors using absolute weight (continued)

Importance weight 4.6 2.7 2.8 2.3 4.6 3.6

Transportation 41. Effective method use for transportation 12.21 40

15.56 39

40. There is high employee productivity

39. Employees are trained in SC management 140.3 3

38. Designing effective conflict resolution tech. 8.13 41

4
Human resource
management
37. There is high employee morale 39.73 28

36. Employees are empowered to make changes 45.16 27

35. Top management commitment 94.23 8

55.44 21

34. ECR system via electronic data interchange

Information and 33. Use of customize software for resource planning 28.17 32

communication

7
technology 32. high Speed data communication 73.69 12

31. E-procurement 15.57 38

30. Responding to demand variable 23.56 34

23.2 35

29. Responding to item variable

Lean and agile practice

2
71.96 13

28. Reconfigurable business process

27. Practice on lean manufacturing 68.25 15

26. Order fill rate to customer 54.62 22

25. Cycle times from supplier to customer delivery 39.12 29

24. Multiple system to capture the customer

20.95 37
Customer relationship

5
management 47.74 25
23. A process to manage customer complaints

117.6 4

22. Acceptance of customer complaints

69.75 14

21. Monitoring customer service level

91.95 10

Notes: Relationship symbols: = 1 = (very low); = 2 = (low); = 3 = (medium); = 4 = (high); = 5 = (very high)

20. Statistical quality control.(SQC)

141.1 2

19. Total quality management (TQM)

113.9 5

18. Zero-defect manufacturing

17. Product design for recycling need 59.95 18

Technology 46.05 26

16. Outsourced product development

management
78.38 11

15. Product customization to meet cstmr. need

54.47 23

14. Responsiveness to meet engg. change

113 6

13. Effective use of MRP systems

154.1 1

12. Effective use of CAD, CAE, and CAM systems

25.47 33

11. Lowest inventory driven costs

Inventory management
21.85 36

10. Vendor managed inventory at production sites

67.46 16

9. Lead time based procurement

Procurement and 92.69 9

8. LC-based payment policy

accounting
3

50.02 24

7. Direct cash payment policy

31.79 30
6. supplier involvement in design phase
59.51 19

5. Information sharing with SC partners

29.33 31
4. Design from customers point view
Logistics management
60.81 17

and execution
3. Provide logistics at lowest cost
6

97.85 7
2. Provide on-time delivery to customers

1. A centrally coordinated logistics function 56.45 20

Q19 Willingness of

product price
Risk sharing
according to

Q22 Competitive

opportunity
Q21 Incentives
unloading
Q18 Degree of

Q20 Safety in
loading
change

Q23 Credit
CR

Absolute weight

Category rank
Factors rank

Risk and responsiveness Reasonable price:

104 Md. Ashrafuzzaman et al.

Figure 2 Three fundamental section of SCM (see online version for colours)

SupplierEnterpriseCustomer

SRM ISCM CRM

Source Strategic planning Market
Negotiate Demand planning Price
Buy Supply planning Sell
Design collaboration Fulfillment Call centre
Supply collaboration Field service Order management

Source: Guidelines: Chopra and Meindl (2007), Martilla and James (1977)

Customer relationship management (CRM): All processes that focus on the interface
between the firm and its customer. It focuses on downstream interactions.
Internal supply chain management (ISCM): Processes that focus on internal
operations within the enterprise.
Supplier relationship management (SRM): All processes that focus on the interface
between the firm and its suppliers. This also analysed the data with respect to style of
supply chain focusing area. This theory was developed by Soin (2004).
The term traditional old style manufacturing company is used to describe a company
that focuses its SCM activity (that is, considers them more important) on manufacturing-
type efforts (including quality), and other activity that occur prior to manufacturing such
as supplier management, and procurement. This traditional manufacturing or internal
focus is given priority by the company over supply chain activity that looks forward and
allows closer connection with customers. Such a company can be termed as Traditional
old style manufacturing company or an internally focused company (Soin, 2004).
The term progressive manufacturing company is used to describe a company that
focuses its SCM activity (that is, considers them more important) on customer
relationships type activity and information systems that connect with the customers (such
as business-to-business internet commerce). This external, or customer, focus is given
priority by the company over supply chain efforts that look backward into the
manufacturing process these efforts can be construed as the company reaching out to
connect and communicate better with customers. Such a company can be termed as a
progressive manufacturing company or an externally focused company (Soin, 2004).
The data were collected from the Garments buying house as well as the Garments
manufacturing industry as a customer of GAI. Followings are the identified customer
requirements data from case study: After identifying the customer needs, the importance
weight of each requirement by using simple average was evaluated. This state the
importance of each customer need with a score of 1 to 5 (1 for very low; 2 for low;
3 for medium; 4 for high and 5 for very high importance). The importance weight
of each customer requirement is shown Figure 3.
Importance weight of each customer requirement = (sum of every customer
(2)
requirements importance for 17 customer) / (total number of customer 17)
 Quality function deployment approach to measure supply chain performance 105

Figure 3 The bar chart of customer requirements (see online version for colours)

For expressing the total SCM, 41 supply chain factors for this research was selected. It is
noteworthy that those supply chain factors has less impact on the performance evaluation
was do not take into account. For reducing the supply chain factors, the relationship
matrix was analysed. Those factors have less impact on the customer requirements were
eliminated from the collected opinion from expert. Otherwise, it will make difficulties to
building house of quality (HOQ). The supply factors were selected by taking help from
followings:
1 research paper from literature
2 expert opinion (personal communication)
3 supervisors instruction
4 modify factors after collecting field data.
To interpret the information of supply chain factor and customer requirements strongly
consider in the QFD table. This is done by preparing a relationship matrix within the
QFD table by identifying which are most crucial in meeting customer needs. The
relationship matrix is prepared by indicating the strength of the relationship at each
intersection of the customer needs and performance gaps. In Table 1, the relationships are
given based on the capability of each supply chain factor from the literature review and
discussion among the QFD team. In this research, an expert opinion of relevant field was
taken. Nevertheless, it is very much crucial for this research to select most appropriate
expert for taking opinion of relationship matrix. For the reason take the opinion from
such a people who is expert in the area of supply chain and it is also important to he will
have been both the knowledge about garments industry and GAI in Bangladesh.
However, the relationship at each intersection point is insufficient to make a decision
on good opportunities for the GAI. Also crucial is the importance score of each customer
need. Hence, a weighted scoring for each gap comprising importance and relationship
was required.
Absolute weight of the supply factor is calculated by following equation [original
formula of absolute weight has been expressed as equation (1)].
Absolute weight = (importance to customer)
(3)
*(weight assigned to relationship matrix)
106 Md. Ashrafuzzaman et al.

After identifying the absolute weight, they were ranked according to their highest value
of absolute weight of supply chain factor. This absolute weight is identified at Table 1.
This absolute weight table was used to determine the performance of individual industry
MA, MO, RP, AE, AK, AV. One of the QFD matrix for industry MA is
shown in Table 2. Others performance has been identified similarly. Then the supply
chain performance was evaluated by equation (8).

Final actual SCM factors performance = (final importance weight of each

customer requirements) ( relationship value between WHAT and HOW (4)
for the supply chain factors) (actual SCM factors performance)

Final importance of SCM factors performance (targeted performance) =

(final importance weight of each customer requirements)
(5)
( relationship value between WHAT and HOW for the supply chain factors)
(Importance of SCM factors performance (targeted performance))

Total actual SCM factors performance level = final actual SCM

(6)
factors performance

Total importance of SCM factors performance (targeted performance) =

(7)
final importance of SCM factors performance (targeted performance)

Supply chain factors performance = Total actual SCM factors performance level
(8)
/Total importance of SCM factors performance (targeted performance)

Figure 4 Absolute weight bar diagram of supply chain factor (see online version for colours)
 Table 2
Company MA Company RP Company MO Company AE Company AK Company AV

SCM
categories SCM factors

Gap
Gap
Gap
Gap
Gap
Gap

Importance
Importance
Importance
Importance
Importance
Importance

Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance

Rank of categories
Rank of categories
Rank of categories
Rank of categories
Rank of categories
Rank of categories

Logistics 1 A centrally coordinated 3 2 1 5 3 2 r 5 2 3 5 3 2

management logistics function
and execution 2 Provide on-time 5 2 3 5 4 1 5 3 2 5 3 2 5 2 3 5 2 3
delivery to customers
3 Provide logistics at 5 3 2 5 2 3 5 4 1 5 3 2 5 0 5 5 2 3
lowest cost
4 Design from customers 1 1 0 5 3 2 5 4 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 5 3 2
point view
5 Information sharing 3 2 1 3 1 2 4 3 1 4 4 0 5 3 2 5 5 0
with SC partners
6 Supplier involvement 2 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
in design phase
Procurement 7 Direct cash payment 5 1 4 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 5 1 4 5 5 0 0 0 0
and policy
accounting 8 LC-based payment 5 4 1 5 5 0 5 4 1 4 4 0 4 4 0 5 5 0
policy
9 Lead time-based 5 3 2 5 5 0 4 3 1 5 3 2 4 3 1 5 4 1
procurement
Inventory 10 Vendor managed 1 1 0 1 1 0 5 5 0 4 5 1 5 2 3 4 3 1 r
management inventory at production
sites
11 Lowest inventory 5 3 2 4 3 1 5 5 0 4 4 0 5 4 1 5 3 2
driven costs
Comparison of GAI importance and performance (see online version for colours)
Quality function deployment approach to measure supply chain performance 107
 Company MA Company RP Company MO Company AE Company AK Company AV
108

Table 2
SCM
categories SCM factors

Gap
Gap
Gap
Gap
Gap
Gap

Importance
Importance
Importance
Importance
Importance
Importance

Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance

Rank of categories
Rank of categories
Rank of categories
Rank of categories
Rank of categories
Rank of categories

Technology 12 Effective use of CAD, 5 5 0 o 5 4 1 o 5 5 0 q 5 2 3 n 4 2 2 o 5 4 1 n

management CAE, and CAM
for colours)

systems
13 Effective use of MRP 3 2 1 5 5 0 5 3 2 4 3 1 4 2 2 5 4 1
systems
14 Responsiveness to 5 3 2 5 4 1 5 5 0 5 3 2 5 5 0 4 3 1
meet engg. change
Md. Ashrafuzzaman et al.

15 Product customisation 5 4 1 5 5 0 5 5 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 5 4 1
to meet customer
needs
16 Outsourced product 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 4 1 5 4 1 5 3 2 4 3 1
development
17 Product design for 3 3 0 5 5 0 5 4 1 5 5 0 4 1 3 5 4 1
recycling need
18 Zero-defect 5 1 4 4 3 1 5 3 2 5 1 4 5 2 3 5 2 3
manufacturing
19 Total quality 5 2 3 4 2 2 5 5 0 4 3 1 3 1 2 5 4 1
management (TQM)
20 Statistical quality 5 3 2 p 5 2 3 n 5 5 0 n 5 3 2 o 5 5 0 n 5 4 1 o
control (SQC)
Customer 21 Monitoring customer 5 4 1 5 3 2 5 5 0 5 4 1 5 4 1 5 2 3
relationship service level
management 22 Acceptance of 5 4 1 5 3 2 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 3 2 5 4 1
customer complaints
23 A process to manage 5 3 2 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 4 1 5 3 2
customer complaints
24 Multiple system to 3 2 1 5 4 1 5 5 0 5 4 1 4 3 1 5 4 1
capture the customer
25 Cycle times from 5 3 2 5 5 0 5 3 2 5 4 1 5 2 3 5 2 3
supplier to customer
delivery
Comparison of GAI importance and performance (continued) (see online version

26 Order fill rate to 5 4 1 5 3 2 5 5 0 5 5 0 2 1 1 5 2 3

customer
 Company MA Company RP Company MO Company AE Company AK Company AV

Table 2
SCM
categories SCM factors

Gap
Gap
Gap
Gap
Gap
Gap

Importance
Importance
Importance
Importance
Importance
Importance

Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance

Rank of categories
Rank of categories
Rank of categories
Rank of categories
Rank of categories
Rank of categories

Lean and agile 27 Practice on lean 3 0 3 r 5 3 2 p 0 0 0 2 2 0 q 4 2 2 5 3 2

practice manufacturing
for colours)

28 Reconfigurable business 4 3 1 3 0 3 5 5 0 4 3 1 5 5 0 5 3 2
process
29 Responding to item 5 5 0 5 4 1 5 5 0 5 4 1 5 2 3 5 3 2
variable
30 Responding to demand 5 3 2 3 3 0 5 5 0 4 4 0 4 2 2 4 3 1
variable
Information 31 E-procurement 5 2 3 q 4 4 0 3 2 1 p 5 1 4 p 5 4 1 q 5 3 2 p
and 32 High speed data 5 3 2 5 3 2 5 5 0 5 5 0 3 1 2 5 3 2
communication communication
technology
33 Use of customise 5 3 2 5 3 2 5 5 0 5 5 0 3 1 2 5 2 3
software for resource
planning
34 ECR system via 4 3 1 5 2 3 5 5 0 4 1 3 5 5 0 5 3 2
electronic data
interchange
Human 35 Top management 5 3 2 5 5 0 q 3 3 0 r 5 3 2 2 1 1 p 5 3 2 q
resource commitment
management
36 Employees are 2 1 1 5 5 0 3 2 1 3 3 0 4 2 2 4 3 1
empowered to make
changes
37 There is high employee 5 2 3 4 3 1 5 3 2 4 3 1 4 2 2 5 3 2
morale
38 Designing effective 3 1 2 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 3 1 2 4 3 1
conflict resolution tech.
39 Employees are trained 2 1 1 1 1 0 5 3 2 5 4 1 0 0 0 5 3 2
in SC management
40 Theres high employee 5 2 3 4 4 0 3 2 1 5 4 1 5 4 1 5 3 2
productivity
Comparison of GAI importance and performance (continued) (see online version

Transportation 41 Effective method use for 3 1 2 5 4 1 r 5 2 3 4 3 1 3 2 1 r 4 4 0

transportation
Quality function deployment approach to measure supply chain performance 109
110 Md. Ashrafuzzaman et al.

Those supply chain factors are contain value more than or equal 80 was considered as
critical factors according to given customer requirements for garments accessories
industry in Bangladesh. Bar diagram is given in Figure 4 for better realisation and
identification of critical supply chain factor.
Supply chain factors performance for the studied industry MA, MO, RP, AE,
AK, AV is calculated in terms of quantitative value by dividing the total actual SCM
factors performance level by total importance of SCM factors performance (means
Targeted performance). Here, the following steps was followed to calculate the overall
supply chain performance. These steps have been adapted and modified from (Arditi and
Lee, 2003). Where the authors (Arditi and Lee, 2003) developed a model for corporate
service quality performance measurement. Expected (importance) SCM factors
performance and actual SCM factors performance is identified from the questionnaires
administered to the studied industry MA, RP, MOs selected personnel those are related
to the concerned research field.
The result from the calculation shows the current SCM factors performance of the
GAI. Comparison of different GAI is shown in Table 2 that summarise the strength of
different supply factor of individual GAI using highest performance of the SC factors.
Table 2 found out the focusing area of fundamental SCM.

Figure 5 Combined view of supply chain factors performance of six GAI with compared to
maximum achievable SC factors performance (see online version for colours)

Notes: P1 = MA; P2 = MO; P3 = RP; P4 = AE; P5 = AK; P6 = AV; P7 = MAX;

Case number = No. of SCF
 Quality function deployment approach to measure supply chain performance 111

3 Results and discussion

For more easy realisation of comparison of industry, a graph that is shown in Figure 5
was developed.
To measure the maximum achievable supply chain performance with respect to
customer need, the absolute weight with the maximum value of importance and
performance was multiplied. This value was used to compare the GAI performance with
respect to standard.

Figure 6 Gap between performance and importance of SCF at industry MA (see online version
for colours)

Notes: IM01 = importance of SCF at MA; P1 = performance of SCF at MA

3.1 First sample GAI named MA

MA respondents rated their performance on the SCM factors. The following decision
could be concluded from this:
MA is the lowest 55.45% performance gainer among the GAI.
Performance of MAs supply chain feel that in meeting customer satisfaction is not
good enough (2or 3 on a 5 point scale), with a large gap between importance and
performance shown in Figure 6.
Low performance at the 23 to 41 SCF areas that is the important area of CRM in
SCM. Therefore, it can be say that MA focus on ISCM factors.
112 Md. Ashrafuzzaman et al.

The analysis from research concludes that MA has given priority to internal and
manufacturing supply chain factors.
MA is a traditional old style manufacturing industry which definition has been
given at research methodology chapter.
This industry should have to give attention to solve the problem at 2341 SCF area
especially in CRM. It should also give attention in modern manufacturing technique
such as lean and to improving employee skill.

3.2 First sample GAI named MO

Industry MO respondents rated their performance on the SCM factors. The following
decision could be concluded from this:
MO is the highest 86.76% performance gainer among the case study GAI.
Performance of their supply chain in meeting customer satisfaction is almost at very
good (3or 4 on a 5 point scale), with a very small gap between importance and
performance shown in Figure 7.
The competitive performance for all supply chain factors is good to very good.
Furthermore, the expectations of all respondents are high with small gaps between
importance and performance.
This industry has given focus on the CRM and good coordination with SRM and
ISCM. Ultimately, MO focuses on external SCM factors.
After analysing the data, it can conclude by saying that MO is a progressive
manufacturing industry which definition has been given at research methodology
chapter.
Extra attention is required to the ICT and HRM area to improve their performance.

3.3 First sample GAI named RP

Industry RP respondents rated their performance on the SCM factors. The following
decision could be concluded from this:
Very good performance is about 80.13%.
RP perceive that the performance of their supply chain in meeting customer
satisfaction is good (3 on a 5 point scale), with little gap from importance level
shown in Figure 8.
This organisation convinced that their supply chain performance is continuously
improving, and is meeting expectations.
However, there are gaps between importance and performance of technology
management factor to customers, and they should give attention on lean and agile
practice.
 Quality function deployment approach to measure supply chain performance 113

Supply chain performance is contributing to cash flow, and almost meeting

expectations.
RP has given focus on the CRM and good coordination with SRM and ISCM.
Ultimately, RP focus on external SCM factors.
After analysing the data, it can be conclude by saying that RP is a progressive
manufacturing industry which definition has been given at research methodology
chapter.

Figure 7 Gap between performance and importance of SCF at industry MO (see online version
for colours)

Notes: IM02 = importance of SCF at MO; P2 = performance of SCF at MO

3.4 First sample GAI named AE

Industry AE respondents rated their performance on the SCM factors. It can be
summarised by following decisions:
AE gained very good performance is about 72.25%.
Performance of their supply chain in meeting customer satisfaction is good (3 on a 5
point scale), with little gap from importance level shown in Figure 9.
This organisation SCM factors performance is continuously improving, and meeting
expectations.
However, there are gaps between importance and performance of technology
management factor to customers.
114 Md. Ashrafuzzaman et al.

Supply chain performance is contributing to cash flow, and almost meeting

expectations.
AE has given focus on the CRM and good coordination with SRM and ISCM.
Ultimately AE focus on external SCM factors.
After analysing, the data decisions are concluded by saying that AE is a
progressive manufacturing industry which definition has been given at research
methodology chapter.

Figure 8 Gap between performance and importance of SCF at industry RP (see online version
for colours)

Notes: IM03 = importance of SCF at RP; P3 = performance of SCF at RP

3.5 First sample GAI named AK

Industry AK respondents rated their performance on the SCM factors. The following
decision could be concluded from this:
AK gained average performance 64.52%.
They feel that the performance of their supply chain in meeting customer satisfaction
is good (3 on a 5 point scale), with a large gap from the importance level. Their
expectations are very high with large gaps between importance and performance
shown in Figure 10.
Contain big problem in logistics and procurement section. They should give extra
attention at this area.
 Quality function deployment approach to measure supply chain performance 115

Industry AK behaves like a traditional, old style, manufacturing industry, and its
supply chain activity is internally focused.
Very weak in SRM area and also less coordination among ISCM and CRM.

Figure 9 Gap between performance and importance of SCF at industry AE (see online version
for colours)

Notes: IM04 = importance of SCF at AE; P4 = performance of SCF at AE

3.6 First sample GAI named AV

Industry AV respondents rated their performance on the SCM factors. The following
decision could be concluded from this:
AV gained average performance 65.58%.
Performance of their supply chain in meeting customer satisfaction is good
(3 on a 5 point scale), with little gap from importance level shown in Figure 11.
Supply chain performance is continuously improving, and is meeting expectations.
However, there are gaps between importance and performance of logistics
management and practice on lean.
AV has focused on the CRM and good coordination with SRM and ISCM. AV
focus on external SCM factors.
Ultimately, AV is a progressive manufacturing industry which definition has been
given at research methodology chapter.
116 Md. Ashrafuzzaman et al.

Figure 10 Gap between performance and importance of SCF at industry AK (see online version
for colours)

Notes: IM05 = importance of SCF at AK; P5 = performance of SCF at AK

Figure 11 Gap between performance and importance of SCF at industry AV (see online version
for colours)

Notes: IM06 = importance of SCF at AV; P6 = performance of SCF at AV

 Quality function deployment approach to measure supply chain performance 117

3.7 Supply chain factors performance and importance

The supply chain factors performances and importance are plotted in Figure 12.

Figure 12 Graphical presentation of SCF performance and importance (see online version
for colours)

Followings are the description of different area at Figure 12. AREA 1 (SCF 1 to 6).
Actually, logistics management and execution category is under the area. Graphical
representation showing that the initially the performance and importance gap of SCF
(1 to 3) is very large but at the ending gap is very small although performance not at good
level. So GAI should give attention to these first three factors.
AREA 2 (SCF 7 to 11): Both the inventory management and procurement category
stay in this area. In the graph importance and performance line is meshing very
nicely for that reason performance gap is very low about zero in this area.
AREA 3 (SCF 12 to 20): Here, the technology management category is available
which contains the highest number of SCF. Highest value of performance can
get from this area but main problem is the large gap between importance and
performance. Organisations should have to give more attention for reducing the gap.
AREA 4 (SCF 21 to 30): The most important category for responsive supply chain,
CRM and lean, agile practice both are available in this area. Performance of SCF in
this area is satisfactory but not good enough because from 24 to 28 numbers SCF
creates large gap between importance and performance.
AREA 5 (SCF 31 to 41): Information and communication technology, human
resource management and transportation category exist in this area. In this area,
performance gaps are fluctuating for different supply chain factors. Performance is
not satisfactory in this area. Reducing the gap in the area of 34 to 35 and 37 number
factors is very significant to improve performance.
118 Md. Ashrafuzzaman et al.

4 Contribution of the research

QFD is an effective technique that helps both manufacturing and non-manufacturing

industries to improve their quality, overall supply chain performance, customer
satisfaction, understanding the customers needs, benchmarking against competitors, and
clear vision of customer, market intangible requirements, other quality and business
characteristics by integrating the voice of customer with the firms processes. The critical
supply chain factors performance needed to be enhanced by industry according to their
given importance. This research is very much helpful to competitive to design an
organisations supply chain by focusing on critical supply chain factors because SCM is a
close loop concept of supplier, manufacturer, and customer feedback. This study also
achieved its aims to identify the critical supply chain factors and determine the
operational SCF performance of GAIs in Bangladesh using QFD technique that is very
helpful to supply chain design and decision-making process. Research main target are is
customised supply chain structure identifications as per customer requirements in
manufacturing organisation.

5 Conclusions

After analysing the identified data of supply chain factors, the following decision could
be concluded from this:

Average SCFs performance of GAI in Bangladesh is about 70.78%.This is

satisfactory but not good enough to fulfil the customer requirements.

Performance of their supply chain in meeting customer satisfaction is good

(3 on a 5 point scale), with little gap from importance level.

GAI of Bangladesh convinced that their supply chain performance is continuously

improving, and is meeting expectations. However, there are gaps between
importance and performance of technology management factor.

Despite of limitations supply chain performance is contributing to cash flow, and

almost meeting expectations.

Supply chain factors of GAI in Bangladesh nature is as like progressive manufacturing

industry. GAI of Bangladesh gives focus on the CRM and maintains good coordination
with SRM and ISCM. However, at area of CRM should have to improve according to
identified critical customer requirements. Finally, above discussions are concluded by
saying that the SCM of GAI in Bangladesh is externally focused.
There is a need for better supply chain education, as many employees may be
unaware of their companys supply chain performance and its relationship to business
performance. Management needs to analyse and understand their perceived critical gaps
(and opportunities) in performance. After that they need to link these gaps to customer
requirements using QFD methodology.
 Quality function deployment approach to measure supply chain performance 119

Present research can be elaborate by implementing QFD in the area of individual

drivers of a supply chain; such as: information, facility, inventory, pricing and sourcing.
A win-win model can be developed for the supply chain among supplier, manufacturer
and customer.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their constructive and helpful
comments to improve the quality of this paper.

References
Akao, Y. (1994) Development History of Quality Function Deployment. The Customer Driven
Approach to Quality Planning and Deployment, Minato, Tokyo 107 Asian Productivity
Organization, Japan ISBN: 92-833-1121-3.
Arditi, D. and Lee, D.E. (2003) Assessing the corporate service quality performance of
design-build contractors using quality function deployment, Construction Management &
Economics, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.175185.
Bykzkan, G. and Berkol, . (2011) Designing a sustainable supply chain using an integrated
analytic network process and goal programming approach in quality function deployment,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, No. 11, pp.1373113748.
Cho, D.W., Lee, Y.H., Ahn, S.H. and Hwang, M.K. (2012) A framework for measuring the
performance of service supply chain management, Computers & Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 62, No. 3, pp.801818.
Chopra, S. and Meindl, P. (2007) Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning and Operation,
Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Gonzalez, M.E., Quesada, G., Gourdin, K. and Hartley, M. (2008) Designing a supply chain
management academic curriculum using QFD and benchmarking, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.3660.
Griffin, A. and Hauser, J.R. (1993) The voice of the customer, Marketing Science, Vol. 12, No. 1,
pp.127.
Hadidi, L.A., Al-Turki, U.M. and Rahim, A. (2012) Integrated models in production planning and
scheduling, maintenance and quality: a review, International Journal of Industrial and
Systems Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.2150.
Kamalabadi, I.I.N., Bayat, A., Ahmadi, P., Ebrahimi, A. and Kahreh, M.S. (2008) Presentation a
new algorithm for performance measurement of supply chain by using FMADM approach,
World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp.582589.
Kristianto, Y. and Helo, P. (2010) Designing supply chain by coordinating manufacturing process
and product development process, International Journal of Industrial and Systems
Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.360380.
Martilla, J.A. and James, J.C. (1977) Importance-performance analysis, The Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.7779.
Mukaddes, A.M.M., Bagum, N., Islam, M.A. and Khan, M.M.A. (2012) The application of quality
function deployment to improve the teaching techniques in higher education, International
Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 11, Nos. 1/2, pp.97109.
Nukala, S. and Gupta, S.M. (2007) Performance measurement in a closed-loop supply chain
network, in Proceedings of the 2007 Northeast Decision Sciences Institute Conference,
Baltimore, Maryland, 2830 March, pp.474479.
120 Md. Ashrafuzzaman et al.

Rahman, A., Uddin, M.K., Arif-Uz-Zaman, K. and Shumon, M.R.H. (2012) Implementation of
total quality management in Bangladesh power generating sector: progress and problems,
International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 11, Nos. 1/2, pp.122136.
liwczyski, B. (2008) Controlling in Supply Chain Tool for Process Integration, Vol. 4, No. 2,
p.4, ISSN 1734-459X, LogForum.
Soin, S.S. (2004) Critical Success Factors in Supply Chain Management at High Technology
Companies, DBA dissertation, University of Southern Queensland.