A Hybrid QFD-based Decision-Making Model for Prioritizing Supplier Selection-Economic Indicators in a Furniture Company

Abstract

In this study, a hybrid quality function deployment (QFD)-based decision-making model was proposed to prioritize economic indicators of supplier selection in a furniture company. The hybrid model is designed to prioritize economic indicators in the furniture company by measuring the influence of decision-makers through expert order weights and to ensure the effective use of step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) and the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) within the evaluation processes of a QFD-based decision mechanism. This hybrid QFD-based model has three main phases: i) Determining conceptual inputs of QFD-main structure, ii) Creating experts-weighted decision matrices, iii) Prioritizing/ranking/selecting supplier selection (SS)-economic indicator-alternatives. In the first phase, a QFD-team was formed with influential decision makers (experts) in the company's SC evaluations. Then, the two main QFD-conceptual inputs, customer needs (CNs) and supplier characteristics (SCs), were identified. The G1-order weights of experts were calculated using G1-order relation analysis. In the second phase, experts’ G1-weighted CN-importance values were computed through SWARA method. Also, experts’ G1-weighted CN-SC relationship evaluations-based decision matrices were obtained in this phase. Prioritizing/ranking/selecting SS-economic indicator-alternatives were executed in the third phase. The indicator-alternatives were prioritized by their closeness degrees calculated through TOPSIS. Consequently, financial capability, competative cost/price, and quality were determined as the most important indicator-alternatives for the furniture company using Pareto analysis.

Keywords

• QFD
• multi-criteria decision-making
• Pareto analysis
• SS-economic indicator
• furniture industry

Bir Mobilya Firmasında Tedarikçi Seçimi-Ekonomik Göstergelerinin Önceliklendirilmesi için Hibrit bir KFY-temelli Karar Verme Modeli

Öz

Bu çalışmada, bir mobilya firmasında tedarikçi seçiminde ekonomik göstergelerin önceliklendirilmesi için hibrit bir kalite fonksiyon yayılımı (KFY) tabanlı karar verme modeli önerilmiştir. Hibrit model, karar vericilerin etkisini uzman sıra ağırlıkları ile ölçerek mobilya firmasında ekonomik göstergelerin önceliklendirilmesini ve KFY tabanlı bir karar mekanizması içinde adım adım ağırlık değerlendirme analizi (SWARA) ve ideal çözüme yakınlık tekniği (TOPSIS) yöntemlerinin etkin kullanımını sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu hibrit KFY tabanlı model üç ana aşamadan oluşmaktadır: i) KFY ana yapısının kavramsal girdilerinin belirlenmesi, ii) Uzman ağırlıklı karar matrislerinin oluşturulması, iii) Tedarikçi seçimi (TS) ekonomik gösterge alternatiflerinin önceliklendirilmesi / sıralanması / seçilmesi. İlk aşamada, firmanın tedarik zinciri değerlendirmelerinde etkili karar vericilerden (uzmanlardan) oluşan bir KFY ekibi oluşturulmuştur. Ardından, iki ana KFY kavramsal girdisi olan müşteri ihtiyaçları (Mİ’ler) ve tedarikçi özellikleri (TÖ’ler) belirlenmiştir. Uzmanların G1-sıra ağırlıkları, G1-sıra ilişkisi analizi kullanılarak hesaplanmıştır. İkinci aşamada, uzmanların G1 ağırlıklı Mİ-önem değerleri SWARA yöntemi ile hesaplanmıştır. Ayrıca, uzmanların G1 ağırlıklı Mİ - TÖ ilişki değerlendirmelerine dayalı karar matrisleri bu aşamada elde edilmiştir. Üçüncü aşamada, tedarikçi seçimi ekonomik gösterge alternatiflerinin önceliklendirilmesi / sıralanması / seçilmesi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Alternatifler, TOPSIS ile hesaplanan yakınlık derecelerine göre önceliklendirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, Pareto analizi kullanılarak, mobilya firması için finansal yetenek, rekabetçi maliyet/fiyat ve kalite en önemli gösterge alternatifleri olarak belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• KFY
• çok-kriterli karar-verme
• Pareto analizi
• TS-ekonomik göstergesi
• mobilya sektörü

References

1. Akao, Y. (1990). Quality function deployment: integrating customer requirements into product design. Cambridge: Productivity Press, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003578833
2. Akao, Y. (1997). QFD: Past, present, and future. International Symposium on QFD ’97– Linköping. Retrieved Sep,15,2025, from http://www.las.inpe.br/~perondi/19.10.2009/Akao_1997_QFD_History.pdf
3. Baskir, M.B., Turksen, I.B., and Saatcioglu, O. (2017). An alternative fuzzy evaluation framework for supplier selection. International Journal of Applied Management Science 9(3), 169 – 187. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAMS.2017.086638
4. Baskir, M.B. (2023). A novel belief-based QFD-AHP model in interval type-2 fuzzy environment for lean after-sales service in automotive industry. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 14 (3), 653–678. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-03-2022-0055
5. Bhattacharya, A., Geraghty, J., and Young, P. (2010). Supplier selection paradigm: an integrated hierarchical QFD methodology under multiple-criteria environment. Applied Soft Computing 10(4), 1013–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2010.05.025
6. Bouchereau, V. and Rowlands, H. (2000). Methods and techniques help quality function deployment (QFD). Benchmarking: An International Journal 7(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770010314891
7. Büyüközkan, G., Feyzioğlu, O., and Ruan, D. (2007). Fuzzy group decision-making approach to multiple preference formats in quality function deployment. Computers in Industry 58(5), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2006.07.002
8. Chan, L.K. and Wu, M.L. (2002). Quality function deployment: a literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 143(3), 463–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00178-9

9. Erdil, A. (2020). Evaluation product development, product design for the furniture-wood industry via quality function deployment and Pareto analysis. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences 11(2), 203-17. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/sigma/issue/65382/1007841
10. Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In: Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 186, 58-191. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3
11. Ince, M.N., Tasdemir, C., and Gazo, R. (2023). Lean and sustainable supplier selection in the furniture industry. Sustainability 15, 15891. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215891
12. Ince, M.N., Arpaci, E., Tasdemir, C., and Gazo, R. (2025). Economic and environmental sustainability performance improvements in the outdoor wood furniture industry through a lean-infused FMEA-supported fuzzy QFD approach. Systems 13, 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13030211
13. Kuang, F., Wu, Z., and Liu, X. (2013). A study on furniture innovative theory based on QFD and TRIZ. 3rd International Conference on Advanced Engineering Materials and Technology (AEMT 2013) 753–755, (pp.1437–1441). Trans Tech Publication, Zhangjiajie,China. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.753-755.1437
14. Keršuliene, V., Zavadskas, E.K., and Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management 11(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12
15. Kumaraswamy, A.H., Bhattacharya, A., Kumar, V., and Brady, M. (2011). An integrated QFD-TOPSIS methodology for supplier selection in SMEs. 2011 Third International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Modelling & Simulation, (pp. 271-276). Langkawi, Malaysia. doi: 10.1109/CIMSim.2011.55
16. Li, M., Jin, L., and Wang, J. (2014). A new MCDM method combining QFD with TOPSIS for knowledge management system selection from the user's perspective in intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Applied Soft Computing 21, 28-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.03.008.
17. Liu, W., Fei, Y.-N., Yu, C.-L., Hu, Z.-Y., and Chen, J.-Q. (2025). Unveiling the core design elements of bamboo furniture. IEEE Access 13, 13341-13355. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3529779.
18. Özden, F. & Şenyiğit, E. (2025). Mobilya endüstrisinde fiyatlandırma metotlarının çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile değerlendirmesi. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi 41(2), 685-699. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/erciyesfen/issue/93475/1678974
19. Pramanik, D., Haldar, A., Mondal, S.C., Naskar, S.K., & Ray, A. (2017). Resilient supplier selection using AHP-TOPSIS-QFD under a fuzzy environment. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management 12(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2015.1101719
20. Puspita Sari, D., Hartini, S., Azzahra, F., Arsiwi, P., & Prayoga, R.G. (2024). Modular-based multifunctional product design made from furniture waste toward the circular economy: Case in Indonesia. Management Systems in Production Engineering 32(3), 303-316. https://doi.org/10.2478/mspe-2024-0029
21. Ruan, C. & Yang, J. (2014). Software quality evaluation model based on weighted mutation rate correction incompletion G1 combination weights. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2014(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/541292
22. Sharma, J. & Tripathy, B.B. (2023). An integrated QFD and fuzzy TOPSIS approach for supplier evaluation and selection. The TQM Journal 35(8), 2387–2412. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-09-2022-0295
23. Song, C., Wang, J.-Q., & Li, J.-B. (2020). New framework for quality function deployment using linguistic Z-numbers. Mathematics 8(2), 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8020224
24. Sumrit, D. & Keeratibhubordee, J. (2025). An integrated SWARA-QFD under Fermatean fuzzy set approach to assess proactive risk mitigation strategies in recycling supply chain: Case study of plastic recycling industry. Journal of Engineering Research 13(2), 492-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jer.2023.11.007.
25. Tekez, E., & Bark, N. (2016). Mobilya sektöründe bulanık TOPSIS yöntemi ile tedarikçi seçimi. Sakarya University Journal of Science 20(1), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.16984/saufenbilder.40265
26. Van, L.H., Yu, V.F., Dat, L.Q., Dung, C.C., Chou, S.-Y., & Loc, N.V. (2018). New integrated quality function deployment approach based on interval neutrosophic set for green supplier evaluation and selection. Sustainability 10(3), 838. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030838
27. Yang, C.O. & Teng, W.H. (2013). Applied QFD with wooden material in campus furniture DFA procedure. Key Engineering Materials 573, 113–119. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.573.113
28. Yazdani, M., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., & Zavadskas, E.K. (2016). New integration of MCDM methods and QFD in the selection of green suppliers. Journal of Business Economics and Management 17(6), 1097–1113. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2016.1165282
29. Yeşilkaya, M., Çabuk, Y., & Karayılmazlar, S. (2022). TOPSIS-VIKOR yöntemleriyle Türkiye’deki illerin endüstriyel odun üretimi analizi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi 24(3), 476-487. https://doi.org/10.24011/barofd.1137955
30. Zhou, X. & Xu, Z. (2018). An integrated sustainable supplier selection approach based on hybrid information aggregation. Sustainability 10(7), 2543; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072543