Application Of QFD For E-Business Planning

Production Planning & Control,
Vol. 15, No. 8, December 2004, 802–818
Application of QFD for e-Business planning
BOON L. TAN, NELSON K. H. TANG and PAUL L. FORRESTER
Keywords E-Business, SME, QFD, balanced scorecard,
value chain, planning framework
Abstract. E-Business represents new avenues for sustainable
competitive advantage. Small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) are now expected to be digital-ready to continue as
trading partners for their customers. SMEs require
socio-technical skills and organizational skills and know-how
to comprehend e-Potentials and transform them into
e-Implementation. An e-Business planning framework is pro-
posed here which links both in strategic and operations manage-
ment by applying quality function deployment (QFD, also
known as house of quality). The balanced scorecard (BSC)
will be used to provide an organization overview to objectives
setting, critical in ensuring e-Initiatives are aligned with
organization vision and objectives.
The paper presents the pilot stage of this research project,
discussing how the proposed planning framework works. Data
from a case study are employed, and expert advice was sought
to prioritize and rank the system components (the ‘whats’) and
their interrelationships. The paper begins with an introduction
to the importance of e-Business to SMEs, and a brief review of
the key components of the proposed framework. Next follows
a discussion of the case study and how the framework can be
applied in this particular situation. The paper concludes with
suggestions for proposed future work; the conclusion can also
be extended to provide a series of matrices to provide a clear,
step-by-step planning framework for SMEs which are planning
and implementing e-Business, by converting customer needs
into feasible e-Business plans.
1. Introduction
In the early 1990s, there were high expectations for
engaging the internet as a platform for business transac-
tions and business management. However, it was not
until the late 1990s that the term e-Business finally
Authors: Boon Tan (corresponding author), Technology and Operations Management Research
Group, Aston Business School, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET. Email:
tanbl@aston.ac.uk. Paul L. Forrester, Birmingham School of Management, Birmingham
University, Birmingham, UK. E-mail: p.l.forrester@bham.ac.uk
BOON. L. TAN was educated in Singapore, until the completion of his diploma course at Singapore
Ngee Ann Business School in 1996, when he joined the army. He spent two years at Aston Business
School for his first degree and conferred his BSc(Hons) in Operations Management in 2000. Upon
completion of his degree, he started working as a researcher in AMI Singapore for a year, before
returning in 2001 to start his PhD research under the supervision of Dr Nelson Tang and Professor
David Bennett. His PhD topic is on the development of an integrated e-Business planning frame-
work for SME senior managers. He has also taught both large and small groups of undergraduates
and postgraduates in Aston Business School. Boon is currently writing up his PhD. His current
research interests are e-Business management, technology management and total quality
management.
It was with great shock and sadness that friends and colleagues learned of the unexpected passing
away of Nelson Tang at just 41 years of age. To many of us Nelson was a friend who, in the time he
was with us, earned our respect and trust for his professionalism, reliability, enthusiasm and the
valuable contribution he made in the area of operations management. NELSON, K. H. TANG was a
Senior Lecturer of electronic business at Aston University, UK. He joined the staff of Aston
Business School in 2000, and his research interests were e-Business management, supply-chain
management, technology management, business process re-engineering, knowledge management,
information resources management and total quality management. He was the co-editor of the
International Journal of Business Performance Management.
Production Planning & Control ISSN 0953–7287 print/ISSN 1366–5871 online # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09537280412331309190

began to appear in management meeting agendas.
e-Business has proven to be able to create competitive
advantages for both big companies and SMEs. e-
Business, however, also represents higher degrees of
potential pitfalls due to the limited amount of time and
money available for investing in innovations such as
e-Business. A successful implementation would enable
the SMEs in the creation of competitive advantage,
while failing in implementation or in embracing
e-Business may spell the end of the business in the near
future having been overtaken by competitors. The aim of
the paper is to establish a planning framework that
is feasible for e-Business planning, for use by SME
managers.
The first part of the paper will discuss the growth of
importance of e-Business and why an e-Business planning
framework is required to assist managers in e-Business
planning. This will be followed by discussions on the
three techniques that are integrated to form the planning
framework. These three techniques are quality function
deployment (QFD), balanced scorecard (BSC) and
value-chain analysis (VCA).
Next, the planning framework for e-Business and its
eight-step approach will be identified and discussed,
thereby establishing on how the three techniques are
integrated and how a step-by-step approach can be
engaged in a framework for e-Business planning. This
will be further illustrated with results generated from
a completed pilot study, to discuss on how the planning
framework was able to customize the list of e-Business
applications while taking into account the needs of
the customers as well as the business objectives and
capabilities.
2. The growth of importance for e-Business
E-Business started as a marketing catchphrase for
technology organizations. It can be defined as a way of
integrating applications including ERP, CRM and SCM
in order for them to work together and help in managing,
organizing, routing and transforming information
(Kalakota and Robinson 2001) or simply, ‘doing business
digitally’ (Brache and Webb 2000). Society is now mov-
ing towards cashless transactions (Hussain and Hussain
1991) and business communications are moving to a
higher level beyond basic computer-to-computer
exchange of information (Zwass 2002).
The internet, the main architecture behind e-Business,
has evolved from a scientific network to a platform that
enables new ways of doing businesses (Amor 2000) and
provides almost unlimited reach and information to cus-
tomers (Jordan 2001), allowing easier access to informa-
tion anywhere as long as computers and networks exist,
the opening new approaches to meeting needs and per-
forming functions (Porter 2001). The internet architec-
ture, currently in its third generation, began its evolution
in 1991 when Tim Berners-Lee posted the language of the
WWW online at alt.hypertext (Duncan and Kenney, 2001).
It now enables the development and deployment of
industrial-strength applications to help bring the web
and existing systems together, which, according to
Kalakota and Robinson (2001), is the key to e-Business.
Coincidentally, e-Business is also in its third phase, with
the first phase (1994–1997) concentrating on making
its presence known, the second phase (1997–2000) on
e-Commerce and the third phase (2000 to present) on
the internet’s impact on profitability, also known as
e-Business (Kalakota and Robinson 2001). Businesses
are now performing and coordinating critical business
processes such as product designing, incoming and
outgoing transactions, manufacturing and providing
services through the extensive use of computer and
communication networks and technologies (Alter 2002).
The ‘digital economy’ is seen as a major issue and
area of opportunity to many large organizations as it
represents a new avenue to create sustainable competitive
advantage. Thus, with urgency of big business to go
digital, SMEs are expected to be digital-ready in order
to continue as trading partners. We see digital-readiness
as the ability and capability of an organization to
conduct transactions on the web, in essence, being
e-Business-ready. Although SMEs realize they need to
‘go digital’ to survive, many of them are not unable to
value the potential or possess the know-how to manage
the complexity in change. Going electronic is not merely
PAUL FORRESTER’s early career experience was in production management in the carpet and
electronics industries. Since then he has held various research and teaching appointments including
eight years at Keele University, where he became Director of MBA Programmes, and three years
prior to joining Birmingham at Aston Business School (Director of Part-time MBA Programmes
and Convenor of the Technology and Operations Management Research Group). He also spent a
period of sabbatical leave at National University of Singapore in 1995 and has supervised a number
of overseas doctoral and postgraduate research projects. He continues to maintain an active
research and teaching career. His research interests lie in the strategic, design and organizational
issues of managing operations, the extension of operations management concepts to service
organizations, and the use of virtual learning for management education.
Application of QFD for e-Business planning 803

getting onto the web. SMEs require organizational and
technical knowledge to assist them in the planning and
managing of digital-ready projects.
Organizations constantly need to evolve the way they
interact with suppliers and customers as well as respond
to the challenges posed by current legacy systems, and
integrating all of these into their e-Business plans. A well-
designed, well-executed e-Business plan can send a con-
sistent and positive message out from the organization
(Butler, 2000). Organizations need to be strong and
clear in their e-Business strategies (Butler 2000). All
too easy to say, perhaps: the underlying question here,
therefore, is how can an organization competently
accomplish this?
Kalakota and Robinson (2001) argued that to meet
this change, organizations must develop a whole new
generation of leaders that can create a digital future
with intent. They suggested 20 trends driving
e-Business, which can be used as a checklist by organiza-
tions to detect and prioritize drivers when formulating
e-Business plans. Organizations must bear in mind not
to focus too intently on the ‘e’ component, but more on
‘business’ requirements. The greatest threat to an orga-
nization is either failing to deploy the internet or failing
to deploy it strategically (Porter 2001) and therefore
eﬀectively. Organizations should deploy e-Business only
if it complements strategic needs. Not all e-Business
mechanisms are right for every organization (Lord
2000). One of the deadly assumptions would be to believe
that technology is the answer. Tan and Tang (2002)
summarized a list of common pitfalls from various
relevant literatures, which can be seen in table 1. In
order to help organizations avoid the common pitfalls,
this project deploys the quality function deployment
(QFD) by incorporating the balanced scorecard (BSC)
and the value-chain analysis (VCA) into e-Business plan-
ning. It is to this that we now turn our discussions.
3. QFD and its application
QFD (Akao 1990) was initially developed in the late
1960s at Kobe Shipyard, Japan, as a means to motivate
engineers to consider quality early in the design process.
It was introduced into the USA in 1983 by Kogure and
Akao, with the article ‘Quality function deployment and
CWQC in Japan’, appearing in the journal Quality
Progress. In 1984, Clausing introduced QFD to Ford,
USA, and its supplier companies (Hauser and Clausing
1988) and since then a number of other large organiza-
tions have promoted and successfully utilized QFD.
The original Japanese name of QFD is ‘hin shitsu kino
ten kai’, which can be translated into ‘quality function
deployment’ (Lockamy and Khurana 1995). QFD is
not simply a quality tool but a planning tool for introduc-
ing new products and upgrading existing ones (Slabey
1990). This can be gleaned from two motives behind
the creation of QFD, suggested by Akao (1990):
to enable better determination of design quality;
to determine key manufacturing operations in
advance.
Table 1. Major pitfalls of e-Business.
Internal External
Strategic Customers
We know what we want We know what customers want
Technology is the answer We know how to give customers what they want
e-Business is good for us Our customers are e-ready
Others’ e-Business models will suit our needs Suppliers
We will be able to gain market share with
e-Business
We know what suppliers want
We will be able to increase proﬁt with e-Business We know how to give suppliers what they want
e-Business will enable us to become a global
enterprise
Our suppliers are e-ready
We have the budget for e-Business implementation Competitors
Processes They will not be able to lure our customers
Our internal business processes are in place
and can support the migration to e-Business
If they can go online, we can and should go online
We know how to achieve what we want Regulators
The systems will integrate Our products can be sold anywhere in the world
Personnel Processes
We know who to appoint to champion/lead and/or
be in the e-Business project team
We can integrate the distribution channels
to support e-Business
Everybody in the organization knows why we
need to go ‘e’
We can integrate the supply chain to support
e-Business
804 B. L. Tan et al.

QFD is also a tool to ensure that the ‘correct’ product
is being developed. It does this by incorporating custo-
mer needs into the planning process. In recent years,
QFD has also been evolved into a management tool to
model the dynamics of the design process (Govers 2001).
There are a number of widely reported definitions of
QFD. these include QFD being defined as a philosophy
(Akao 1990), a method (Akao 1990, Mazur 1993), a
system (Slabey 1990, Terninko 1989, Martins and
Aspinwall 2001), a set of planning and communication
routines (Hauser and Clausing 1988), a process (GOAL/
QPC 1989, Bossert 1991), a cross-functional tool (King
1989), a systematic planning process (Daetz et al. 1995,
GOAL/QPC 1989), a customer-oriented approach
(Govers 1996), a team-based approach (Miller and
Bombino 1992), a mechanism (Sullivan 1986) and as
the ultimate quality assurance system (Powers and
Harter 1995). More importantly in relation to the
research project, QFD is also defined as a technique for
identifying the voice of the customer to ensure that this
voice is systematically included in the designing of pro-
ducts/services (Akao 1990, Burn 1990).
The house of quality (HOQ), also known as the QFD
matrix, is the nerve centre and engine that drives the
entire QFD process, and serves as conceptual map for
interfunctional planning and communication (Hauser
and Clausing 1988). HOQ is used to depict customer
requirements, organization measures, target values and
competitive product evaluations (Eureka and Ryan
1994). An HOQ contains seven different elements, as
shown in figure 1.
As with any technique, there are limitations with
QFD. It is not an easy technique to understand and
use. Also, existing working cultures tend to be mainly
functionally inclined and focused on individual contribu-
tions, rather than on a team approach to drive activities.
QFD, however, requires multi-functional teams to
drive activities. Attempting to build the HOQ, in itself,
requires hours of arduous work, as teams still need
to carry out the work of collecting data, designing and
interpreting them (Sullivan 1986). The HOQ is gener-
ated through customer surveys and manual inputs
of survey results, but records relating to QFD were rarely
kept, meaning a lack of established evaluation systems
suited to QFD. Information is needed to track the
progress of the QFD project and to provide links between
the different QFD phases.
Essentially, the ‘voice of the customer’ in practice
contains ambiguity, multiplicity of meaning and is qua-
litative in nature. Customers also tend to mix their
primary needs with their desirable needs. There is also
a need to input a large amount of data and make various
decisions, such as determining the optimal tradeoff
between customer demands, engineering characteristics,
and hence determine the degree of interrelationships
between them and set precise target values. In practice,
many of these decisions have to be based on subjective
evaluation (King 1987). Govers (1996) further argues
that the ability to control the production processes at
a level that warrants an award of ISO certification
(process orientation) is a prerequisite for organizations
to successfully implement QFD.
In addition to the points above, the generation of
‘hows’ (the means by which to implement QFD)
may be a very tedious task as there are few models
available to assist the managers in providing a balanced
view of specific customers’ needs with those of other
stakeholders. These ‘hows’ have to take into account
customer needs as well as the organization’s broader
strategic objectives and operational capabilities. Despite
these weaknesses of QFD, it is a highly effective tool in
enabling the incorporation of customer needs into a
planning process, prioritizing these needs and feasibilities
of the business processes in order to facilitate the planning
Design requirements or “Hows” or service
elements
Correlations between
“Hows”
Correlations between “Whats” and “Hows”
Priorities assigned to design requirements
Customer
needs or
“Hows”
Competitive
assessment
Priorities
assigned to
customer
needs
Figure 1. The house of quality (Evans and Lindsay 1996).

process. To assist in overcoming these weaknesses of
QFD, we have included the balanced scorecard (BSC)
(Kaplan and Norton 1992) as the starting block to
building the QFD e-Matrix. By use of the term ‘e-
Matrix’, we are proposing the use of QFD matrices to
assist in e-Business planning, although it is not necessarily
an electronically enabled process. However, the authors
decided to use this terminology as the generation of these
QFD e-Matrices are also done electronically by using the
QFD/CAPTURETM
software. A discussion of BSC and
how it can help to overcome these weaknesses is discussed
below. The further inclusion of the VCA (Porter 1985)
assists in the generation of ‘hows’ for the e-Matrix. This
will also be discussed below.
4. The basics of the balanced scorecard
The balanced scorecard (BSC) was first created in
1987 at Analog Devices to help improve organizational
performance and competitiveness (Schneiderman 2000),
particularly to overcome weaknesses of the financial
accounting model. Kaplan and Norton (1992) first pub-
lished details on the application of the framework in
the Harvard Business Review. Since then, a number of orga-
nizations (including Mobil, Citicorp, ATT, Rockwater,
Apple Computer, AMD, KPMG Peat Marwick,
Allstate Insurance, as well as not-for-profit and govern-
mental organizations) have been using the BSC as a
strategic planning and performance measurement tool
(Kaplan and Norton 1993, 1996a, b, 2000, 2001, Chow
et al. 1997). The BSC is a strategic tool that enables
organizations to link a set of guides directly with their
strategy, whilst concurrently allowing them to track all
the issues linked with and affecting performance
(Mendoza and Zrihen 2001). According to Silk (1998),
60% of Fortune 1000 firms have experimented with the
BSC.
Figure 2 shows the four perspectives (customer, finan-
cial, internal business processes and learning and growth)
of the BSC that can be used to translate the organi-
zation’s vision and strategy into planning guidelines
and ultimately ‘delighting’ stakeholders (Kaplan and
Norton 2001: 90):
Customers: ‘the strategy for creating value and differ-
entiation from the perspective of the customer’.
Financial: ‘the strategy for growth, profitability, and
risk viewed from the perspective of the shareholder’.
Internal business processes: ‘the strategic priorities for
various business processes that create customer and
shareholder satisfaction’.
Learning and growth: ‘the priorities to create a climate
that supports organizational change, innovation,
and growth’.
A 10-step methodology was introduced to assist in
the building of a strategic management system using the
BSC (Kaplan and Norton 1996a, b). However, to link
the companies’ long-term strategy to short-term actions,
“To achieve
our vision,
how should we
appear to our
customers?”
Customer
“To satisfy our
shareholders
and customers,
what business
processes must
we excel at?”
Internal Business Process
Objectives Initiatives
Measures Targets
Objectives Initiatives
Initiatives
Measures Targets
Objectives Measures Targets
Initiatives
“To succeed
financially,
how should we
appear to our
shareholders?”
Financial
Objectives Measures Targets
“To achieve
our vision,
how will we
sustain our
ability to
change and
improve?”
Learning and Growth
Vision and
Strategy
Figure 2. Transforming vision and strategy (Kaplan and Norton 1996a).

organizations will have to ensure that the 10-step
methodology goes through the four management
processes (Kaplan and Norton 1996a) in a spiral. These
four management processes are:
(1) translating the vision;
(2) communicating and linking;
(3) business planning; and
(4) feedback and learning.
The BSC, however, provides no mechanism for main-
taining the relevance of defined measure (Hudson et al.
2001). Also, there is a lack of integration between top-
level strategic scorecard and operational-level measures,
thus making execution of the newly-formed strategies
problematic (Ballantyne and Brignall 1994). This sce-
nario matches the challenges faced by many SMEs,
which need to fulfil the expectation of matching top-
level objectives with operational-level processes, but are
unable to identify precisely what needs to be implemen-
ted. The BSC can, on the other hand, complement QFD
to form a strong alliance. The strengths of BSC make
it easier to generate the ‘whats’ for the e-Matrices of
the QFD. Coupled with the measurement functions typi-
cal of any BSC, QFD can be made more robust by incor-
porating the ‘voice of customers’ and in more effective
performance measurements. This can eliminate the need
for customer surveys since these ‘voices’ can be con-
structed from the BSC framework. The QFD can, alter-
natively, provide integration between top-level objectives
and operational-level activities, a major deficiency in the
typical BSC approach, by making it possible for man-
agers to prioritize needs while taking into account the
business processes, ultimately providing a blueprint for
e-Business planning. QFD can facilitate planning at the
lowest level of implementation with the use of multi-level
matrices as deemed necessary by the organization and/or
for the specific planning exercise. To provide a deeper
understanding of the essence of the planning framework,
there will be further discussions on this later. Next, we
shall look at how the value-chain analysis process model
fits into the planning framework.
5. The value-chain analysis
One of the main challenges of QFD is the generation of
factors as inputs for ‘whats’ and ‘hows’ (Sullivan 1986,
King 1987, Tan and Tang 2002). While it was discussed
earlier that the BSC can be utilized to assist in the gen-
eration of ‘whats’, the value-chain analysis (VCA)
(Porter 1985) is better suited to aiding the generation
of ‘hows’. The VCA (see figure 3) can help to develop
a clearer understanding of how the business operates,
Inbound Logistics
■ Real-time integrated
scheduling, shipping,
warehouse
management, demand
management and
planning and advance
planning and
scheduling across the
company and it's
suppliers
■ Dissemination across
the company of real-
time inbound and in-
progress inventory data
Operations
■ Integrated information
exchange, scheduling
and decision-making in
in-house plants,
contract assemblers
and components
suppliers
■ Real-time available-to-
promise and capable-
to-promise information
available to the sales-
force and channels
Outbound Logistics
■ Real-time transaction
of orders whether
initiated by an end-
consumer, a sales
person or a channel
■ Customer and channel
access to product
development and
delivery status
■ Collaborative
integration with
customer forecasting
systems
■ Integrated channel
management including
information exchange,
warranty claims and
contract management
Marketing and Sales
■ Online sales channels
including websites and
marketplaces
■ Real-time inside and
outside access to
customer information,
product catalogues,
dynamic pricing,
inventory availability,
online order entry
■ Online product
configurators
■ Customer profiling
■ Push advertising
■ Real-time customer
feedback through web
surveys and promotion
response tracking
After-sales service
■ Online support of
customer service
representatives through
e-mail response
management, billing
integration
■ Customer self-service
via websites and
intelligent service
request processing
including updates to
billing and shipping
profiles
■ Real-time field
service access to
customer account
schematic review, parts
availability and
ordering
Procurement
■ Internet-enabled demand planning
■ System integration of purchase, inventory and forecasting systems with suppliers
■ Automated requisition to pay
■ Direct and indirect procurement via market places, exchanges and auctions
Business development
■ Collaborative product design across locations and among multiple value-system participants
■ Knowledge directories accessible from all parts of the organization
■ Real-time access by RD to online sales and service information
Human Resource Management
■ Self-service personnel and benefits administration
■ Web-based training
■ Internet-based sharing and dissemination of company information
■ Electronic time and expense reporting
Firm infrastructure
■ Web-based distributed financial and ERP systems
■ Online investor relations (e.g. information dissemination, broadcast conference calls)
Figure 3. E-Value chain application (Porter 2001).

indicating where value is generated and how existing
elements can be reconfigured or re-engineered to meet
the strategic intentions.
Porter’s VCA structures business operations into five
primary activities from inbound logistics to after-sales
services and four support activities. Depending on the
organization’s size, it is useful to break down each ele-
ment of the VCA into the core operational processes and
assess the customer value that is added by these processes.
When followed rigorously, this analysis can be used to
identify the cost and revenue generated by each of the
VCA processes. At the same time, e-Business enhance-
ments should be considered such as the elimination of
errors through better communication, and collaboration
and information-sharing with process stakeholders. With
regard to procurement and supply-chain management, it
is useful to distinguish between different process types
such as the identification of new supply sources, the
ordering process, the materials planning process and
the tendering process.
A recent article by Porter (2001) on VCA in an
e-Business environment demonstrates a particular appli-
cation that is useful for analysing the relationships
between the business and its various stakeholder groups
from an operational perspective (see figure 3). This facil-
itates the process of identifying e-Business applications
that can support or enable current or future relation-
ships. By mapping the interfaces to commercial business
partners, a firm can make judgements on the nature of
existing and future relationships. In the process of identi-
fying focus areas in the VCA, the main stakeholders, who
should subsequently be involved in the planning process,
will emerge.
6. The planning framework for e-Business
planning in SMEs
The European Commission (EC) definition of small
firms is based on the criteria of effective management
independence and workforce categories of less than 250
salaried employees for medium-sized firms, less than 50
for small firms and less than 10 for micro-firms.
According to Eurostat, the statistical office of the EC,
some 90% of firms are micro-firms and they account
for one-third of all employment (with wide variations
between member states), with roughly half of all EU
jobs in the broader SME sector taken as a whole. In
the UK there are more than 3 million of these firms.
They account for one-half of private sector employment
and one-quarter of GDP (DTI 1998, 2001, ENSR 1997).
In the first step, the employment of BSC will assist
in ensuring that all-round business strategic planning
is exercised within the process of e-Business planning
process. Customers’ needs (the ‘whats’) will then be gen-
erated from the results of this strategic planning process.
Upon the completion of step 1 (or at least under way), the
manager may commence step 2, the development of the
VCA to aid in the generation of ‘hows’ (business processes)
for the QFD e-Matrix I (step 3). The purpose of QFD
e-Matrix I is to prioritize the business processes according
to their ability to meet the critical needs of customers. QFD
e-Matrix II on the other hand, is being employed for the
purpose of identifying and prioritizing the e-Business
applications in accordance with the prioritized business
processes obtained from QFD e-Matrix I.
The current authors have developed an eight-step
approach to assist in the understanding and creation of
the planning framework works (see figure 4). They are
identified as follows:
Step 1. Using BSC to develop ‘what’ for QFD
e-Matrix I.
Step 2. Using VCA to develop ‘how’ in QFD
e-Matrix I.
Step 3. Completing QFD e-Matrix I.
Step 4. Identification of critical business processes
from QFD e-Matrix I.
Step 5. Inputting critical business processes to QFD
e-Matrix II’s ‘what’.
Step 6. List of e-Business applications to QFD
e-Matrix II’s ‘how’.
Step 7. Completing QFD e-Matrix II.
Step 8. Identification of critical e-Business applications
from QFD e-Matrix II.
6.1. Step 1: Using BSC to develop ‘what’ for QFD e-Matrix I
The development of the BSC is always and ideally top-
down (Kaplan and Norton 2000). Therefore, we have to
first identify the vision of the organization. The identifica-
tion of organization vision can be done through gathering
information from documentation, followed by confirming
the vision with senior managers. Once achieved, we can
start to formulate the objectives from a financial perspec-
tive. Only after these financial objectives are identified will
the organization be able to determine, at the customer
perspective level, the objectives that can help to achieve
the identified financial objectives.
Kaplan and Norton (2000) listed three types of custo-
mer perspectives: operational excellence, customer inti-
macy or product leadership. So at the customer
perspective level, the organization must be able to decide
which of these they should be concentrating on. Once this
is agreed by managers, it will then be possible for the
organization to formulate a list of performance measure-
ments that, upon meeting the requirements, will enable
the organization to achieve its customer perspective
objectives.

The next phase is to identify a list of key business
processes that can enable the organization to achieve
the objectives set from both the financial and customer
perspectives. In short, these will be the business processes
that the organization will find vital in excelling at,
as these processes are critical in allowing the organiza-
tion to achieve its vision. Finally, senior managers
are required to identify any innovation and growth
objectives for the organization. These objectives will ulti-
mately provide the blueprint in the creation of an infra-
structure for the organization to create long-term
improvements and growth. While objectives in financial,
Step 7
Completing
QFD eMatrix II:
Prioritising
e-business
applications
Step 4
Identification of critical business processes.
Absolute imp
Relative imp
Prioritising
Step 6 - Proposed e-business applications
Step 8
Identification of critical e-business applicatons
Absolute imp
Relative imp
Rrioritising
Action
Processes
Requirements
How?
What?
Step 3
Completing
QFD eMatrix I:
Prioritising
business process
Applications
Processes
Step 5
Critical
Processes
Identified
from
Step 4
e-business applications
Impor-
tance
( see
above)
Impor-
tance
Step 2
Balanced Scorecard
Identify internal and
external needs
Step 1
Value Chain Analysis
Identify business process
Figure 4. Proposed planning framework prototype.

customer and business process perspectives can be both
current and for the future, there are likely to be gaps (e.g.
technology and employee skills) that act as barriers to
meeting these objectives. Therefore, objectives identified
from the innovation and growth perspectives will most
likely seek to narrow these gaps.
The present authors developed a BSC for a Chinese
printing business, which can be seen in figure 5. The
levels of perspectives are shown clearly from top to bot-
tom in the order of how the BSC is formulated. This list
can then be inputted as the ‘whats’ for QFD e-Matrix 1
(see figure 4).
6.2. Step 2: Using VCA to develop ‘how’ in QFD e-Matrix I
To most SMEs, managerial decisions have always been
functionally-oriented and tend to reflect the background
of the restricted number of individuals on the manage-
ment team. The VCA process model was thus brought
into the framework with the intention of identifying the
basic, generic business processes that all businesses should
possess. The VCA helps to provide an overview of the
business processes, thus limiting the influences of func-
tionally-oriented managerial styles in the development
of ‘hows’.
Using the VCA, senior managers have a clear view of
those key business processes that add value to the differ-
ent products and services an organization provides. The
VCA further allows senior managers to analyse processes
at different key stages and levels. From the identified
key business processes, managers are able to formulate
a comprehensive list of ‘hows’ to be inputted into QFD
e-Matrix I.
6.3. Step 3: Completing QFD e-Matrix I
The list of identified internal and external needs are
inputted as the ‘whats’ in the QFD e-Matrix I. Surveys
and/or expert advice are consulted at this point to list the
importance and criticality of the ‘whats’. Usually, custo-
mers have to be consulted to determine which among the
‘needs’ are the ones they truly desire, or to provide any
‘needs’ missing from the list. Of course, managers must
take note that the needs that are truly desirable may not
be verbally explicit from customers and so have to use
some judgements to ascertain any implicit customer needs.
The importance ratings of these needs can range from
1 to 10. The list of identified business processes is also
inputted as the ‘hows’ in the same e-Matrix (QFD
e-Matrix I).
Financial
perspective
Customer
perspective
Customer intimacy
Vision: One-stop solution medium-sized printer providing
friendly, reliable and cost-effective printing and design services
Sales
growth
Product
profitability
Costs
growth
High
retention
On-time
delivery
Complaints
Resource
planning
Preferred supplier- survey
Sustained product
quality
Product cycle
time
Process
reliability
Innovation and
growth
perspectives
Business process
perspectives
Training
investments
New account
opened
New product
introductions
Staff satisfaction- survey
Figure 5. United Printing balanced scorecard.

The ‘whats’ and ‘hows’ in QFD e-Matrix I will then
undergo an interrelationship analysis (obtained from the
survey and/or expert advice) to determine the business
processes that are the most important and relevant in
meeting the needs and demands ranked most highly by
customers.
The QFD/CAPTURETM
software is being used in this
project to capture and analyse the relationships between
the ‘whats’ and the ‘hows’. The interrelationship of the
needs and business processes are then calculated using the
correlation matrix function of the QFD/CAPTURETM
software. The correlation between the ‘hows’ will also
be taken into account, as there might be complementar-
ity as well as tradeoffs for each of the different business
processes selected.
The scoring of each factor of ‘whats’ is first entered into
QFD e-Matrix I, followed by the scorings of the relation-
ships between each of the ‘whats’ and the ‘hows’. The
relationship scoring defined as ‘9’ means a strong rela-
tion, ‘3’ means an average relation and ‘1’ represents a
weak relation. No entry means there is no relationship
between the ‘what’ and ‘how’. The software will then be
able to calculate and display a list of prioritized business
processes for the organization to look into for the purpose
of e-Business application planning.
6.4. Step 4: Identification of critical business processes from
QFD e-Matrix I
The product from this round of rigorous calculation is
a list that prioritizes those key business processes that
should be the critical areas of focus. This list highlights
the business processes that will enable the organization to
satisfy these highly vital external and/or internal needs
identified.
6.5. Step 5: Inputting critical business processes to QFD
e-Matrix II’s ‘what’
The next step in the framework is to integrate the list
of prioritized business processes (product from QFD
e-Matrix I) by inputting it as the list of ‘whats’ in QFD
e-Matrix II. The rationale behind this is to transform the
identified critical business processes into ‘whats’, in order
for us to measure the relationships of these processes
with available or proposed e-Business applications. This
also allows for the identification of e-Business applications
that can help to streamline and enhance the effectiveness
and efficiency of the business processes in order to meet
both internal and external needs.
6.6. Step 6: List of e-Business applications to QFD e-Matrix
II’s ‘how’
The list of e-Business applications to be inputted as
‘hows’ in QFD e-Matrix II could either be those already
available in the company or new applications as pro-
posed by managers. Further e-Business resources can be
obtained from vendors or in-house, including researching
information online. The list of e-Business applications
should not limit creativity as putting these applications
through the analysis of relationships in the e-Matrix will
provide the managers with a clearer picture by prioritiz-
ing these e-Business applications in relation to the list
of critical business processes.
6.7. Step 7: Completing QFD e-Matrix II
The next step in the planning framework is to calculate
the interrelationships of the prioritized business process
(‘whats’) and e-Business applications (‘hows’) in QFD
e-Matrix II. This calculation is again carried out with
the use of the QFD/CAPTURETM
software, to prioritize
the ranking of the e-Business applications in terms of the
strengths of relationships with the key business processes.
The scoring for these relationships is, as before in QFD
e-Matrix I, obtained via survey and/or expert advice.
The scoring will again be 9 for a strong relationship, 3
for average and 1 for weak between the business process
and the e-Business applications. A zero or blank entry
equates to no relationship between the process and
application.
6.8. Step 8: Identification of critical e-Business applications
from QFD e-Matrix II
The product from this round of e-Matrix analysis pro-
vides managers with a prioritized list of e-Business appli-
cations upon which to take action. This list is based on
the e-Business applications’ ability and criticality in
meeting the needs identified (both lists of needs from
QFD e-Matrix I and QFD e-Matrix II). These
e-Business applications allow the organization to explore
which key business processes need to be improved in
order to meet both internal and external critical
demands.
The purpose of this paper is to establish the use of
the planning framework as a feasible step-by-step
methodology in e-Business planning. The framework is
thus being further discussed below, by using results of a
recently concluded pilot study carried out before more
case study research is begun. The pilot study will there-
fore also serve as the feasibility study of employing QFD,

BSC and VCA to assist SME managers in e-Business
planning. This planning framework was first presented
as a prototype at MIM 2002 Conference (Tan and
Tang 2002) and utilized a dataset from the case study
on Marshall Industries, US (Olofson, 1999).
For the purpose of further examining the feasibility of
using the planning framework, we will now illustrate the
use of the planning framework within a case company—a
Chinese printing company.
7. Case study illustration: Guangzhou United
Printing Co. Ltd
Guangzhou United Printing Co. Ltd (United
Printing) was established in 1992 as a Sino-foreign
cooperative, with a vision to be a ‘One-stop solution
medium-sized printer providing friendly, reliable and
cost-effective printing and design services’.
The company deals mainly with the printing and
manufacturing needs of both domestic and foreign cus-
tomers, both public and private. United Printing pro-
duces a wide variety of products including colour
trademarks, picture brochures, manuals, packing bags,
paper boxes, wall calendars and envelopes. United
Printing also provides services in printing design, copy
and plate-making, paper compression moulding, paper
mounting and cartons, etc.
The company is relatively ‘low tech’ and labour inten-
sive in its operations. There are currently no established
training policies within the company. The main investor
in United Printing, HK Luensun Printing Co. Ltd on the
other hand, is famous for its state-of-the-art equipment
and technology.
7.1. Generating the BSC of United Printing (‘whats’)
The first step of the planning framework is to establish
the company’s BSC for the purpose of generating a list of
‘whats’ for QFD e-Matrix I. The vision of United
Printing was clearly stated, providing a clear starting
point to the establishment of a BSC for the company.
As was identified from the vision, United Printing will,
from the financial perspective, seek to measure sales
growth, product profitability and costs growth.
Furthermore, to achieve its vision as a friendly, reliable
and cost-effective supplier, United Printing will have to
strive for high customer retention rate, high rate of on-
time delivery, low number of complaints and should, in
surveys, be identified as the most preferred supplier.
These targets coincided with objectives that Kaplan
and Norton (2000) identified in a company seeking to
excel in customer intimacy on the customer perspective
level of the BSC.
In order to distinguish the business processes that
are critical to achieving United Printing’s vision to
excel, the authors had to first identify the main business
processes in United Printing. These business processes
included its inbound logistics, operations, sales/market-
ing, outbound logistics and support services. From these
business processes, it was clear that there are four objec-
tives that must be included in the company’s BSC. They
are: (1). resource planning; (2). product cycle time; (3).
sustained product quality; and (4). process reliability.
It is important for the business to provide for sustained
growth and ongoing innovation, as United Printing will
need to meet its long-term objectives. It will also have to
identify how to bridge gaps in technology, employee
skills, etc. United Printing will therefore have to measure
its performance in training investments, new product
introductions, new accounts opened and its staff satisfac-
tion through a survey. The BSC created in United
Printing’s context can be seen in figure 5. The list of
‘whats’ generated from the BSC for QFD e-Matrix I
are listed in table 2.
Expert advice was sought from a senior manager
with extensive printing experience, to assist in the rank-
ing of these initial ‘whats’. The ‘whats’ deemed most
important were awarded the highest points, and the
lower scored were given to those which were felt to be of
lesser importance. It was acknowledged that in relation
to United Printing, the highest scoring (9.5 out of 10)
‘whats’ would be to (i) sustain a high customer retention
rate; (ii) providing on-time delivery; and (iii) being
the preferred supplier of its customers. It must be empha-
sized that different company visions and different
managers influence the ratings of the ‘whats’. This is
due to the fact that different managers place different
levels of emphasis, on different areas of the business,
which will result in different ratings.
7.2. Generating the key business processes of United Printing
with the VCA (‘hows’)
Once the ‘whats’ for QFD e-Matrix I were identified,
the next step was the identification of ‘hows’ for QFD
e-Matrix I, which will be developed from VCA. Using
VCA, the present authors were able to categorize the
business processes of United Printing into five main
categories under the banners of ‘Logistics’, ‘Operations’,
‘Marketing and Sales’, ‘Services’ and ‘Supporting’.
Within each category, the key critical value-adding
business processes are further identified. A complete list
of the key business processes is shown in the ‘QFD
e-Matrix I, ‘‘hows’’ column in table 2.

7.3. Completing QFD e-Matrix I
The list of ‘whats’ and ‘hows’ as generated in
the previous steps, was now entered into the QFD
e-Matrix I. Expert insight was again sought at this
step to assist the researchers in determining the strengths
of the relationships between the ‘whats’ and ‘hows’. Once
these ratings were keyed in to the QFD/CAPTURETM
software, the software automatically prioritized the key
business processes (‘hows’) in order of importance,
according to the capability of the process to meet the
requirements of the ‘whats’ (that were already rated in
importance). Therefore, the more relevant the business
process was in meeting the requirements of the higher
ranked ‘whats’, the higher was the business process of
the list of priority.
7.4. Results of QFD e-Matrix I
The top three critical business processes from this
first round of prioritization can be seen in table 3.
It is clear that these three business processes are
critical in meeting the requirements of the top three
ranked ‘whats’ identified earlier. Figure 6 shows United
Printing’s QFD e-Matrix I.
7.5. Establishing the ‘whats’ in QFD e-Matrix II
The ‘whats’ inputted into the QFD e-Matrix II were a
straight transfer from the results of QFD e-Matrix I. The
important point to note is that the prioritized scorings of
the business processes from QFD e-Matrix I were entered
as the rating scores for the business processes (as the
business processes are now serving the function of
‘whats’ in QFD e-Matrix II).
Table 2. List of factors inputted into the eMatrices.
QFD e-Matrix I ‘whats’ QFD e-Matrix I ‘hows’ QFD e-Matrix II ‘hows’
Financial Logistics Logistics
(inbound/outbound) (inbound/outbound)
Sales growth Inventory management Auto-replenishment system
Product profitability Delivery Computerized logistic management
Costs growth Order tracking
Customer Operations Operations
High retention Scheduling Graphic design
On-time delivery Design Online verification of design
Complaints Typesetting Online design customization
Preferred supplier–surveys Printing Advance machinery
Binding/folding Content management service (website)
Packaging for delivery
Business process Marketing and Sales Marketing and Sales
Resource planning Advertising Online quotation
Product cycle time Quotation News bulletin board
Sustained product quality Accounting E-Newsletter
Process reliability Online ordering
Online transaction
E-Auction
Innovation and growth Service Service
Training investments After-sales services E-Catalogue
New product introductions Customer complaints Online sourcing
New account opened
Staff satisfaction–survey
Supporting Supporting
Purchasing ERP (enterprise resources planning)
Training and education CRM (customer relationship management)
Employee performance measurement–bonus Online customer survey–feedback form
E-Learning
Table 3. Top three business processes (results from QFD
e-Matrix I).
Scoring 264.8 214.6 212.6
Percentage 10.7% 8.7% 8.6%
Business processes Scheduling Delivery After-sales services

Figure 6. United Printing QFD e-Matrix I.

Figure 7. United Printing QFD e-Matrix II.

7.6. Establishing the list of e-Business applications (‘hows’ in
QFD e-Matrix II)
For the purpose of further illustrating the planning
framework, the list of potential e-Business applications
was generated through:
(1) the understanding of key processes required to
undergo change for the organization to embrace
e-Business;
(2) the researchers’ knowledge and interpretation
of e-Business applications in the printing
industry; and
(3) from the case study itself, as there could be
suggestions on the e-Business applications the
organization were considering bringing aboard.
This list of e-Business applications (‘hows’ in QFD e-
Matrix II) can be seen in table 2.
7.7. Completing QFD e-Matrix II
At this step, the researchers need to establish a defini-
tion of what the ratings of strengths will mean in the
case of United Printing, so as to be applied in QFD
e-Matrix II. A score of ‘9’ was determined to be critical
and should be implemented immediately, ‘3’ as in
moderately critical and should ideally be implemented
within the next 12 months, while ‘1’ would signify that
the e-Business application is not important but should
merely be kept under consideration and future review.
7.8. Identification of critical e-Business applications from
e-Matrix II
The ratings were entered in the software and the rela-
tionships between the business processes and the potential
e-Business applications were calculated and displayed as
a prioritized list. Table 4 shows the three most critical
and feasible potential e-Business applications identified
by the planning framework in the context of United
Printing’s case study. The QFD e-Matrix II for United
Printing can also be seen in figure 7.
8. Future work
Once we have attained the list of potential e-Business
applications that is prioritized according to feasibility
and criticality, the next step is to look at the key
business processes vital to the successful implementation
of potential e-Business applications. Once we had
identified and verified the list of key business processes,
we would be able to plan out the road map for the
implementation of e-Business applications. This road
map would allow SME managers to look at the business
processes in a more linear way, thereby making it
possible to formulate strategies that facilitate and
encourage change using a customized, context-specific,
step-by-step approach.
The next stage of research will be a set of case studies to
provide for further development, testing and refinement
of the planning framework. A key concern is to ensure
that the framework matches and addresses the realities
of the real business world. To ensure consistency and
a common sectoral context, the printing industry has
been selected for this study and access has already been
obtained from two more printing SMEs.
9. Conclusion
This paper has presented a feasible application of BSC
to assist the generation of input for QFD ‘whats’. The
BSC helps to create a business overview when planning
objectives for the organization. VCA can be deployed
in aiding the generation of ‘hows’ and ensuring that all
key business processes that add values are considered.
QFD can be extended to establish a series of matrices
to provide a clear, step-by-step planning framework for
SMEs entering the e-Business arena, by providing a
methodology for converting both internal and external
needs into a feasible e-Business plan. The key to accurate
ratings for the interrelationship matrix is to identify what
the scores actually mean in the matrix. E-Business
planning can then be built on a multi-stage QFD e-
Matrix system, linking the internal and external
needs of the organization to the business processes,
through an e-Business initiatives prioritization and
feasibility study.
Table 4. Top three critical e-Business applications (results from QFD e-Matrix II).
Scoring 266.6 199.6 157.3
Percentage 14.5% 10.9% 8.6%
e-Business applications Advance machinery e-Learning Auto replenishments

References
AKAO, Y., 1990, Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer
Requirements into Product Design (McGraw-Hill).
ALTER, S., 2002, Information Systems, 4th edn (Prentice-Hall).
AMOR, D., 2000, The E-Business (R)evolution: Living and Working
in an Interconnected World (Prentice-Hall).
BALLANTYNE, J., and BRIGNALL, S., 1994, A taxonomy of
performance measurement frameworks. Research Paper
No. 135, Warwick Business School, Warwick.
BOSSERT, J. L., 1991, Quality Function Deployment: A Practitioner’s
Approach (ASQC Press).
BRACHE, A., and WEBB, J., 2000, The eight deadly assumptions
of e-Business. Journal of Business Strategy, May/June, pp.
13–17.
BURN, G. R., 1990, Quality function deployment. In G. D.
Barrie and A. Philip (eds) Managing Quality (Philip Alan).
BUTLER, A. S., 2000, Developing your company’s new
business. Journal of Business Strategy, November/December,
pp. 38–42.
CHOW, C. W., HADDAD, M., and WILLIAMSON, J. E., 1997,
Applying the balanced scorecard to small companies.
Journal of Management Accounting, 79(2), 21–27.
DAETZ, D., BARNARD, B., and NORMAN, R., 1995, Customer
Integration: The Quality Function Deployment Leader’s Guide for
Decision Making (Wiley).
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), 1988, Our Competitive
Future: Building the Knowledge Driven Economy (Stationery
Office).
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), 2001, Small Business
Service: Small and Medium Enterprise (SME)–Definition.
Available at http://www.sbs.gov.uk/statistics/smedefs.asp.
DUNCAN, R., and KENNEY, D., 2001, Net Timeline: Life on the
Internet. Available at http://www.pbs.org/internet/timeline/.
ENSR, 1997, The European Observatory for SMEs (EIM
Zoetermeer).
EUREKA, W. E., and RYAN, N. E., 1994, The Customer-driven
Company: Managerial Perspective on QFD (ASI Press).
EVANS, J. R., and LINDSAY, W. M., 1996, The Management and
Control of Quality (West Publishing).
GOAL/QPC Research Report, 1989, Quality function
deployment: a process for continuous improvement. GOAL/
QPC Research Committee, Transactions from the Second
Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, Novi, MI, June,
pp. 316–336.
GOVERS, C. P. M., 1996, What and how about quality
function deployment (QFD)? International Journal of
Production Economics, 69, 151–159.
GOVERS, C. P. M., 2001, QFD not just a tool but a way of
quality management. International Journal of Production
Economics, 46-47, 575–585.
HAUSER, J. R., and CLAUSING, D., 1988, The house of quality.
Harvard Business Review, May–June, pp. 63–73.
HUDSON M., SMART, A., and BOURNE M., 2001, Theory
and practice in SME performance measurement
systems. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 21(8), 1096–1115.
HUSSAIN, D. S., and HUSSAIN, K. M., 1991, Information Systems
for Business (Prentice-Hall).
JORDAN, A., 2001, Five critical practises in mastering
e-Business. Consulting to Management, 12(4), 24–27.
KALAKOTA, R., and ROBINSON, M., 2001, E-Business 2.0: Road
to Success, 2nd edn (Addison-Wesley).
KAPLAN, R. S., and NORTON, D. P., 1992, The balanced
scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard
Business Review, January–February, pp. 71–79.
KAPLAN, R. S., and NORTON, D. P., 1993, Putting the
balanced scorecard to work. Harvard Business Review,
September–October, pp. 134–147.
KAPLAN R. S., and NORTON D. P., 1996a, Using the balanced
scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business
Review, January–February, pp. 75–85.
KAPLAN R. S., and NORTON D. P., 1996b, Linking the balanced
scorecard to strategy. California Management Review, 39(1),
Fall, 53–79.
KAPLAN R. S., and NORTON D. P., 2000, Having trouble
with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard Business Review,
September–October, pp. 167–176.
KAPLAN, R. S., and NORTON, D. P., 2001, Transforming
the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to
strategic management: Part 1. Accounting Horizons, 15(1),
87–107.
KING, R., 1987, Listening to the voice of the customer: using the
quality function deployment system. National Productivity
Review, 6(3), 227–281.
KING, B., 1989, Better Designs in Half the Time:
Implementing Quality Function Deployment in America, 3rd edn
(GOAL/QPC).
LOCKAMY, A. III, and KHURANA, A., 1995, Quality function
deployment: total quality management for new product
design. International Journal of Quality and Management, 12(6),
73–84.
LORD, C., 2000, The practicalities of developing a successful
e-Business strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, March/
April, pp. 40–43.
MARTINS A., and ASPINWALL E. M., 2001, Quality function
deployment: an empirical study in the UK. Total Quality
Management, 12(5), 575–588.
MAZUR, G. H., 1993, QFD for service industries: from voice
of customer to task deployment. Transactions from the Fifth
Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, Novi, MI, June.
Available at: http://www.mazur.net/works/svctaskqfd.pdf.
MENDOZA, C., and ZRIHEN, R., 2001, Measuring up. Financial
Management, April, pp. 26–30.
MILLER, J. A., and BOMBINO, A., 1992, Multi-phase QFD
studies for product and service development. Transactions
from the Fourth Symposium on Quality Function Deployment,
15–16 June, Novi, MI, pp. 385–391.
OLOFSON, C., 1999, Marshall industries. In J. F. Rayport and
Jaworski, B. J (eds), Cases in E-Commerce, International Edition,
(McGraw-Hill).
PORTER, M. E., 1985, Competitive Advantage: Creating and
Sustaining Superior Performance (Free Press).
PORTER, M. E., 2001, Strategy and the internet. Harvard
Business Review, 79(3), 63–78.
POWERS, D., and HARTER, R., 1995, Comprehensive QFD.
Transactions from the Seventh Symposium on Quality Function
Deployment, 11–13 June, Novi, MI, pp. 85–100.
SCHNEIDERMAN A. M., 2000, The first balanced scorecard. Available
at http://www.schneiderman.com/Concepts/Scorecard/score-
card.htm.
SILK, S., 1998, Automating the balanced scorecard. Management
Accounting, May, pp. 38–44.
SLABEY, W. R., 1990, QFD: a basic primer–
excerpts from the implementation manual for the three
day QFD workshop. Second Symposium on Quality Function

Deployment (GOAL/QPC, Automotive Division-ASQC and
American Supplier Institute).
SULLIVAN, L. P., 1986, Quality function deployment. Quality
Progress, 19(6), 39–50.
TAN, B. L., and TANG, N. K. H., 2002, Application of QFD
for e-Business planning. Proceedings of MIM 2002:
Fifth International Conference on Managing Innovations in
Manufacturing, pp. 85–93.
TERNINKO, J., 1989, Robust Design: Key Points for World Class
Quality (Responsible Management Inc.).
ZWASS, V., 2002, Structure and macro-level impacts of elec-
tronic commerce: from technological infrastructure to electro-
nic marketplaces. Foundations of Information Systems. Available
at http://www.mhhe.com/business/mis/zwass/ecpaper.html.

View publication stats
View publication stats

Application Of QFD For E-Business Planning

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Application Of QFD For E-Business Planning

Similar to Application Of QFD For E-Business Planning (20)

More from Wendy Berg

More from Wendy Berg (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Application Of QFD For E-Business Planning