here - ERIM - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

A validation Study of House of Quality key performance indicators
for members to understand the possibilities and what can be expected. From this perspective an
adjusted R2 of 24,3% in this case is acceptable.
4.3 Establishing the House of Quality; translating “What” into “How”
In section 4.2 the dataset of items established from the perception and expectation ratings was
statistically tested. Factor analysis examined the structure of the dimensions whereas a regression
analysis was conducted to test the unique effects of the established dimensions on member’s overall
rating of the online union. In this section we will integrate the data gathered by substracting the
expectations from the perceptions plus the data from the Kano related part of the survey into the
first matrix of Quality Function Deployment; the House of Quality.
Section 4.3.1 discusses the gap analysis between the expectations and perceptions. Section 4.3.2 will
present the Kano analysis. Involvement of the management team as experts in the data collection for
the QFD process is described in section 4.3.3. The compositition of the House of Quality will be
presented in section 4.3.4.
4.3.1 Gap analysis
Based on the SERVQUAL method, the first part of the survey measured the quality of the services
provided by the online union. As discussed in section 2.4 gaps occur when there are differences
between customer’s expectation and the actual perception of the service provided; the wider the
gap, the larger the difference. Positive scores means that the perceptions of a service exceeds the
expactations whereas a score of zero indicates satisfactory quality. Negative scores on the other
hand submit to an underperformance in relation to the customer’s expactations.
Each item is measured by two questions. In our survey the first question measures the expectations
of a member by asking to indicate on a five-point Likert scale how a specific situation in general
should be. The second question measures the same situation but than specifically in the case of the
online union. For example; the first announcement will be “A trade union organization should have
good online facilities”, followed by “The online union has good online facilities”.
All items in the survey measured negative gaps. An overview of the gap scores is presented in Figure -
11. A possible explanation for the negative gaps might be the fact that people have the intention to
respond more extremly when they are asked to indicate an ideal situation. Therefore the focus
should be on the variation of the gaps instead of the negative values (Teas, 1993b). The measured
gaps can be very valuable to the organization as it clearly indicates on which service aspects the
organization is underperforming. This study focusses on the process of improvement, therefore the
gaps are valuable as input for the House of Quality but not as single indicators.
62