Facility Layout optimization through Quality Function Deployment

RALUCA DOVLEAC (NICOLAESCU)

Department of Management and Industrial Engineering

University of Petrosani

No. 20 Street, Petrosani, Hunedoara

ROMANIA

Abstract: - The paper addresses the critical concern of facility layout planning and design, driven by the

imperative to maximize space utilization, enhance product flow, minimize manufacturing costs, and boost

employee satisfaction. Effective facility layout design emerges as a cornerstone for achieving these objectives,

contributing significantly to a company's overall success. It aligns production processes with strategic goals,

optimizing spatial resources and fostering a conducive work environment. A central focus of this research is the

exploration of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) as a tool for facility layout design. The author investigates

its applicability across different industries, offering insights into its adaptation for specific needs. Case studies

spanning sectors like healthcare, manufacturing, and education illustrate the versatility of QFD in addressing

unique requirements. Ultimately, this study seeks to provide a generalized approach that can be readily tailored

to meet the specific needs of any company, thereby advancing the field of facility layout planning and design.

Key-Words: QFD, quality, Facility Layout, optimization, quality management

Received: May 29, 2022. Revised: July 29, 2023. Accepted: September 19, 2023. Published: October 23, 2023.

1 Introduction

The concern for facility layout planning (FLP) and

design arises from the need to utilize available space

efficiently, leading to improved product flow,

reduced manufacturing costs, and increased

employee satisfaction. Proper FLP can enhance a

company's success by optimizing space, reducing

costs, and creating a worker-friendly environment.

FLP aligns production processes with strategic

objectives.

Layout improvement methods include rerouting

material flow for efficient movement and complete

layout redesign. Various approaches exist for FLP

and improvement, such as Systematic Layout

planning, the firefly algorithm for cost reduction,

and fuzzy logic for workforce optimization.

In the current paper, the author analyzed the

possibility of using Quality Function Deployment

(QFD) for facility layout design (FLD) and

identified how it could be implemented by

companies from various industries. The available

literature focused on key case studies for companies

from particular activity sectors such as hospitals and

the health sector, some case studies covered the

topic for manufacturing plants and some covered

school layout design. In all of these cases, the QFD

methodology was adapted for particular cases that

met specific needs. The current research aimed at

providing a more general approach that can be

easily tailored for a company’s needs.

2 Problem Formulation

The need for efficient utilization of the available

space has been a concern for both researchers and

practitioners altogether.

In the current paper, the author looked at

available literature regarding how this topic has

been addressed and proposed a more generic model

that companies can easily use as a starting point for

FLP and designing which is based on the well-

known QFD quality tool.

2.1 Literature review

The concern for facility layout rises from the need

to ensure that a company is utilizing its available

space the best way possible. Facility planning

covers all aspects of organizing the facility,

including the people, machines, tools and the

available space in order to achieve a more efficient

product flow that can reduce the cost of

manufacturing and increase employee satisfaction

[1]. Proper facility layout design has been linked to

an increase in the success of a company [2] [3] by

facilitating the optimization of space and locations

Engineering World

DOI:10.37394/232025.2023.5.13

Raluca Dovleac (Nicolaescu)

E-ISSN: 2692-5079

119

Volume 5, 2023

which can lead to an optimization of the overall

system’s performance [4], a significant reduction of

the production costs and a more worker-friendly

ambience [5]. Furthermore, Planning FLP helps

ensure that the production processes and factors are

aligned with the organization’s strategic objectives.

[6]

In order to consider the most efficient solution

for layout improvement, we must first understand

the main types of facility layouts, each with its

particularities suited for a specific type of activity.

The four main types of FLD can be observed in

Figure 1 [7] [8]. As it can be observed the four types

of FLD are focused on the type of production

process that the company has, ranging from large

and individual products production to high volume

production of standard products.

Fig.1 Facility layout types

When it comes to layout improvement methods,

the available literature highlights two main

alternatives: the re-routing of material flow which

leads to an improvement in the efficiency of

material movement, and the re-layout, a method that

requires more time, effort and resources [7].

There is a significant number of approaches

suggested by literature for facility layout planning

and improvement. One such approach suggests the

usage of Systematic Layout planning and ergonomic

approach to design a FLD that can improve

productivity in a sewing department of a company

[9]. Another approach suggests the implementation

of the firefly algorithm approach for FLD in order to

reduce the material handling costs [10]. There has

also been concern regarding the possibility of

implementing fuzzy logic for workforce

optimization while taking into account facility

layout [11].

The possibility of using the QFD methodology

for facility layout planning and design has also been

taken into account by researchers analyzing the

possibility of optimizing the functional and spatial

design of emergency department in hospitals [12],

for risk management in hospitals [13], improvement

of facility layout problems in a manufacturing

layout [14], the combination of Systematic Layout

Planning (SLP) methodology and QFD for layout

optimization and design in the case of service

oriented physical distribution [15], and the

application of Fuzzy logic and QFD methodology

for solving the facility layout problem in the case of

a school building [16].

2.2 Methodology

The QFD methodology was first used at

Mitsubishi’s Kobe shipyard in 1972, being quickly

adopted by Toyota afterwards [17]. The core idea

and basic philosophy of QFD is the integration of

customer quality requirements throughout the

production process and in the different stages of

development. This integration of the customer

“voice” in the product design and the production

process pushes experts designing new products and

services to become “translators” of the customer

requirements in technical specifications which can

be met by the company [18] [19].

The core of the QFD methodology consists in the

application of the House of Quality (HOQ). The

HOQ includes a matrix where the relationship

between the customer requirements (also known as

the “What”) and technical specifications needed to

meet those requirements (the “How”) is highlighted

[20]. A typical example of a HOQ (Figure 2)

includes key elements such as: “Customer demands”

and the priority level for each demand, the

“Technical requirements” section with the desired

direction of improvement, the “Correlation matrix”

highlighting the interdependencies between all of

the technical requirements, the “Relationship

matrix” showing the relationship between the

technical requirements and the customer demands,

the “Technical assessment” segment where the final

result of the intersection between the relationship

matrix and the priorities levels is registered, and the

“Benchmarking” section which allows a company to

understand its position on the marketplace relative

to that of its competitors.

This allows a company to not only design

products that the customer desires and is willing to

pay for, but also monitor quality closer and gain a

deeper understanding of what the customer

perceives as quality and what the most important

technical requirements are.

Engineering World

DOI:10.37394/232025.2023.5.13

Raluca Dovleac (Nicolaescu)

E-ISSN: 2692-5079

120

Volume 5, 2023

Fig.2 Classic example of HOQ

Throughout time, the HOQ has been modified in

order to be used by companies working in different

sectors of the economy. A modified QFD template

has been used for addressing the requirements of

startup companies working with Agile

methodologies [21], integrating fuzzy logic and

FMEA with QFD for selecting lean tools in

manufacturing [22], combining QFD with fuzzy

FMEA and AHP [23].

For the current research, available literature has

been consulted in order to identify if similar

concerns have been covered by previous research

articles. The Web of Science (WoS) and Google

Scholar databases have been reached for relevant

literature by using the following search parameters:

Topic: facility layout QFD; Title: QFD facility

layout planning OR QFD facility layout design OR

QFD facility design; Year: 2015-2023; Language:

English. The WoS search query returned 5 articles

that matched the criteria and which have been

manually checked by the author for relevance and

potential additional research sources. The Google

Scholar search returned over 1000 results so the

search parameters were adjusted to only include

QFD facility layout design after which the papers

were manually checked based on the relevancy of

the article title and abstract.

In order to build the template HOQ presented in

the Results section and which can be used by

companies looking for an easy to use tool that can

help determine the best FLD, the author examined

the other applications of HOQ in FLD even if these

were tailored for particular cases, identifying the

features that could be seen as common and be

applied by companies from various industries

(features such as: worker health and safety,

environmental concerns, waiting times, production

flow, maintenance, handling and movement).

3 Results

The proposed HOQ variant for facility layout design

takes into account not only the types of customer

requirements that could emerge but also the features

that could be used to satisfy these requirements and

the relevance of the features for marginal customer

satisfaction.

Another important difference is that although in

the current form of the HOQ the benchmarking

section has been eliminated, if considered necessary,

it can be easily reintegrated.

The proposed model for the HOQ for a QFD

used in facility layout design can be observed in

Figure 3.

Fig.3 Proposed HOQ for facility layout design

As it can be observed, the model differentiates

between internal and external customer demands, as

well as necessary and additional technical

requirements. Like so, internal customer demands

are those coming from within the organization and

which can be linked to internal targets and goals

such as: employee satisfaction and retention,

increase productivity and a decrease in costs with

defects and reworks, end products that meet higher

quality targets and so on. External customer

demands focus on requirements gathered from

existing or potential customers as well as input from

any other existing stakeholders (such as

governmental organizations concern regarding the

environment impact of the company or facility).

Engineering World

DOI:10.37394/232025.2023.5.13

Raluca Dovleac (Nicolaescu)

E-ISSN: 2692-5079

121

Volume 5, 2023

Necessary technical requirements would in this

case constitute minimum features needed in order to

meet both internal and external customers while

Additional technical requirements are concerned

with meeting whenever possible the marginal

customer (internal or external) satisfaction and

contributing to the overall targets established by the

company.

Figures 4 and 5 show a set of possible

suggestions for entries in the case of customer

demands and technical requirements, grouped based

on the proposed classification that takes into

account the internal and external customers as well

as necessary and additional features for technical

requirements.

Fig.4 Customer demands segment

As it can be observed, in the customer demands

segment, for the “Internal Customers” subsegment,

the following could be added: Lead time, employee

satisfaction, cost efficiency, high production speed

and reduced number of defects. For the “External

Customers” subsegment Reliable products/services,

Safety, Environmental impact, Technologies used

and Market integration could be taken into account.

Of course, these are mere suggestions aimed to help

those using this model quickly identify key points,

but these inputs can be modified and/or replaced to

suit the necessities of the company looking to use it.

For the technical requirements segment a small

number of features have been added to the figure for

ease of representation. Additionally, the following

could be included:

 For the “Necessary” subsegment: Space,

Storage, Placement, Handling,

Movement, Wait times, Health, Safety,

Supplier contracts and relationships,

Backup system, Transportation, In line

inspection.

 For the “Additional” subsegment:

Comfort, Low noise, Maintenance,

Supervision, Integration of new

technologies, Lighting, Addressing

environmental concerns, Ergonomics,

End of line inspection, Employee breaks.

Fig.5 Technical requirements segment

Just as in the case of the Customer demands

subsegment, these are mere suggestions for

possible technical requirements that could be

taken into account when trying to consider the

main aspects that need to be taken into account

when designing a new facility layout meant to

improve a company’s end result and

productivity. That means that additional

technical requirements can be added to suit the

specific customer demands identified.

The proposed HOQ model for facility layout

planning is highly abstract and therefore also

highly customizable. The purpose of the model

is to provide a quick assessment of the possible

targets that a company could establish when it

comes to facility layout improvement and

design and the key aspects that should be taken

into account when trying to address these

issues.

After all of the customer demands have been

identified and priorities have been set for each

one of them (this can be achieved by asking

customers to rank an already existing set of

demands, or alternatively, asking customers to

merely voice their demands and then identify

which demands were the most common and

assigning them the highest value), the team

must decide which technical requirements are

needed to meet the customer demands and also

establish the direction of improvement for each

of these requirements (for instance, the “Wait

times” could be generally considered as needing

Engineering World

DOI:10.37394/232025.2023.5.13

Raluca Dovleac (Nicolaescu)

E-ISSN: 2692-5079

122

Volume 5, 2023

to be shorter in order to facilitate the work flow

and reduce employee dissatisfaction).

Once the customer demands and technical

requirements have been noted, the rest of the

matrixes of the HOQ can be filled the way a

traditional HOQ would be, with the Correlation

matrix identifying the correlations between the

technical requirements, the Relationship matrix

highlighting the relationship between each

customer demand and technical requirement

and the Technical assessment section providing

an overall look of the state of the project,

identifying which customer demands and

technical requirements affect the desired

outcome the most.

4 Conclusion

The concern for FLD arises from the need to

optimize space utilization in a company. This

includes organizing people, machines, tools,

and available space in order to enhance product

flow efficiency, reduce manufacturing costs,

and improve employee satisfaction. Proper FLD

has been linked to increased company success

by optimizing space, reducing production costs,

and creating a worker-friendly environment.

Two main layout improvement methods are

highlighted in available literature: re-routing

material flow for efficient material movement

and re-layout, a more resource-intensive

method.

There is a number of approaches in the

literature regarding FLP and improvement.

Such methods include Systematic Layout

Planning and ergonomic approaches to improve

productivity in the case of a sewing department

of a company, using the firefly algorithm to

reduce material handling costs, and

implementing fuzzy logic for workforce

optimization considering facility layout.

The proposed HOQ variant for FLD

considers customer requirements, relevant

features, and their impact on customer

satisfaction. It distinguishes between internal

(organization-related) and external (customer

and stakeholder) demands, as well as necessary

and additional technical requirements.

Necessary technical requirements are

essential features needed in order to meet

internal and external customer expectations,

while additional technical requirements aim to

enhance marginal customer satisfaction and

contribute to the company goals. The proposed

HOQ variant could prove to be a good starting

point for companies looking to design their

facility layout with the help of the QFD

methodology.

The purpose of the paper and key points

addressed by it within the context of modern

systems theory refer to the following aspects:

optimization of space utilization, enhancing

product flow efficiency, reduction in

manufacturing costs, improving employee

satisfaction, layout improvement methods,

highlighting various approaches to facility

layout planning, providing a HOQ variant,

technical requirements and the usage of QFD

methodologies.

Possible future research directions include

the integration of Industry 4.0 technologies in

the design process for a facility’s layout, the

prospect of agile and flexible layouts that can

easily adapt to changing product lines,

processes and/or market conditions as well as

approaches to human-centric design for FLP.

References:

[1] N. D. Patil, J. Gandhi and V. Deshpande,

"Techniques for Solving Facility Layout

Problem: A Survey," in Afro - Asian

International Conference on Science,

Engineering & Technology, 2015.

[2] P. Baker and M. Canessa, "Warehouse design:

a structured approach," European Journal of

Operational, vol. 2, pp. 425-436, 2009.

[3] M. F. Andrada and M. R. Biscocho, "A Study

on the Facility Layout and Design of Sugar

Plants in the Philippines," in Proceedings of the

International Conference on Industrial

Engineering and Operations Management,

Bangkok, 2019.

[4] S. Q. D. Al-Zubaidi, G. Fantoni and F. Failli,

"Analysis of Drivers for Solving Facility

Layout Problems: Literature Review," Journal

of Industrial Information Integration, pp. 1-25,

2020.

[5] M. A. M. Ali, A. R. Omar, A. M. Saman, I.

Othman, I. Halim and A. Hadi, "Assimilating

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) with

QUEST® Analysis for Facility Layout

Redesign of Handwork Section," in

International Conference on Science and Social

Research, Kuala Lumpur, 2010.

Engineering World

DOI:10.37394/232025.2023.5.13

Raluca Dovleac (Nicolaescu)

E-ISSN: 2692-5079

123

Volume 5, 2023

[6] P. Pérez-Gosende, J. Mula and M. Díaz-

Madroñero, "Facility layout planning. An

extended literature review," INTERNATIONAL

JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH,

vol. 59, pp. 3777-3816, 2021.

[7] G. Kovács and S. Kot, "Facility Layout

redesign for efficiency improvement and cost

reduction" Journal of Applied Mathematics and

Computational Mechanics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp.

63-74, 2017.

[8] M. Khoshnevisan, S. Bhattacharya and F.

Smarandache, "Optimal plant layout design for

process focused systems," 2016. [Online].

Available:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/math/papers/0302/0302031

.pdf.

[9] B. Suhardi, E. Juwita and R. D. Astuti,

"Facility layout improvement in sewing

department with Systematic Layout planning

and ergonomics approach," Cogent

Engineering, pp. 1-31, 2019.

[10] A. P. Lukose, A. Scaria and G. Babu, "A

firefly algorithm approach for multirow facility

layout problem," IOP Conf. Series: Materials

Science and Engineering, vol. 396, pp. 1-10,

2018.

[11] D. E. Ighravwe and S. A. Oke, "A Combined

Fuzzy Goal Programming and Big-Bang Big-

Crunch Algorithm for Workforce Optimisation

with Facility Layout Consideration,"

ENGINEERING JOURNAL, pp. 71-98, 2014.

[12] Y. Abdelsamad, M. Rushdi and B. Tawfik,

"Functional and Spatial Design of Emergency

Departments Using Quality Function

Deployment," Journal of Healthcare

Engineering, pp. 1-8, 2018.

[13] P. Harikumar and P. G. Saleeshya,

"Integrating FMEA, QFD and Lean for Risk

management in hospitals," IOP Conf. Series:

Materials Science and Engineering, pp. 1-14,

2019.

[14] M. M. Ali, A. R. Omar, A. M. Saman and I.

Halim, "Improving Facility Layout Problems

Using Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

Approach," in International Conference for

Postgraduates, Kuala Lumpur, 2009.

[15] P. Palominos, D. Pertuzé, L. Quezada and L.

Sanchez, "An Extension of the Systematic

Layout Planning System Using QDF: Its

Application to Service Oriented Physical

Distribution," Engineering Management

Journal, pp. 1-20, 2019.

[16] W.-T. Chen, F. N. Liem, C.-H. Kao, M.

Mubasher and K.-H. Lin, "Improving School

Reconstruction Projects Satisfaction Outcomes

Using Fuzzy Quality Function Deployment

(FQFD)," Buildings, pp. 1-17, 2023.

[17] M. Kanan and S. Essemmar, "Quality

Function Deployment: Comprehensive

Framework for Patient Satisfaction in Private

Hospitals," Advances in Science, Technology

and Engineering Systems Journal, pp. 1440-

1449, 2021.

[18] S. Chondro, S. Tinggi and P. Trisakti,

"Application of Quality Function Deployment

(QFD) Method in Food Industry: A case study

in “Waroeng Special Sambal”, International

Journal of Innovative Science and Research

Technology, pp. 520-526, 2018.

[19] D. M. Costa and W. Jongen, "Quality

Function Deployment: Review," Trends in

Food Science & Technology, pp. 306-314,

2001.

[20] C. Ucler, "Brainstorming the Cryoplane

Layout by Using the Iterative AHP-QFD-AHP

Approach," Aviation, pp. 55-63, 2017.

[21] R. Dovleac, A. Ionica and M. Leba, "QFD

embedded Agile approach on IT startups

project management," Cogent Business &

Management, pp. 1-15, 2020.

[22] B. M. Kumar and R. Parameshwaran, "Fuzzy

integrated QFD, FMEA framework for the

selection of lean tools in a manufacturing

organisation," Production Planning & control,

pp. 1-16, 2018.

[23] B. M. Kumar and R. Parameshwaran, "A

comprehensive model to prioritise lean tools

for manufacturing industries: a fuzzy FMEA,

AHP and QFD-based approach," Int. J.

Services and Operations Management, pp. 170-

196, 2020.

Contribution of Individual Authors to the

Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting

Policy)

The author contributed in the present research, at all

stages from the formulation of the problem to the

final findings and solution.

Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a

Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Conflict of Interest

The author has no conflict of interest to declare that

is relevant to the content of this article.

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)

This article is published under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

_US

Engineering World

DOI:10.37394/232025.2023.5.13

Raluca Dovleac (Nicolaescu)

E-ISSN: 2692-5079

124

Volume 5, 2023