CUSTOMER RESEARCH: SURVEY AND QFD

C H A P T E R 5 CUSTOMER RESEARCH: SURVEY AND QFD 5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the results of the research into the customer needs of flutingpaper, which are used to develop a QFD matrix. 5.2 RESULTS OF PILOT STUDY The pilot study was conducted to verify the customer needs that would be posed to the customer for ratings to be used in the QFD matrix. Customer needs obtained from literature formed the preliminary set of customer needs The following findings were made during the pilot study: 1. Reliability, the third dimension of quality (Garvin, 1987, p43) refers to the probability that a product will operate properly within an expected period. Reliability does not fit well with consumable goods that are utilized immediately. For this reason, reliability cannot be expected to apply to fluting-paper, which is used immediately on arrival at the customer s facility. Convertibility, which refers to the ability to treat and modify paper, was found to be a more appropriate as a replacement for reliability during the pilot study. 2. It was found that there were two customer needs that were not identified in literature, but which were possibly important to fluting-paper. These two new customer needs identified in the pilot study were flute tip formation and moisture resistance. Flute tip formation falls into the quality dimension of convertibility, while moisture resistance is a durability dimension. 3. During the pilot study, some needs were found to be irrelevant to fluting-paper, as 50

they were more descriptive of liners used in the manufacture of the containerboard. These were bending, printability, curl and scoreability. They were all in the dimension of convertibility and were excluded. It was perceived that since fluting is sandwiched between liners and is not seen, aesthetics was not important. Aesthetics measured by colour, brightness, smoothness and cleanliness were therefore excluded from this study. The customer needs that were added and excluded after the pilot study are shown in Table 5.1. The first column of Table 5.1 shows the source (i.e. literature survey or pilot study) of the customer need and whether it was added or excluded from the original list of Table 2.2. The second column shows the dimension of quality for each customer need. The third column shows the original list of customer needs identified from literature. The last column shows the new set of customer needs, after the pilot study, to be used for this study. 51

Table 5.1: Customer Needs Before and After Pilot Study Source - Garvin s Original Set of Set of Customer Add/ Dimension of Customer Needs Needs after Pilot Exclude Quality from Literature Study Performance Strength Strength Literature survey Cracking Cracking Glueability Glueability Convertibility Runnability Runnability Added after Pilot study Convertibility Durability Flute tip formation Moisture resistance Convertibility Bending properties Excluded after Pilot study Aesthetics Printability Curl Scoreability Brightness Colour Smoothness Cleanliness, no abrasives 52

5.3 RESULTS OF CUSTOMER SURVEY 5.3.1 Background into Customers The customers are located in South Africa. Most of the customers are experts in the operations relating to creating corrugated board and have the ability to operate their equipment both efficiently and profitably. Laboratory facilities are testing rooms for simple quality assurance tests, e.g. moisture and grammage. Most customers cannot perform more complex testing of the technical characteristics of fluting-paper, e.g. strength. 5.3.2 Customer Needs The table with ratings used for the customer survey is shown in Appendix 5.1. The customer survey results are shown in Appendix 5.2. The customer was asked if there were any needs not included in the survey. These were captured during the survey, and ratings were also obtained for these new customer needs. The new customer needs identified were consistent weight, consistent moisture, and low grit content of the fluting-paper. These three needs can be classified into Garvin s (1987, p43) quality dimension of performance. The customer was asked to rate the importance of each need. New needs identified were also rated for importance. Refer to Table 5.2 for each of the customers ratings and the calculated mean in the last column of Table 5.2. The customers that did not identify the new needs did not have ratings for these needs; these are shown as no result in Table 5.2. Strength, consistent moisture and consistent weight were rated as important by all customers. There is a large variability observed in some of the ratings. Flute tip formation and moisture resistance (two needs added during the pilot study) have ratings with a large range from two to five. 53

Customer E rated all needs as very important. Customer A is the only customer that placed less importance on two customers needs viz., flute tip formation and moisture resistance. Customers B, C and D rated all needs with a score of 3 or more. Table 5.2: Rating of Importance of Customer Needs Customer needs Customer A Customer B Customer C Customer D Customer E Mean Strength 5 5 5 5 5 5 Cracking 4 3 3 4 5 4 Glueability 5 4 3 4 5 4 Flute tip formation 2 4 3 3 5 3 Runnability 5 4 4 4 5 4 Moisture resistance 2 4 4 5 5 4 Consistent moisture 5 5 5 NR NR 5 Consistent weight 5 5 5 NR NR 5 Low Grit content NR 4 4 NR NR 4 1: not important 2: less important 3: neutral 4: important 5: very important NR: no result The literature survey was able to capture most of the customer needs except three which were rated as very important to the customer. Other than moisture resistance the results are quite consistent. 54

5.3.3 Comparison of Company to Competitor The customer was asked to rate the company s ability to satisfy each of the customer needs in comparison to the competitor. The emphasis here is on comparisons. Both the company and competitor s ability to satisfy the customers needs could both be unsatisfactory. In this case the sales point rating would indicate a large increase in sales, for an improvement in the customer need. The ratings of the comparison of the company to the competitor are presented in Table 5.3. The market is a duopoly, therefore there is only one (and the same) competitor for all customers. Table 5.3: Ratings of Comparison of Company to Competitor Customer Needs Customer A Customer B Customer C Customer D Customer E Strength 3 1 1 3 3 Cracking 1 2 2 3 1 Glueability 1 3 2 3 3 Flute tip formation 2 2 2 3 3 Runnability 2 2 2 3 3 Moisture resistance 3 1 1 3 2 Consistent moisture 1 1 1 NR NR Consistent weight 1 1 1 NR NR Low grit content NR 2 1 NR NR 1: Worse 2: Equal 3: Better NR: No result There is a general consensus among customers that the company is equal or better than the competitor in satisfying the customer needs of flute tip formation and runnability. Flute tip formation, added during the pilot study was rated with much variability for importance to the customer, and may possibly be not very well understood by the customers. 55

Those customers that identified the needs of consistent moisture and consistent weight agree that the company performs worse in this category. The customer needs of strength, cracking, glueability and moisture resistance show variation across the scale used from 1 (worse) to 3 (better). The customers have varied perceptions of the company s performance in relation to the competitor. It is seen that customer D and customer E both rate the company favourably for most of the customer needs. Customer C does not rate the company better than the competitor in satisfying any of the needs. Customer A only rates the company better for the customer needs of moisture resistance. Customer B only rates the company better in glueability. Therefore, in general, customers A, B and C rate the competitor as better while customers D and E feel the company is better. The five customers studied here account for more than eighty percent of the total corrugated board produced in the market. Therefore all of the customers consume large volumes of fluting paper, purchasing more than seventy five percent of the company s production. These customers possibly choose to remain with the company due to the lack of choice that they are offered in the South African market, with the market being a duopoly. It is possible that the competitor cannot supply the volumes that these unhappy customers require. 56

5.3.4 Sales Point The sales point rating which indicates whether there will be an increase in sales should the customer needs be improved is indicated in Table 5.4. Customers D and E (who have been noted as satisfied customers) indicate that improving any of the customer needs will not result in an increase in sales volumes. The mean values show that there are no customer needs studied that would offer significant increase in sales volumes. Mean values also show that some needs would offer some increase in sales volumes (moisture resistance, consistent moisture, consistent weight and low grit). Table 5.4: Rating of Sales Point Customer needs Customer A Customer B Customer C Customer D Customer E Mean Strength 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cracking 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Glueability 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Flute tip formation 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Runnability 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Moisture resistance 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.2 Consistent moisture 1.5 1.2 1.2 NR NR 1.2 Consistent weight 1.5 1.2 1.2 NR NR 1.2 Low Grit content NR 1.0 1.2 NR NR 1.2 1.0: No sales increase 1.2: Some sales increase 1.5: Significant sales increase NR: No result Variability in the data for moisture resistance is significant (as also noted in the customer ratings on importance of needs). While some customers (B and C) indicated that moisture resistance would give significant sales increase (1.5), others (A, D and E) indicated that it would not. This variability is explained by 57

taking cognizance of the end use of the product that differs in the type of fruit packaged. While bananas are packaged wet, other fruit such as oranges are packaged dry. Customer A indicated that improving glueability, consistent moisture and consistent weight will give the company increased sales volumes. There were two customers that indentified low grit content as a need. While Customer B indicated that improving grit content will not result in sales increase, Customer C indicated that it will give some sales increase. All of the customers in this study contribute significantly to the sales volumes, therefore a new customer need and an indication of some sales increase for these needs should be seriously considered by the company to ensure retention of these customers. 5.3.5 Relationships: Customer Needs and Technical Characteristics The technical characteristics that describe each customer s need are indicated in the last column of Table 5.5. These technical characteristics were obtained from literature (as shown in Chapter 2) and additional technical characteristics that were not available from literature but recommended by the team of paper experts were added in Table 5.5. These technical characteristics representative of fluting paper, are used to form those that are compared to the customer needs in Table 5.6. 58

Table 5.5: Technical Characteristics for Customer Needs N o Customer Need Source 1 Strength Whitsitt (1989, p137), Laakso and Rintamäki(2003), RPA (www.rpa100.com), SABS (SABS 431, 1985, p7) Technical Characteristic Tensile strength, stretch, flat crush, ring crush, tear, grammage 2 Cracking SABS SABS 431, 1985, p7 Moisture, grammage, stiffness 3 Glueabilit y 4 Runnabilit y 5 Flute tip formation 6 Moisture resistance 7 Consistent moisture 8 Consistent weight 9 Low Grit content Laakso and Rintamäki(2003), RPA (www.rpa100.com) Laakso and Rintamäki (2003), Whitsitt (1987,p5), RPA (www.rpa100.com) Pilot study Pilot study Customer survey Customer survey Customer survey Moisture, grammage, porosity, stiffness Tensile strength, stretch, moisture, stiffness grammage, thickness Grammage, moisture, thickness, porosity Water flotation Moisture, grammage Moisture, grammage The customer needs are shown in the first column of Table 5.6. The technical characteristics presented in the first row of Table 5.6 are grammage, thickness, moisture, porosity, stiffness, tensile strength, flat crush, ring crush, tear, stretch, and water flotation; these are obtained from Table 5.5. The relationships or correlations of each of the technical characteristics to the customer s needs are indicated with the corresponding symbols in Table 5.6. These relationships were assembled by the team of paper experts. There are several blank blocks in the table; these blank blocks indicate no correlation. 59

Table 5.6: Relationship between Technical Characteristics and Customer Needs Technical characteristics Customer needs Grammage Thickness Moisture Porosity Strength??????? Stiffness Tensile Strength Flat Crush Ring Crush Tear Stretch Water Flotation Cracking?????????? Glueability?????? Flute tip Formation??????? Runnability???????? Moisture resistance Consistent moisture Consistent weight Low grit Content?????????? = 9: strong correlation? = 3: average correlation? = 1: some correlation Blank: No correlation Table 5.6 indicates that there are several technical characteristics that describe most of the customer needs. The new customer need, grit content does not have a technical characteristic to describe it. Stiffness shows some correlation with the customer needs of cracking and glueability, average correlation to runnability and no correlation to all other customer needs. Tear, which is a measure of strength itself, therefore correlates with the customer s need of strength, but not to any other customer needs. 60

5.3.6 Quality Function Deployment Matrix The quality function deployment matrix otherwise known as the quality chart or house of quality arranges all of the ratings made above into one matrix. This is depicted in Table 5.7. The heart of the matrix shows the relationships between the customer needs and technical characteristics as already shown in Table 5.6. The mean values of the customer rate of importance (Table 5.2), and sales point ratings (Table 5.4) are indicated in the columns on the right hand side of the matrix. The technical matrix showing the absolute importance, relative importance and technical difficulty (which are all calculated values, refer to Chapter 3) are shown in the last three rows of Table 5.7. The absolute importance ratings show that grammage, moisture and porosity are the most important technical characteristics. The technical difficulty ratings ranging from 1 to 5 are shown in the last row of the matrix. 1 shows that the particular technical characteristic is easy to achieve or change, in terms of manufacturing. These ratings were compiled by the paper experts and indicate that grammage, thickness and moisture are easy to achieve. Porosity, which has a technical difficulty rating of 3, indicates medium difficulty. This average rating illustrates that slightly more complex machine adjustments are needed to improve the porosity of fluting-paper. In general it can be seen that stiffness, strength properties (tensile strength, tear, ring crush and flat crush) and stretch are difficult to achieve. 61

Table 5.7: Quality Function Deployment Matrix Technical characteristics Customer needs Grammage Thickness Moisture Porosity Stiffness Tensile Strength Flat Crush Ring Crush Tear Stretch Water Flotation Customer Rate Of Importance Sales Point Strength??????? 5 1.0 Cracking?????????? 4 1.0 Glueability?????? 4 1.0 Flute tip formation??????? 3 1.0 Runnability???????? 4 1.0 Moisture resistance Consistent moisture Consistent weight Low grit content Absolute Importance Relative Importance Technical Difficulty??? 4 1.0??? 5 1.2??? 5 1.2 4 1.0/1.2 242 57 208 122 20 89 52 88 45 59 86 1 8 2 3 11 4 9 5 10 7 6 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 Legend Correlation ratings:? = 9: strong correlation? = 3: average correlation? = 1: some correlation Blank: No correlation Sales Point: 1.0: No sales increase 1.2: Some sales increase 1.5: Significant sales increase Customer Rate of Importance: 1: not important 2: less important 3: neutral 4: important 5: very important Technical Difficulty: 1: Low 2: Low to medium 3: Medium 4: Medium to high 5: High Absolute Importance and Relative Importance were calculated (refer to section3.2.2) 62

Table 5.7 highlights important customer needs and technical characteristics for focused prioritization. In the matrix, the relative importance of three most important technical characteristics, viz. grammage, moisture and porosity, are shown. The technical difficulty ratings show that grammage and moisture are easy to achieve in terms of machine capabilities by simple adjustment of machine settings. Porosity is not as easy to achieve as moisture and grammage, signifying that slightly more complex adjustments to the process, raw materials and machines are needed to improve the porosity of fluting-paper. Tensile strength and ring crush emerge as the next important technical characteristics, but these are more technically difficult to achieve as all these properties require changes to the raw materials and pulping process to improve them. 5.3.7 Technical Specifications There are nine technical specifications (inclusive of both the SABS and company) on fluting-paper, which are used to determine whether fluting-paper is saleable. These specifications (grammage, tensile strength, tear, flat crush, moisture, thickness, ring crush, porosity and water flotation) are therefore the critical factors in establishing quality. The technical characteristics obtained from literature, pilot study and the customer survey; indicate that stretch and stiffness are the only technical characteristics that do not have a technical specification. Further, it was noted in Table 5.7, that one customer need, viz. grit content did not have a technical characteristic, and this does not have a technical specification. 5.4 OBSERVATIONS From the results on the customer research, there are six salient points that are observed. 1. Three new customer needs were identified from the customer survey that was not identified in literature. They were consistent moisture, consistent weight and low 63

grit content. 2. The customer needs were rated for their importance by the customer and it was found that consistent moisture, consistent weight and strength were the most important customer needs. Moisture resistance was also indicated as important to two customers. 3. Individual ratings on the comparison of the company to the competitor show variability. Some customers (D and E) generally feel the company is better, while others (A, B and C) in general feel that the competitor is better. Mean values could not be used from these results for the QFD matrix. 4. The customer needs were related to technical characteristics of fluting-paper in Table 5.7 using QFD. Low grit content did not have a technical characteristic to describe it. All other customer needs had sufficient technical characteristics to describe them. Stiffness and tear did not show any strong correlations to the customer needs. 5. Individual ratings of moisture resistance show that customers B and C will increase their sales volumes if the moisture resistance of fluting-paper is improved. Customers A will increase sales volumes if the moisture and weight of fluting-paper is consistent, and if glueability is improved. 6. The absolute importance and relative importance scores show that grammage, moisture and porosity are the three most important technical characteristics. The technical difficulty ratings show that grammage, moisture and thickness are the easiest technical characteristics to change or modify on the papermachine, while porosity is slightly more complex. Consistent moisture and weight will also result in increased sales volumes. 7. Comparing the technical specifications to the technical characteristics of flutingpaper shows that there are two technical characteristics that were used in this study that are not included in the technical specifications. These are stretch and tear. Grit content, a new customer need, does not have a technical specification. 64