Use of Quality Function Deployment for Gold Mining Feasibility Study (Case Study: Designing Explosive Storage Area)

Document Type : Original Article


Industrial Engineering, Mercu Buana University, Jakarta, Indonesia


In the mining industry, at the beginning of development of a project, a consultant is assigned to build a design feasibility study to incorporate the client requirement, government regulation, and other inputs into the design. The consultant usually faces overwhelmed stages due to changes caused by the client and other stakeholders and has to repeat the process of inputting requirements into the design, which will cause delays for the projects. To enhance this design process and improve the quality, the use of “ House of Quality (HoQ)” as part of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) was carried out. In this study it was attempted to improve the design of the Explosive Storage Area, which is the most complicated area where client expectations on the design are required, to meet the regulation. This study also aims to see how much time is saved during the design stages by using the HoQ. From the study, the technical importance rating of the containerized building showed the highest point (13%) followed by a radius between detonation and ammonium nitrate storage area (11%). The improvement design was developed and prioritized based on the rating from technical importance and the results of the design showed great satisfaction of the client. The duration of the design stage was also saved by almost 3 days of the normal design process without using QFD. This study showed the ability of QFD to enhance and assist during the design phase in the feasibility study, and resulted in great client satisfaction for the final product.


1. Antunes, R. and Gonzalez, V., “A production model for
construction: A theoretical framework”, Buildings, Vol. 5, No. 1,
(2015), 209–228.  
2. Prno, J., “An analysis of factors leading to the establishment of a
social licence to operate in the mining industry”, Resources
Policy, Vol. 38, No. 4, (2013), 577–590.  
3. Mohammed, S.R., Naji, H.I. and Ali, R. H., “Impact of the
Feasibility Study on the Construction Projects”, In 2nd
International Conference on Sustainable Engineering Techniques,
IOP Publishing, (2019), 1–9.  
4. Mitić, S., Popović, N. and Tokalić, R., “Dimensioning and
designing of the explosive devices magazine”, Podzemni Radovi,
Vol. 12, No. 14, (2004), 41–48.  
5. Wolniak, R., The history of the QFD method, Science notebooks,
Organization and Management, Silesian University of
Technology, (2017). 
6. Samah, A.A., Integration of preference analysis methods into
Quality Function Deployment, Cottbus: Springer, (2011). 
7. Franceschini, F., Galetto, M., Maisano, D. and Mastrogiacomo,
L.,  “Prioritisation  of  engineering  characteristics  in  QFD  in
the case of customer requirements orderings”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53, No. 13, (2015), 3975–
8. Gargione, L. A., “Using quality function deployment (QFD) in
the design phase of an apartment construction project”, In
Proceedings IGLC (7th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction), (1999), 357–368.  
9. Hadidi, L. A., “Using quality function deployment to conduct
assessment for engineering designs’ contractors”, Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, (2016),
10. Moubachir, Y. and Bouami, D., “A new approach for the
transition between QFD phases”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 26,
(2015), 82–86.  
11. Yang, Q., Chin, K.S. and Li, Y. L., “A quality function
deployment-based framework for the risk management of
hazardous material transportation process”, Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 52, (2018), 81–92.  
12. Sarkar, D. and Panchal, R., “Quality Function Deployment
(QFD): A six sigma tool for performance monitoring of ready
mixed concrete”, International Advanced Research Journal in
Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 2, (2017), 14–
13. Bolar, A.A., Tesfamariam, S. and Sadiq, R., “Framework for
prioritizing infrastructure user expectations using Quality
Function Deployment (QFD)”, International Journal of
Sustainable  Built  Environment,  Vol. 6,  No. 1,  (2017),  16–
14. Natee, S., Low, S.P. and Teo, E.A., Decision making and quality
function deployment (QFD), In Quality Function Deployment for
Buildable and Sustainable Construction (pp. 17-55), Springer,
Singapore, (2016).  
15. Moghimi, V., Jusan, M.B.M., Izadpanahi, P. and Mahdinejad, J.,
“Incorporating user values into housing design through indirect
user participation using MEC-QFD model”, Journal of Building
Engineering, Vol. 9, (2017), 76–83.  
16. Wang, A.J., Application of QFD in the design stage of
Comfortable Housing Project, In Applied Mechanics and
Materials (Vol. 584, pp. 2427-2431), Trans Tech Publications Ltd., (2014). 
17. Eleftheriadis, S., Duffour, P. and Mumovic, D., “Participatory
decision-support model in the context of building structural
design embedding BIM with QFD”, Advanced Engineering
Informatics, Vol. 38, (2018), 695–711.  
18. Battles, C., “QFD: House of Quality Template, N.p., (2010).