3 3
RRDDI IN NT TE E RN R NA AT TI IO ON NA AL L C C ON O N FE F ER R EN E NC CE E O ON N S SI IX X S SI IG GM MA A
TI T IC C 6σ 6 - - 2 2 0 0 08 0 8
THTHEEMMEE
"
"LLEEAANN SSIIXX SSIIGGMMAA AASS AA VVEEHHIICCLLEE FFOORR AA SSUUCCCCEESSSSFFUULL BBUUSSIINNEESSSS TTRRAANNSSFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN""
15 1 5- -1 16 6
TTHHD DE EC CE EM MB BE ER R, , 2 20 00 08 8
TH T HE E R RS SE E S SC CO OT TL LA AN ND D F FO OU UN ND DA AT TI IO ON N 22 2 2- -2 26 6 G G EO E OR RG GE E S ST TR RE EE ET T, , E ED DI IN NB BU UR RG GH H
EH E H2 2 2 2P PQ Q, , S SC CO OT TL LA AN ND D, , U UK K. .
S
STTRRAATTHHCCLLYYDDEE IINNSSTTIITTUUTTEE FFOORR OOPPEERRAATTIIOONNSS MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT ((SSIIOOMM))
DEDEPPAARRTTMMEENNTT OOFF DDEESSIIGGNN MMAANNUUFFAACCTTUURRIINNGG AANNDD EENNGGIINNEEEERRIINNGG MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT (D(DMMEEMM))
U
UNNIIVVEERRSSIITTYY OOFF SSTTRRAATTHHCCLLYYDDEE GGLLAASSGGOOWW, , SSCCOOTTLLAANNDD..
O
ORRGGAANNIISSEEDD && CCHHAAIIRREEDD BBYY PPRROOFFEESSSSOORR JJIIJJUU AANNTTOONNYY D
DIIRREECCTTOORR,, CCEENNTTEERR FFOORR RREESSEEAARRCCHH IINN SSIIXX SSIIGGMMAA AANNDD PPRROOCCEESSSS EEXXCCEELLLLEENNCCEE (C(CRRIISSSSPPEE))
jjiijjuu..aannttoonnyy@@ssttrraatthh..aacc..uukk
© © UUNNIIVVEERRSSIITTYY OOFF SSTTRRAATTHHCCLLYYDDEE
3
RDINTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SIX SIGMA
TIC6 σ - 2008
"Lean Six Sigma As A Vehicle For Successful Business Transformation.”
15-16
thDECEMBER, 2008
THE RSE SCOTLAND FOUNDATION 22-26 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH
EH2 2PQ, SCOTLAND, UK
EDITED BY:
PROFESSOR JIJU ANTONY, MANEESH KUMAR & CHIDIEBERE OGBU
YEAR OF PUBLICATION: 2008
ISBN: 978-0-947649-32-6
INFORMATION ABOUT CRISSPE/SIOM
The Centre for Research in Six Sigma and Process Excellence (CRISSPE) is the very first research centre in the field of Six Sigma in Europe. The Centre is led by Prof. Jiju Antony at the department of Design Manufacturing and Engineering Management (DMEM), University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland. The Centre was established in June 2004 with the primary objective of promoting Six Sigma, Lean Strategy, Quality Management and Business Process Improvement methods in the UK and European Industries.
Strathclyde Institute for Operations Management (SIOM) was founded in January 2007 by the University of Strathclyde in recognition of the fragmented but internationally leading research and development capability within the Strathclyde’s Business School and Engineering Faculty. In doing this, Strathclyde brought together already well established centres and groups under one umbrella that consolidates fragmented core competencies into a critical mass. These Centres and Groups comprise of:
Centre for Strategic Manufacturing – founded in 1995
CompetitiveScotland.com – founded in 2002
Centre for Business Process Outsourcing – founded in 2005
Centre for Research in Six Sigma and Process Excellence (CRISSPE) - founded in 2004 (formally in Glasgow Caledonian University)
Operations management groups and individuals from departments of Management, Marketing and Management Science.
SIOM’s ambition is to position itself as the Beacon for the operations management community worldwide. Thus its future development plans include creation of Round Tables to facilitate discussion and progress in key areas. At present the key areas include:
High value manufacturing
Performance management
Process excellence (Lean Six Sigma)
Service Science
MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR
01 December, 2008
Dear Delegates,
On behalf of the University of Strathclyde, I welcome you all to the Third International Conference on Six Sigma.
This conference is not only intended for those who are on the journey of achieving and sustaining significant financial savings to the bottom-line using the Six Sigma management strategy, but also for those organisations who would like to embark on this journey towards Best-in-Class management practice. This CD contains all the selected papers further to thorough review process and is presented on the first day of the conference.
It is my intention to help you get the most from this truly International event. If there is anything I can do to make this programme more enjoyable for you, please do not hesitate to ask.
Yours truly
Prof. Jiju Antony Conference Chair
Centre for Research in Six Sigma and Process Excellence Strathclyde Institute for Operations Management
Department of Design, Manufacturing and Engineering Management University of Strathclyde
Glasgow, Scotland, UK
E- mail: jiju.antony@strath.ac.uk
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGES 1. Integration of six sigma and service quality Function
Deployment – with a case study in the Hospitality Industry.
Arash Shahin 1-22
2. Lean six sigma, an expert-based study on tool &
Techniques in a manufacturing context.
Werner Timans 23-32
3. Expected Role of management accounting within the six Sigma methodology: case evidence
Indra Devi Rajamanoharan 33-73
4. Six sigma project identification and selection: A benchmark Among Italian and US companies.
AlessandroBrun 74-123
5. Lean thinking of Improving perceived Healthcare Quality
Dr. Rania Shamah 124-161
6. Implementing 5s for lean six sigma deployment
Mr Paul Martin Gibbons 162-197
7. Exploring case studies on the adoption of six sigma and lean Production
Paulo Augusto Cauchick Miguel 198-218
8. The implementation of six sigma in the banking sector in Qatar
Salaheldin Ismail Salaheldin 219-256
9. Six Sigma and Total Quality Management (TQM):
Similarities, Differences and relationship
Souraj Salah and Juan A. Carretero 257-278
10 Proposing a sustainable six sigma model
Andrew Thomas 279-301
11 Development of a 5s sustainability model for use with lean And/or Six sigma projects
James Marsh 302-320
12 Beyond six sigma: A holistic quality maintenance system Embodying Systems thinking, systems engineering Knowledge-based
Hari Agung Yuniato 321-337
13 Lean six sigma in Human Resources: A case study of Transactional service
Alessandro Laureani 338-350
14 Using six sigma – SIPOC for customer satisfaction
Dr. Shirley Mo-Ching Yeung 351-379
15 Application of Design for six sigma processes to the design of an Aero Gas Turbine
Dr. Phil Rowe 380-421
16 Lean six sigma applied to a customer facing operations Process In financial services
Dr. Nuran Fraser 422-446
17. What makes lean/six sigma succeed: Experiential Improvement Strategy (model): A case study
Alan Harrison 447-471
18. Enhancing the six sigma problem-solving methodology Using the soft systems methodology
Alex Douglas and Saundra Middleton 472-487
19 Networking To Boost SME Lean Six Sigma Potential
Bjarne Bergquist 488-500
20 Process Improvement at HM Naval Base- Clyde
Giving Lean six sigma their place in a critical operation
Dr. Neil Grant 501-553
21 The Integration of six sigma and Green supply Chain management
Xixi Fan 554-572
22. Adoption of daily required technologies and tools in a food service Organisation to promote an effective simplified six sigma based Methodology
Alireza Shokri 573-605
Integration of Six Sigma and Service Quality Function
Deployment - With a Case Study in the Hospitality Industry Arash Shahin
Department of Management University of Isfahan
Isfahan, Iran
Abstract:
Six Sigma enhances the comparison and improvement of the performance of service organizations. In service applications, a higher Sigma level indicates low error rates or fewer dissatisfied customers. The aim of this paper is to outline how Six Sigma can be integrated with a proposed comprehensive form of Quality Function Deployment (QFD), which was developed by the author in his previous investigations in service applications. For this purpose, two approaches have been suggested for integrating Six Sigma with a two phases Service Quality Function Deployment (SQFD). The first approach is through the measurement of Critical to Customers (CTCs) in the first phase and the second one is through the measurement of Service Performance Characteristics (SPCs) in the second phase.
The two approaches have been further combined to provide a multi stage model of the integration of Six Sigma and SQFD. Moreover, a case study has been conducted at front desk of an international four star hotel to examine the new model in which, a level of 3 Sigma quality is considered as target and eight critical CTCs and five most critical SPCs have been computed and addressed out of 26 customers' requirements and 16 SPCs, respectively. The outcomes imply that the proposed model is different from existing studies, due to the fact that it not only is compatible with them in the use of QFD as a complementary technique for the define
phase in Six Sigma, but also QFD could be benefited from Six Sigma, considering the use of the measurement system of Six Sigma in targeting and evaluation of CTQs and SPCs.
Keywords: Six Sigma, CTQ, SPCs, SQFD, SPDCs, SQDs.
Biographical notes: Dr. Arash Shahin graduated in Iran in 1995 and 1998 with BS and MS degrees, respectively in Industrial Engineering. He obtained the degree of PhD in 2003 from UK at the University of Newcastle for his studies on Quality Engineering. He carried out research in Quality Engineering, both in manufacturing and service fields. From 1992 to 1995 he was the quality manager of a car parts producer company in Isfahan. From 1995 to 2003 he was the executive manager of Amin Cara Engineering Consulting Co. (Isfahan). Currently, he is a full-time assistant professor at the department of management, University of Isfahan. He is author of three books and more than 150 published papers at national and international levels in refereed journals and conferences since 1994
1. Introduction
Six Sigma is an advanced quality engineering technique that provides an objective basis for tracking improvements within an organization from year to year. Since a higher Sigma level indicates lower number of ‘defects’ and fewer dissatisfied customers, it is a measure of how well an operation is being performed. Six Sigma is a business performance improvement strategy that aims to reduce the number of mistakes/defects – to as low as 3.4 occasions per million opportunities. Sigma is a measure of the ‘variation about the average’ in a process (which could be in a manufacturing or service industry). According to Conlin (1998), most companies produce a defect rate of between 35000 and 50000 per million opportunities (where a defect can be anything from a faulty part to an incorrect customer bill).
This defect rate equates to a Sigma quality level of 3 to 3.5.
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a quality design and improvement technique and relatively is closer to the customers than other techniques. Also, QFD can serve as a flexible framework, which can be modified, extended and integrated with other quality design and improvement techniques (Shahin, 2008). QFD is “a method for developing a design quality aims at satisfying the customer and then translating the customer’s demands into design targets and major quality assurance points to be used through out the production stage” (Akao, 1990).
The aim of this paper it is to outline that how Six Sigma can be integrated with a comprehensive model of service quality function deployment (SQFD), which was developed and proposed by the author in his previous investigations. The proposed integrated approach provides a basis for continuous improvement in service quality. In other words, it is highlighted that how Six Sigma can support
SQFD, or what linkages are requested to be placed between the two techniques.
Before integrating Six Sigma with SQFD, it should be useful first to explore how Six Sigma can be used, independent of other advanced quality engineering techniques, in service firms. For this purpose, in the following, the application of Six Sigma in service quality and customer satisfaction improvement is demonstrated and the SQFD approach is briefly introduced. Then, the new methodology of the integration of Six Sigma and SQFD is proposed. A case study is also presented in which, the proposed approach is applied in an international four star hotel followed by discussion and conclusions.
2. Using Six Sigma for improving customer satisfaction and service quality
Although Six Sigma is a common measure for defects in manufacturing, few companies have extended the concept of zero defects, measured by Six Sigma, to customer satisfaction in a service environment (Behara and Lemmink, 1997).
During the last few years, however, the application of Six Sigma has begun to broaden from being focused principally on manufacturing to encompassing all business operations, especially those which affect the customer (Hahn et al., 2000). Still, the usage of Six Sigma is of a rather technical nature and there is a need to discuss Six Sigma in an even broader organizational perspective (Wiklund and Wiklund, 2002). The service industry is even more in need of Six Sigma quality initiatives than manufacturing, simply because the output tends to go directly to customers, whereas in manufacturing most defects are either scrapped or fixed before shipping, and all a customer sees is the final batch (Tennant, 2001).
Also, Pande et al. (2000) expressed that there are some important, understandable
reasons why service-based processes often have more pent-up opportunities for improvement than manufacturing operations, such as invisible work processes;
evolving workflows and procedures; lack of facts and data; and lack of a headstart.
However, customer satisfaction is a multifaceted process, i.e. it would involve many business facets: such as customer service, product or service delivery, and product quality. This means that it is even more difficult to reach a level of Six Sigma in customer satisfaction than it is in production. On the other hand, although the client company would improve continuously its customer satisfaction ratings, good Six Sigma levels may be difficult to achieve as customers’
expectations could simultaneously change (usually increasing) (Behara et al., 1995). Most quality conscious companies averaged a four Sigma level at the beginning of 1990 (Rayner, 1990), with exception of the domestic airline flight fatality rate, which was better than Six Sigma. In 1990, IBM was at a three Sigma level, while Motorola was operating at a four Sigma level. Airline baggage handling, doctor perception writing, payroll processing, restaurant billing, and journal vouchers were rated at four Sigma. Manufacturers frequently arrive at four- Sigma, while service firms are often at one or two Sigma (Blakeslee, 1999;
Breyfogle, 2001). Six Sigma can be applied in human resource processes, where there are opportunities to make significant improvements. Moreover, there are opportunities for other broader applications in society: banking, health care, government, and teaching, including curriculum design, are just a few areas that would be possible (Tamkins, 1997; Hoerl, 1998). The concept of Six Sigma, however, can be applied to any company with any number of customers.
Among several service sectors, the hospitality industry has become increasingly important in terms of economies and employment throughout the world (Shahin, 2003). In an increasingly complex and competitive operating environment, the need to monitor and improve standards of performance becomes critical both to business survival and to success of the hospitality industry including hotels. In order to cope with these challenges the industry, through proper leadership, has to absorb the quality management philosophy into its operations. This may effectively be achieved by adopting and applying advanced quality engineering techniques and systems such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and Six Sigma. It is important to note that hospitality industry might seem inherently more complex and less tolerant of failure than other service industries and Six Sigma can provide the tools and insight needed to improve quality in this area. However, the service industry including the hospitality sector is even more in need of Six Sigma quality initiatives than manufacturing, simply because the output tends to go directly to customers, whereas in manufacturing most defects are either scrapped or fixed before shipping, and all a customer sees is the final batch (Tennant, 2001).
The Six Sigma approach allows the comparison of the performance of various services on a common basis. It could also provide for an objective basis for benchmarking against competitors or best-in-class organizations, or may be used to help track internal improvements. It should be noted however the concept of what constitutes a ‘defect’ would be different from company to company since performance measurement invariably involves perceptions and expectations in all concerned including customers, service providers (say, at various encounters) and managers. It can also be used as a performance measure, since a higher Sigma
level indicates lower error rates or fewer dissatisfied customers. The logarithmic relationship between the number of Sigmas and the rate of errors implies higher Sigma levels would lead to excellence in service quality (Behara and Lemmink, 1997). However, it is important to consider that Six Sigma focuses on defects which could be difficult to determine objectively especially for service businesses.
On the other hand, Six Sigma alone will not make a company successful (Pyzdek- a; Pyzdek-c). Therefore, the integration of Six Sigma with other advanced quality engineering techniques such as SQFD becomes reasonable.
Similar to the linkage with the business strategy, Six Sigma should also be linked to what is important to the customer. An important issue is the identification of the critical to customer characteristics (CTQs). Six Sigma can be regarded as a performance target that applies to a single CTC, not to the total product. CTC or CTQ (Critical to Quality) should be identified quantitatively at the starting phase of the Six Sigma methodology. It is when several tools and techniques (e.g. SQFD) are applied in order to obtain data that describe customer expectations. In some cases, this is not an easy task, especially when customer requirements are ambiguous, subjective and poorly defined. In service industries, this occurs more frequently than in manufacturing companies (Coronado and Antony, 2002).
However, to achieve customer satisfaction demands a deep understanding of the customer and his/her requirements (Tennant, 2001).
3. Service Quality Function Deployment (SQFD)
Shahin (2004) suggested a two phased approach for service quality function deployment as illustrated in Figure 1. In this approach it is assumed that the service encounter is already selected for study, otherwise, an additional phase is
used prior to complete the two phases in which, service quality dimensions (SQDs) as whats and service encounters as hows are compared and critical encounters are addressed. Here, SQDs denote customers' requirements. Therefore, the two phases of SQFD presented in Figure 1 belong only to one selected critical service encounter. More information on how to select service encounters could be obtained from Shahin and Jamshidian (2005).
Service Quality Dimensions (SQDs) Service Process Design Characteristics (SPDCs)
Critical SPDCs
Service Performance Characteristics (SPCs)
Critical SPCs
Critical SPDCs
I
Service process deployment
II
Service performance deployment
HoQ-1 HoQ-2
Figure 1. A comprehensive model of SQFD with two phases (Shahin, 2004;
Shahin and Nikneshan, 2008)
However, once the service encounter is targeted, customers' requirements are related to service process design characteristics (SPDCs) at that particular encounter and the critical SPDCs are determined (HoQ-1). Then, these items are related to service performance characteristics (SPCs) and the critical SPCs are determined (HoQ-2). The application of this approach is presented in the case study in the following sections.
4. New methodology: Integration of Six Sigma and SQFD
Two ways are suggested for integrating Six Sigma with SQFD as follows:
4.1. Sub-model 1: Integrating Six Sigma and HoQ-1
One way of the integration of Six Sigma and SQFD is presented in Figure 2. As it is illustrated, after determining a target in terms of a Sigma level, it is transformed to ppm and compared with the current performance of the company. Then, the required reduction in ppm and the required improvement in Sigma level are computed. Then, based on the results at this stage, the critical to customers (CTCs) are determined and transferred into HoQ-1.
Determining target (Sigma level)
ppm
Determining the Criticals to Customer (CTCs)
HoQ-1
Customers Requirements (SQDs) Current performance level Current performance percentage Current ppm Current Sigma level ppm considering target sigma level Required improvement (reduction) in ppm Required improvement (reduction) in ppm Required improvement in Sigma level (%)
SPDCs
Critical SPDCs
CTCs
Figure 2. Sub-model 1: Determination of CTCs before HoQ-1
4.2. Sub-model 2: Integrating Six Sigma and HoQ-2
According to Figure 3, the current performance level of the critical SPCs derived from the second phase of SQFD, are transformed into ppm which is then
transformed to the current Sigma level. Then, the difference between target (desired Sigma level and desired ppm) and the current Sigma level (and ppm), denotes the improvement needed as well as the most critical SPCs. Considering the related SPDCs, those items which should be improved could be addressed. It is important to note that depending on the type of the SPCs, they could be classified as representatives of good (+) or bad (-) performance as illustrated in Figure 3. For instance, 'percentage of services on time' is a good performance and 'percentage of complaints' is a bad performance. Therefore, since ppm is associated with bad performance, the percentage of good performance should be subtracted from 100%, to be transformed to bad performance and to facilitate the computation of ppm and level of Sigma.
SPCs
Critical SPCs (x%) Critical SPDCs
ppm=z x 10000
Current Sigma level
Target - current Sigma level
= Level improvement needed Related
critical SPDCs Design and
improving of the service
system
%(100-x)=z
Determining Target (Sigma level) Most critical
SPCs
Figure 3. Sub-model 2: Determination of the most critical SPCs after HoQ-2
4.3. A multi stage integration of Six Sigma and SQFD
Six Sigma is not a destination, but a journey of continuous improvement.
Transforming the organization to Six Sigma and beyond involves a long term, continuous improvement and company wide focus for a period of several years (Pyzdek-b). Of course, it is really difficult, and perhaps impossible, for example, to go from a three Sigma to Six Sigma level in one step change. Therefore, a multi stage model of the integration of Six Sigma and SQFD needs to be developed.
This step by step Sigma level improvement should be considered as a strategy of management in service organizations to support the quality programs and to achieve the designated goals at the designated time with the help of Six Sigma strategies such as DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analysis, Improve, Control). Figure 4 presents a multi stage approach which could provide a continuous improvement perspective to the proposed approach. It starts from determining a Sigma level as target and provides the basis for both the determination of CTCs and the most critical SPCs. After each stage, next stages start by determining a new and higher Sigma level. In fact, what is proposed in Figure 4 is a combination of the two sub- models presented earlier and also a multi stage perspective of the two techniques (Figure 2 and Figure 3).
ppm=z x 10000
Current Sigma level
Target - current Sigma level=
Level improvement needed Related
critical SPDCs Design and
improving of the service
system
%(100-x)=z
End of current stage
Next stage Determining target (Sigma level)
ppm
Determining the Criticals to Customer (CTCs)
Customers Requirements (SQDs) Current performance level Current performance percentage Current ppm Current Sigma level ppm considering target sigma level Required improvement (reduction) in ppm Required improvement (reduction) in ppm Required improvement in Sigma level (%)
SPDCs
Critical SPDCs
CTCs
SPCs
Critical SPCs (x%) Critical SPDCs
Most critical SPCs
Figure 4. Multi stage model of the integration of Six Sigma and SQFD
5. Case study
The international four star hotel of Ali-Qapu is one of the twenty Azadi International Hotel chain, located on the famous historical street called Chahar-Bagh at convenient distance to historical monuments at the center of Isfahan, the second
major city and the highest potential of travel and tourism in Iran. There are 104 personnel working in the hotel. 102 rooms and suites are facilitated with central air conditioning system, TV., audio and video central systems, accessibility to satellite programs, room service and wake up call. Ali-Qapu was established 30 years ago.
The total area of the hotel is about 1500 square meters with a six story built area of 7500 square meters. Totally the hotel room occupied rate is about %76 (%50 of Iranian guests and %26 of international tourists). In this investigation, the front desk (FD) is selected as the critical service encounter.
5.1. Defining target Sigma level and CTCs
26 items are considered at FD and customers are asked to fill a questionnaire in which, they rank each item on a nine point scale (1 as weakest performance and 9 as strongest performance). According to Table 1, in order to compute the current percentage of performance for each of the 26 customers' requirements (i.e. service quality dimensions), the average value of the performance rankings collected from customers are divided by 9 (the strongest performance) and subtracted from 1.
Then, then the derived value is transformed to ppm and sigma level.
In this investigation, 3 sigma is considered as the target level and therefore its corresponding ppm, which is 66810.63 and is easily taken from Appendix 1 or a Six Sigma calculator (such as isixsigma.com) are determined and finally, by computing the required improvement values of ppm and Sigma level, the CTCs are found.
As it is illustrated in Table 1, eight items are addressed as CTCs, which are transferred into the first house of quality.
Table 1. Pre HoQ-1 calculations for determining CTCs
Customers' requirments No.
Explaining the service itself 1
Explaining the trade-offs between service and cost 2
13 14 15
18
22 23
Learning the customers' special needs Recognizing the regular customer
Cleanliness and tidy appearance of the tangibles
Knowledge and skills of contact personnel Giving hotel and tour guide information
Experience of personnel
Current performance
level (x)
5
3
7 5 6
6
5 4
Current performance percentage=
1-(x/9)%
66.67
22.23 44.45 33.34
33.34
44.45 55.56
Current ppm
666700
222300 444500 333400
333400
444500 555600
44.45 444500
Current Sigma level
1.07
2.26 1.64 1.93
1.93
1.64 1.36 1.64
ppm with 3 Sigma as target level
66810.63
66810.63
66810.63 66810.63 66810.63
66810.63
66810.63 66810.63
Required Improvement (reduction) in
ppm
377689.37
599889.37
155489.37 377689.37 266589.37
266589.37
377689.37 488789.37
Required percentage of Improvement in Sigma level
45.34
64.34
24.67 45.34 35.67
35.67
45.34 54.67
CTC
Performing the service at the designated time Accuracy in billing Delivering services in the same fashion for every one Listening to complaints
Solving problems Completely check-in, check- out process rapidly Waiting time to receive service
Explaining how much the service will cost
Personnel speak well Giving information that is easy to understand 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Personal characteristics of the contact personnel Clean and neat appearance of public contact personnel 16
17
Behaviour of personnel
Friendliness
Calling the customer by name 21
19 20
Special arrangements when the reservations are made Flexibility in service delivery speed
Discount for party, ...
25 26 24
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
9 100 0 6 66810.63 0 0
5.2. Designing HoQ-1
In Figure 5, all the critical CTCs selected from Table 1 are entered into the first HoQ. As it was mentioned earlier, the first House of Quality relates CRs (e.g.
SQDs) to SPDCs. The relationships between SQDs and SPDCs are determined on a 9 point scales (1=Lowest importance, 9=highest importance). This scale is also used in HoQ-2. In HoQ-1, the importance ratings are set using a questionnaire in which the importance of the eight CTCs are asked from the customers on a three point scale (1 as lowest importance, 5 as moderate important
and 9 as highest importance). Finally after adding up (vertically) the values for each SPDC, 11 SPDCs are addressed and are highlighted by stars, as the critical SPDCs at FD. In the next step, they are transferred into the HoQ-2 for further analysis. It is important to note that the critical items are pinpointed based on the total values of the SPDCs at the bottom of the matrix, which are higher than 194.5.
In fact, the value of 194.5 is calculated as the average value of all the values of the 16 SPDCs on the bottom of the matrix and it is assumed that those items which have values higher than the average are determined as critical.
Customers' Requirements (CRs)
Explaining the service itself
8
Explaining the trade-offs between service and cost 10
Hotel and tour guide information 13
Learning the customers' special needs 14
Knowledge and skills of contact personnel 22
experience of personnel 23
Worker skills Wage payments Motivation Training, education, and development Communication Facility location Facility layout Service technology Payment systems and facilities storing and protection system of customers' possessions Time standards Capacity planning Process design and scheduling Waiting line models Quality documentation and records Designing for customer choice
Failure prevention and control
Total Critical SPDCs
1
1
5
5
9
9 9
9
6 8 9 3 5 3 5 2 3 6
6 8 9 3 5 3 5 2 3 6
9 6 6 9 3 5 5 3 5 2 3 9
9 3 2 5 3 5 5 3
9
9 6 6
6 5 3 9 6 5 5 3 3 3 5
25 15 15 15 25
25 30 45 15 25 30
9 7 9 7 8 5 3 6 4 8 2 5 9
45 35 45 35 40 25 15 30 20 40 10 25 45
9 8 9 9 6 5 4 7 5 6 8 8 8 7
81
7 5 8 9 8 5 6 8 6 7 8 8 7 8
327 235 288 357 237 88 228 32 90 171 154 187 213 190 185 260
Importance rating
72 81 81 54 45 36 63 45 54 72 72 72 63
63 45 72 81 72 45 54 72 54 63 72 72 63 72
x 194.5 Recognizing the regular
customer 15
Cleanliness and tidy appearance of the tangibles 18
5
9
9 2 5 5 7 3 5 3 8
40 15 25 15
35 25 25 10 45
5 4 4 8 7 7
45 36 36 72 63 63
5 25
5 5
25 25 7
63 3
27
63
Figure 5. HoQ-1
5.3. Designing HoQ-2
In Figure 6, all those 11 critical SPDCs derived from HoQ-1 (Figure 5) are entered into the second HoQ. As it was mentioned earlier, the second House of Quality relates critical SPDCs to SPCs. After adding up (vertically) the values for each SPC, critical SPCs are addressed on the bottom of HoQ. Finally, from Figure 6, nine SPCs which are highlighted by stars are considered as the critical SPCs at FD. It is important to note that the critical items are pinpointed based on the total values of the SPCs at the bottom of the matrix, which are higher than 12.1. In fact, the value of 12.1 is calculated as the average value of all the values of the 11 SPCs on the bottom of the matrix and it is assumed that those items which have values higher than the average are determined as critical. Furthermore, for the ease of calculations, all the values of SPDCs transferred from HoQ-1 to HoQ-2 are divided by 1000 and set as importance ratings in the HoQ-2.
% of accurate invoices No complaints / Total rooms in use % of mistakes per week % of services on time % of absenteeism % of calls answered in 3 seconds % of complaints answered in 1 day Employees / Customers served Total rooms in use / expected Average rate of delays Computers / employees Satisfied customers/ All customers
Total rooms in use/ front desk staff
Importance rating (/1000) Days of training / employees per year Pre-booked rooms (end of month) Waiting time for service
Critical Service Process Design Characteristics (SPDCs)
Worker skills 1
Wage payments 2
Motivation 3
Training education, and development 4
Communication 5
17 Designing for customer choice
0.327
0.235
0.288
0.357
0.237
0.260
5 6 9 9 8 8 9
2.6 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.0
1.7 3.0
2 3 9 7 4 3 8
1.0 1.3 2.3 3.0 1.0
0.7 2.6
3 1.0
3 2 3 3 4 6 6
1.4 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.5
0.7 1.4
3 3
3 3 5
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.7 1.2
1 4 4 5 8 8 8
2.3 2.3 1.5 1.2 1.2
0.3 2.3
2 3 4 5 3 6
0.9 1.5 1.2 0.9
0.6 1.7
9 2.6
7 8 8 7 8 8 9
2.9 2.9 2.5 2.9 2.9
2.5 3.2
3 3 8 7 4 3 9
1.1 1.4 2.5 2.9 1.1
1.1 3.2
3 1.1
7 7 5 8 6
1.9 1.2
1.7
1.7 1.4
5 4 5 3 4 6
1.0 0.7 1.2 1.0
1.2 1.4
2 2 9
0.5
0.5 2.3
5 3 3 3
0.8 0.8
1.3 0.8
3 0.8 Total 9
x 12.1 Servcie technology
8
Process design and scheduling 13
Failure prevention and control
14
Waiting line models 15
0.228
0.187
0.213
0.190
9 8 7 7 7 7 8
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8
2.1 1.8
7 7
4 9 4 5
0.9 2.1 1.6 1.6
0.9 1.2
6 1.4
3 5 5 7 7
1.3 0.9 0.9
0.6 1.3
9 8
3 3 5
0.6 1.5 1.7
0.6 0.9
1 0.2
1 9 8 7 5 4 7
0.9 1.1 1.5 1.7 1.9
0.2 1.5
6 6
3 2 3 8
0.7 0.4 1.3 1.3
0.7 1.7
3 0.7
8 5 9 4
1.7 1.0
1.5 0.8
9 9
4 4 8
0.8 1.7 1.7
0.8 1.5
Quality documentation and
records16 0.185
7 7 5 4 9
0.8 0.9
1.3
1.3 1.7
3
1 1 4
0.2 0.6
0.2 0.8
Critical SPCs
1 0.2
3 0.6 1
0.2
7 1
0.2 1.3
4 0.8
8 1.5 8
1.5
1 0.2
4 0.8
8 1.5
15.9 16 16 6.4 13.6 15.7 18.5 5.2 4.9 8.7 15.3 14.4 8.8 8.7 17
Figure 6. HoQ-2
In Table 2, nine critical SPCs derived from HoQ-2 in Figure 6 are considered. The current performance for each of those items is determined with respect to the available data from service processes gathered from hotel databases, direct observations of the author or interviews with service providers and service managers. Similar to Table 1, the target of 3 Sigma is assumed. The percentage of the current performance is calculated in two ways; if the performance is determined as percentage of defects (bad performance), then it is directly transformed to ppm, but if the performance is determined as percentage of
performance (good performance), then it is subtracted from 100 and transformed to ppm. Finally, by computing the required improvement values of ppm and Sigma level, the most critical SPCs are found and addressed.
As it is illustrated in Table 2, five items are addressed as the most critical SPCs.
At this point, the current stage of analysis is finished and depending on the relationship between the critical SPCs and the critical SPDCs (as illustrated by dash lines in Figure 4), the service system could be redesigned and improved. In the next stage, a higher level of Sigma, for instance four Sigma could be set as target and the stages are continued.
Table 2. Final determination of items to be improved after HoQ-2
Critical Service Performance Characteristics
(SPCs) No.
% of complaints
% of services on time
Current performance
level (%)
2
85
Current defects percentage
15
Current ppm
150000
2 20000
Current Sigma level
2.54 3.55
ppm with 3 Sigma as target level
66810.63
66810.63
Required Improvement (reduction) in
ppm 0
83189.37
Required percentage of Improvement in Sigma level
0
15.34
Most critical SPCs
% of mistakes per week 2
3 4
1 1 10000 3.83 66810.63 0 0
% of calls answered in 3
seconds 90 10 100000 2.78 66810.63 33189.37 7.34
6
% of complaints answered in 1 day
Average waiting time for service
95
10** 10** 100000
5 50000
2.78
3.14 66810.63
66810.63 0
33189.37 0
7.34 Days of training / employees
per year 7 8
12
2.5* 9.5* 95000 2.81 66810.63 28189.37 6.34
Average rate of delays 5 5 50000 3.14 66810.63 0 0
13
Dissatisfied customers/ all
customers 9.1*** 9.1*** 91000 2.83 66810.63 24189.37 5.67
15
* 20/8=2.5; Standard=12; 12-2.5=9.5
** Current: 5.5 min; Standard=5 min; (5.5-5.0)/5.0=10%
*** 20/220=9.1%
