Appetite 59 (2012) 324–332

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Appetite
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/appet

Research report

How to improve the promotion of Korean beef barbecue, bulgogi,

for international customers. An application of quality function deployment q
So-Hyun Park a, Sunny Ham b, Min-A. Lee a,⇑
a
Korea Food Research Institute, 516 Baekhyun-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do 463-746, Republic of Korea
b
Gachon University, San 65, Bokjung-dong, Soojung-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do 461-701, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Quality function deployment (QFD) is a product development technique that translates customer require-
Received 6 July 2011 ments into activities for the development of products and services. This study utilizes QFD to identify
Received in revised form 12 April 2012 American customer’s requirements for bulgogi, a popular Korean dish among international customers,
Accepted 8 May 2012
and how to fulfill those requirements. A customer survey and an expert opinion survey were conducted
Available online 23 May 2012
for US customers. The top five customer requirements for bulgogi were identified as taste, freshness, fla-
vor, tenderness, and juiciness; ease of purchase was included in the place of tenderness after calculating
Keywords:
the weight requirements. Eighteen engineering characteristics were developed, and a ‘localization of bul-
Quality function deployment
House of quality
gogi menu’ is strongly related to the other characteristics as well. The results from the calculation of rel-
Korean food ative importance of engineering characteristics identified that the ‘control of marinating time’,
Bulgogi ‘localization of bulgogi menu’, ‘improvement of cooking and serving process’, ‘development of recipe
by parts of beef’, and ‘use of various seasonings’ were the highest contributors to the overall improve-
ment of bulgogi. The relative importance of engineering characteristics, correlation, and technical diffi-
culties are ranked and integrated to develop the most effective strategy. The findings are discussed
relative to industry implications.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Food industry reports have established ethnic cuisine as one of
the most popular growing restaurant trends (Buzalka, 2001) based
on the fact that the market for ethnic food in the US has grown
markedly in recent decades (Restaurant USA, 2000). While
Americans tend to have more restaurant expenditures than before
(Ham, Hwang, & Kim, 2004; Ham, Yoon, & Leong, 2003; Jang, Ham,
& Hong, 2007), the ethnic foods market in the US is estimated to
generate $75 billion in annual sales and expected to increase to
$112.5 billion by 2015 (Datamonitor, 2005). Food service establish-
ments account for 65% of ethnic food sales, while supermarkets are
responsible for the remaining 35% (Geisler, 2010). In the restaurant
business, the Asian food market has undergone remarkable prolif-
eration, with 22,000 restaurants and annual sales of $5 billion
(Kruse, 2004). As one of the few emerging Asian foods, American
customers consider Korean food uniquely hot and spicy; they also
tend to perceive Korean food as healthy and nutritionally balanced
(Jang, Ha, & Silkes, 2009). While describing a Korean dining expe-
rience, Saccone (1994) notes ‘‘Korean dishes are quite delicious
q shows that bulgogi is a suitable menu item for American customers
Acknowledgment: This research was funded by Korea Food Research Institute.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: malee@kfri.re.kr (Min-A. Lee).
and nutritious, heavy on vegetables and generally low in fat. There
are hundreds of varieties, too many to try and describe here, but
experimentation is encouraged’’ (pp. 101–102).
Two food items that people have come to identify with Korea
are kimchi, a fermented vegetable dish, and bulgogi, a marinated
beef dish (Korean Cultural Service NY, 2009). Furthermore, bulgogi,
as a representative of Korean food along with kimchi and bibim-
bap, can be worthy of note both academically and commercially
in the global market (Kim et al., 2003). Bulgogi is a Korean dish
consisting of sliced beef marinated with a mixture of soy sauce,
sugar, sesame oil, garlic, and other ingredients such as scallions
or mushrooms (Korea tourism org, 2010) and generally eaten on
special occasions, such as dining out or entertaining guests. For
Koreans, bulgogi is one of the most popular beef dishes and one
that even non-Koreans find very tasty. Many authors have found
through their research that Americans show a higher preference
for bulgogi among Korean dishes (Bai & Zhao, 2003; Han, Huh, &
Kim, 1995; Hong, Lee, Kim, & Chae, 2007; Lee, Cho, & Lee, 2007).
Han et al. (1995) performed a sensory evaluation of 11 Korean
foods with American participants, and found that bulgogi received
the best score in terms of taste and visual aspect. Han et al. (1995)
based on their food consumption patterns. According to a survey
taken by Americans residing in Korea, the most preferred Korean

0195-6663/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.05.008
 S.-H. Park et al. / Appetite 59 (2012) 324–332
traditional foods were bibimbap, bulgogi, galbi-gui, samgyetang
and japchae (Joo et al., 2001). Bai and Zhao (2003) investigated
the preference for Korean food from 200 non-Korean customers
in five table-service Korean restaurants in Miami, and reported
that the ratio of people who preferred grilled beef was relatively
high in comparison with other Korean menu items. According to
a study analyzing articles of the New York Times from 1980 to
2005, bulgogi was cited 47 times (kimchi was cited 64 times and
pajun 53 times) and was described as ‘‘the national dish of Korea’’,
‘‘many American’s first experience with Korean food’’, as well as
‘‘the Korean food that is probably most familiar to non-Koreans’’
(Lee et al., 2007). Additionally, bulgogi was selected as a traditional
and popular Korean food with a great potential in the global
market (Hong et al., 2007). However, there has been no research
on bulgogi as the main subject. Additionally, based on the sugges-
tions of the groups of researchers (Hong et al., 2007; Yoon, 2005),
there is still a need for improving the promotion of bulgogi, so as to
further promote bulgogi to international customers.
In order to improve bulgogi for international customer’s appe-
tites, marketing analysis should be performed. Quality function
deployment (QFD) is a customer-oriented approach to product
innovation (Gover, 1996), and is specifically a system for translat-
ing customer requirements into appropriate company require-
ments at each stage, from research and product development
through engineering and manufacturing to marketing/sales and
distribution (Quinn, 2002). QFD is considered the most complete
and comprehensive method for integrating the goals of many pro-
cesses and aligning them to the customer’s requirements (Holmen
& Kristensen, 1998). As such, QFD has been subsequently adopted
as a product development and quality improvement tool world-
wide (Tan & Shen, 2000). Finally, QFD is a structured approach to
product development that can be theoretically applied to the cre-
ation of many food products (Viaene & Januszewska, 1999). QFD
has been applied to the development of various food products such
as beef, butter cookies, tomato ketchup, smoked eel, and chocolate
cake mix (Bech, Engelund, Juhl, Kristensen, & Poulsen, 1994; Bech,
Kristensen, Juhl, & Poulsen, 1997; Costa, 1996; Hofmeister, 1991;
Sterrenburg & Ruten, 1998). Furthermore, several authors have
proposed modifications of QFD models so as to apply them to the
development of new food products. Hofmeister (1991) proposed
the QFD Food Industry Roadmap, in which two alternative roads
are defined to deploy ‘Voice of Customer’ throughout the New
Product Development (NPD) process: the packaging deployment
road and the food deployment road (Benner, 2005). Modifications
of the first matrix, Product Planning Matrix (PPM), are also found
in the literature. Bech et al. (1994) divided the engineering charac-
teristics (Hows) into technical parts and sensory parts. Meanwhile,
Holmen and Kristensen (1996) divided customer attributes into
intermediate user requirements and end-user requirements.
Quality function deployment
QFD is a customer-oriented approach to product innovation
(Gover, 1996), and was first proposed in Japan in 1966 by Yoji Akao
(Costa, Dekker, & Jongen, 2001). QFD is defined as ‘‘a method for
developing a design quality aimed at satisfying the customer and
then translating the customer’s demands into design targets and
major quality assurance points to be used throughout the produc-
tion phase’’ (Akao, 1990). QFD is the most complete and compre-
hensive method for translating what customers need from the
product, to what the company can offer to best fit the needs of cus-
tomers through the integration of many processes and aligning
them to the customer’s requirements (Holmen & Kristensen, 1998).
QFD is an interdisciplinary process that aids the planning of
new or improved designs and processes (Kumar, Antony, & Dhakar,
2006). The main components of QFD are customer requirements.
325
Customer requirements are what the customers want from the
product. In the QFD process, customer requirements are translated
into measurable goals, and the competitive environment of the
market/customers are factored into all decisions. Additionally, by
implementing QFD, all company employees are geared towards lis-
tening to customers, and inter-functional teamwork is
strengthened.
QFD applications have many benefits for the reduction of qual-
ity-related problems. The major benefits of using QFD are as fol-
lows (Ahmed, Sang, & Torbica, 2003; American Supplier Institute
[ASI], 1992; Griffin, 1992; Hauser & Clausing, 1988; Kamara, An-
umba, & Evbuomwan, 1999; Lager, 2005; Sullivan, 1986; Tran &
Sherif, 1995). By using QFD, customer needs are collected system-
atically and tracked from the beginning to the end of a project;
thus customer satisfaction increases and the company can make
trade-offs between what the customer demands and what the
company can afford to produce. In addition, QFD provides several
benefits to a company, such as efficient communication for team
work, reduction in time-to-market, and preservation of the com-
pany’s knowledge.
The literature refers to two main QFD implementation methods
based on the generation of a cascade of matrix-shaped charts (Co-
hen, 1995; Garcia et al., 2007; Hauser & Clausing, 1988). The gen-
eric approach, known as the ‘Akao matrix of matrices’ (Akao, 1990),
is the most comprehensive QFD implementation model and is
based on a scheme of 30 matrices or quality tables in which each
matrix details a specific aspect of the development process. The fo-
cused approach, known as ‘the Four-Phase model’, is the most
common QFD implementation technique in which the physical
product can be described as several components assembled to-
gether into the final product. The Four-Phase model covers basic
product development steps (Cohen, 1995), and this cascade-of-
charts concept in the QFD system has an advantage of providing
a ‘‘constancy of purpose’’ among the four phases. Due to these
charateristics, the main activity in most current implementations
of QFD is the generation of charts corresponding to the Four-Phase
model (Prasad, 1998). Herein, this study applied the Four-Phase
model to the improvement of our target product, bulgogi.
The Four-Phase model consists of four steps: Phase 1 – House of
Quality (Product Planning), Phase 2 – Design Deployment (Part
Deployment), Phase 3 – Manufacturing Planning (Process Plan-
ning), and Phase 4 – Production Planning (Production Operations
Planning) (American Supplier Institute, 1992; Benner, Linnemann,
Jongen, & Folster, 2003; Cohen, 1995; Hauser & Clausing, 1988).
This model utilizes a series of matrices, referred to as the house
of quality (HOQ), to translate the voice of the customer through
product design and manufacturing. In the HOQ, the different steps
of the planning phase for a new product are summarized (Hauser &
Clausing, 1988). The four key elements of each HOQ are WHAT
(customer needs or requirements), HOW (company measures,
technical measures or engineering characteristics), relationship
(between WHAT and HOW), and HOW MUCH (target value). The
HOWs of one phase become the WHATs of the next phase, and
so on. In other words, the HOQ provides a direct link from phase
to phase (Quinn, 2002).
House of quality
HOQ, which is occasionally called the A-1 matrix, is the first and
primary building block of QFD (Martins & Aspinwall, 2001). The
HOQ chart can assist QFD practitioners in identifying the principal
customer requirements (WHAT) and determine which product or
service’s technical characteristics influence customer requirements
(HOW) (Tan & Shen, 2000). The product or service’s technical
requirements are also called engineering characteristics, which
are the ways to fulfill the customer requirements, and described
326 S.-H. Park et al. / Appetite 59 (2012) 324–332
in the language of an engineer (Hauser & Clausing, 1988). An
important fact about QFD is that the methodology for developing
HOQ is so generic that it can be employed in a large variety of sit-
uations (Kumar et al., 2006). Most studies have concentrated on
the development of HOQ, particularly the PPM (Product Planning
Matrix), since it contains the most critical information a develop-
ment team needs regarding the company’s relationship with cus-
tomers and its competitive position in the market place (Costa
et al., 2001).
A typical HOQ is comprised of six main parts, as shown in Fig. 1
(Chan & Wu, 2002), and is a structured, systematic way to trans-
form the customer’s requirements for a product into prioritized
technical measures that can be further deployed to the develop-
ment and production process. Although the contents of HOQ differ
in presentation, a more detailed description as displayed by the
sub-parts in Fig. 1 provides a nearly full account of the key ele-
ments of HOQ as addressed by various authors (American Supplier
Institute, 1994; Bicknell & Bicknell, 1995; Bossert, 1991; Chan &
Wu, 2002; Cohen, 1995; Hill, 1994).
In this research model, six main parts are utilized to improve
the promotion of bulgogi. In the first part, the customer require-
ments (WHATs) for bulgogi are identified. The second part is a
planning matrix to determine the strategic importance rating of
each customer requirement. Third, engineering characteristics
(HOWs) corresponding to the customer requirements are identi-
fied. Next, the technical correlation matrix, an assessment of which
HOWs are interrelated, and how strong the relationships are, is ar-
ranged. Fifth, a relationship matrix between WHATs and HOWs to
Fig. 1. House of quality (HOQ).
identify the degree of the relationship between each WHAT and
HOW is built up. Finally, the technical matrix representing the per-
formance level of each characteristic is decided.
This paper considers the practical application of QFD to inte-
grating different research methods within a HOQ model (Bergquist
& Abeysekera, 1996; Dikmen, Birgonul, & Kiziltas, 2005; Viaene &
Januszewska, 1999) as a methodological framework for improving
the growth potential of bulgogi consumption in the US food service
industry. The objectives of this research are (1) to identify what
American customers need (customer requirements) from bulgogi,
(2) to construct a HOQ model through structural relationships
among different parts and determine engineering requirements,
and (3) to prioritize strategic plans by analyzing the relationships
between customer requirements and engineering characteristics.
Methods
Measurement
To apply the QFD process to the current research, two surveys
were conducted. One survey was designed for customers, while
the other for experts. First, a self-administered questionnaire for
American consumers was developed based on a thorough review
of the literature on quality perception of food product, consumer’s
evaluation of Korean food, and the service marketing mix. The
questionnaire was comprised of four sections. The first section
asked respondents to rate the degree of each bulgogi attribute
using a 5 point Likert-type scale, where 1 = not important at all
and 5 = extremely important. A total of 23 attributes were identi-
fied based on the relevant literature and classified into three cate-
gories: food-related attributes, service marketing mix-related
attributes, and a localization attribute. Food-related attributes in-
cluded 15 items: overall acceptability, color, flavor, tenderness,
off-flavor, juiciness, leanness, taste, residue, freshness, nutrition,
safety, spiciness, saltiness, and sweetness (Banović, Grunert, Barre-
ira, & Fontes, 2009; Hong et al., 2007). The service marketing mix-
related attributes consisted of seven items: price, ease of purchase,
traditional concept, promotion, attractive presentation, accompa-
niment, and cooking method (Yoon, 2009; Zeithmal & Bitner,
2006). As to the localization attribute, many authors have men-
tioned the localization of Korean food when it becomes a part of
the global world (Kim, 2005; Korea Food Research Institute,
2008; Na, 2007). Localization was measured in terms of how bul-
gogi was modified for American customers.
The second section measured the perceived performance of the
23 bulgogi attributes based on the dining experiences of respon-
dents using a 5-point Likert-type sale, where 1 = very poor and
5 = excellent. The third section asked respondents to describe their
recognition and experiences of eating bulgogi. Using a dichoto-
mous scale, the respondents answered yes or no to each of these
statements: (1) Have you ever heard bulgogi? (2) Have you tried
bulgogi before? The fourth section asked for the respondent’s
demographics, such as age, gender, race, income along with din-
ing-out frequency, and if they have ever visited Korea.
The other survey was for experts. Expert’s opinions were col-
lected to identify engineering characteristics corresponding to cus-
tomer requirements. The experts opinion survey consisted of
subjective attitudinal questionnaire items about bulgogi as a prod-
uct in the US food service market; as well as questions on price, pro-
motion, distribution, people, process, and physical environment.
Data collection
The customer survey was conducted from July 13, to October
13, 2009, and the questionnaires were randomly distributed to din-
 S.-H. Park et al. / Appetite 59 (2012) 324–332 327

ers in Korean restaurants located in Manhattan, New York. A total Table 1

of 172 surveys were received out of the 200 distributed resulting in Demographic profiles of respondents.

a response rate of 86%. The expert opinion was surveyed on the Items Frequency n = 172 Percentage
web. The expert group targeted 20 panelists, including university Gender
faculties majoring in food-related fields, researchers in research Male 77 44.8
institutions such as Korea Food Service Information Co. Ltd., and Female 92 53.5
persons in charge of the global market in the Korean restaurant No response 3 1.7

business. Eleven of them participated (55% response rate) in the Age

survey, while seven were university faculty members, two are Under 20 9 5.2
21–30 54 31.4
researchers, and two came from industry. 31–40 47 27.3
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 12.0 in Win- 41–50 36 20.9
dows. Descriptive statistics were performed on all the variables. 51–60 14 8.1
Over 61 9 5.2
No response 3 1.7
Results
Race/ethnicity
Caucasian 76 44.2
Demographic profiles of respondents Hispanic 26 15.1
Asian 41 23.8
African American 16 9.3
Table 1 shows the demographic profiles of the respondents.
Others 9 5.2
Among the 172 valid respondents, slightly less than half were Cau- No response 4 2.3
casian (76, 44.2%) followed by 41 Asian (23.8%), 26 Hispanic (15.1%)
Education level
and 16 African-American (9.3%). Females accounted for 53.5% of the Less than high school 4 2.3
respondents. The respondent’s age ranged from 21 to 30 years old High school 14 8.1
(31.4%), 31 to 40 (27.3%), and 41 to 50 (20.9%). More than one-third Some college, but no degree 24 14.0
of the respondents dine out 5–10 times per month (43%), and the Bachelor’s degree 59 34.3
Graduate degrees 64 37.2
average payment for one visit was $23.53. In terms of visiting Korea,
No response 7 4.1
the majority (71.5%) of respondents have not visited Korea.
Occupation
Student 31 18.0
Recognition and experience of bulgogi Company employee 39 22.7
House wife 9 5.2
Independent business 8 4.7
Table 2 presents respondent’s recognition and experience of
Teacher 15 8.7
bulgogi. The results show that 74.4% (n = 128) of respondents al- Professionals 41 23.8
ready knew or heard about bulgogi, and that 69.2% (n = 119) previ- Others 22 12.8
ously had at least one experience with bulgogi. Thus, the No response 7 4.1
recognition rate is slightly higher than the experience rate. The rec- Average monthly restaurant visit
ognition rate is much higher than a previous study (26%) by Hong Less than 5 times 53 30.8
5–10 times 74 43.0
et al. (2007) and the difference may come from the composition of
11–15 times 25 14.5
the respondents. As this study was conducted with a survey of cus- 16–20 times 8 4.7
tomers visiting Korean restaurants, the subjects were consumers 21 times or above 6 3.5
with a relatively higher recognition of bulgogi; while the survey No response 6 3.5
of Hong et al. (2007) was distributed to sensory evaluation panels Past experience of visiting Korea
at Iowa State University, whose participants were born and raised Have not 123 71.5
in the US. Slightly more than one-third (36.6%, n = 63) selected a 1 time 12 7.0
2–5 times 21 12.2
friend as the person who influenced their choice for bulgogi.
Over 6 times 2 1.3
Regarding the location of the first experience with Korean food, No response 14 8.1
Korean restaurants in Korea town took the highest (30.8%,
Average payment per person in one restaurant visit ($)a 23.53 ± 15.24
n = 53), followed by Korean restaurants in Korea (15.7%, n = 27),
a
and Korean families in America (8.1%, n = 14). Similar results were Mean ± SD.

found in another study; Jang and Cho (2000) exhibited that visitors
to Korea had chosen to eat Korean foods based on recommenda-
tions by their friends or acquaintances, or by advertisements, arti-
cles, and travel agencies. Moreover, Bai and Zhao (2003) found in
their study that 54% of patrons got their information about Korean
restaurants from friends/family, followed by newspapers, the yel-
low pages, and promotion coupons. As to the frequency of having
bulgogi, more than half of respondents (70.3%, n = 121) have eaten
bulgogi less than five times; only 11% of the respondents have ea-
ten bulgogi five to ten times. This finding indicates that the major-
ity of patrons (more than 80%) for the Korean restaurants,
somehow, do not have much exposure to bulgogi.
QFD methodology: The house of quality
Part 1: Customer requirements and planning matrix
Determining customer requirements (also called ‘voice of cus-
tomer’, ‘WHATs’, ‘wants’) is the first step of QFD, as well as the
most important step in the product planning process (Bergquist
& Abeysekera, 1996). The items used to measure the customer
requirements for the study were obtained from literature reviews.
The customer’s perception on the identified product requirement
attributes was found by use of the survey. The customer’s priorities
among the 23 identified customer requirements were measured
then the weight requirement was calculated and depicted in Table
3. All requirements have average scores above three, indicating
that these requirements are important attributes when customers
eat bulgogi. The five most important attributes are taste (4.58),
freshness (4.55), flavor (4.54), tenderness (4.31), and juiciness
(4.27). The five least important requirements are saltiness (3.10),
sweetness (3.20), residue (3.30), promotion (3.32), and off-flavor
(3.49).
In regard to performance, the mean scores of all attributes are
also above 3, which means bulgogi did well for the identified attri-
328 S.-H. Park et al. / Appetite 59 (2012) 324–332

Table 2 Table 4
The respondent’s recognition and experience of bulgogi. Engineering characteristics of HOQ matrix.

Items Frequency n = 172 Percentage Dimension Engineering characteristics

Recognition Development Localization of bulgogi menu
Know 128 74.4 Standardized recipe
Do not know 43 25.0 Development recipe by parts of beef
No response 1 0.6 Control of marinating time
Strong vegetable component
Experience
Use of various seasonings
Have 119 69.2
Various accompaniment
Have not 50 29.1
Safety Establishing food safety guideline
No response 3 1.7
Price Pricing by restaurant level
The person that influenced the first experience Distribution Increasing distribution channel
Him/herself 8 4.7 Providing related products
Family member 20 11.6 Promotion Promotion
Friends 63 36.6 Concept Traditional concept
Work colleagues 15 8.7 Well-being concept
Others 11 6.4 Equipment Modernizing of equipment
No response 55 32.0 Distinctive use of tableware
The place to have the first experience Process Training employees
Korean family in America 14 8.1 Improvement of cooking and serving process
Processed food (from mart) 0 0.0
Korean restaurant in Korea town 53 30.8
Korean restaurant out of Korea town 9 5.2
Korean restaurant in Korea 27 15.7 study by Jang et al. (2009), the three most important attributes
In-flight 0 0.0 of Korean food are taste, edibility, and freshness; while taste, aro-
Others 12 7.0 ma, and uniqueness were selected as well-performed attributes.
No response 57 33.1 In the QFD process, the weight requirement is calculated by
The number of experience multiplying the requirement and improvement ratio, which is cal-
Less than 5 times 121 70.3
culated based on performance score and customer satisfaction
5–10 times 19 11.0
11–15 times 5 2.9
goals (Costa et al., 2001; Park, 2005). Through this process, cus-
16–20 times 1 0.6 tomer requirements are ranked on a scale of 1 to 23. It has been
21 times or above 6 3.5 demonstrated that the five most significant customer require-
No response 20 11.6 ments (the attributes of bulgogi rated by the respondents being
the most needed), ranked were taste (5.38), juiciness (5.26), fresh-
ness (5.24), flavor (5.22), and ease of purchase (5.17).
butes. The top five attributes for performance are flavor (4.35),
freshness (4.34), taste (4.26), tenderness (4.18), and overall accept- Part 2: Engineering chracteristics and correlation matrix
ability (4.17). The lowest five attributes are saltiness (3.41), sweet- The second step is developing engineering chracteristics and
ness (3.41), off-flavor (3.53), residue (3.53), and promotion (3.55). determining a correlation between each of them. In this step, engi-
Other research has shown that the sweetness of bulgogi was scored neering characteristics (also called ‘product characteristics’,
somewhat higher than ‘just about right’; whereas aroma and flavor ‘HOWs’) derived from expert’s opinion surveys are required to ful-
were viewed slightly weaker (Hong et al., 2007). According to a fill the customer’s requirements. As a result, 18 engineering char-

Table 3
Planning matrix of HOQ.

Attributes Requirement Performance Goal Improvement ratioa Weight requirementb Rank

Overall acceptability 4.10 4.17 5 1.20 4.92 14
Color 3.55 3.76 5 1.33 4.72 19
Flavor 4.54 4.35 5 1.15 5.22 4
Tenderness 4.31 4.18 5 1.20 5.16 6
Off-flavor 3.49 3.53 5 1.42 4.94 12
Juiciness 4.27 4.06 5 1.23 5.26 2
Leanness 3.98 3.95 5 1.27 5.04 9
Taste 4.58 4.26 5 1.17 5.38 1
Residue 3.30 3.53 5 1.42 4.67 22
Freshness 4.55 4.34 5 1.15 5.24 3
Nutrition 3.98 3.94 5 1.27 5.05 8
Safety 3.94 3.97 5 1.26 4.96 11
Spiciness 3.63 3.64 5 1.37 4.99 10
Saltiness 3.10 3.41 5 1.47 4.55 23
Sweetness 3.20 3.41 5 1.47 4.69 20
Price 3.96 3.86 5 1.30 5.16 7
Ease of purchase 3.94 3.81 5 1.31 5.17 5
Traditional concept 3.85 3.94 5 1.27 4.89 16
Promotion 3.32 3.55 5 1.41 4.68 21
Attractive presentation 3.74 3.79 5 1.32 4.93 13
Localization 3.53 3.72 5 1.34 4.74 18
Accompaniment 3.69 3.78 5 1.32 4.88 17
Cooking method 3.89 3.98 5 1.26 4.89 15
a
Improvement ratio = goal/performance.
b
Weight requirement = improvement ratio  requirement.
 S.-H. Park et al. / Appetite 59 (2012) 324–332
acteristics are listed and divided into eight dimensions: develop-
ment, safety, price, distribution, promotion, concept, equipment,
and process. The specific engineering characteristics for each
dimension are listed in Table 4.
Engineering characteristics for the improvement of bulgogi
have a connection with the globalization of Korean food. Several
authors have suggested various strategies for globalizing Korean
food, which commonly include developing localized Korean food
and standardized recipes, training professional chefs for Korean
food, designing interior décor that represents Korean culture, and
promotion (Kim, 2000, 2005, 2007; Lee, 2005; Min, 2003). Particu-
larly, Na (2007) suggests that localization is required in terms of
concept, menu, and restaurant. Kim (2007) also comments that
providing various modified Korean foods for Americans is neces-
sary for the success in the US food service market.
Once the engineering characteristics were developed, the corre-
lation matrix (roof of HOQ) was developed to determine the rela-
tionships between parameters, since they are often correlated to
each other in a product. A relationship means the degree of inten-
sity between characteristics and is illustrated with ‘w’ for a strong
relationship, ‘j’ for neutral, and ‘ø’ for weak relationships. Figure 2
shows the correlation matrix of bulgogi engineering characteristics
as well as that of characteristics related to development. According
to the correlation matrix, the rank of each engineering characteri-
sic is determined by the sum of scores, ‘w’ is 3 points, ‘j’ is 2
points, and ‘ø’ is 1 point. As a result, the localization of bulgogi
menu is strongly correlated with other characteristics. Therefore,
localization is one of the key points to promoting bulgogi in the
international market.
Part 3: Relationship matrix between customer requirements and
engineering characteristcs
The third step is investigating the relationships between the
customer requirements and the engineering characteristics in or-
der to identify important product properties. The relationships
were suggested by Nilsson (1990) to be rated on a scale consisting
of 0, 1, 3 and 9, where 9 indicates a very strong relationship, 3
strong, 1 weak, and 0 none. To aid in audience understanding, sym-
bols are used to illustrate relationships. Figure 3 shows the rela-
tionship matrix of bulgogi. Approximately 30% of all engineering
characteristics included in the analysis, such as ‘localization of bul-
gogi menu’, ‘standardized recipe’, ‘strong vegetable component’,
Fig. 2. The correlation matrix of engineering characteristics for bulgogi.
329
‘use of various seasonings’, ‘well-being concept’, and ‘improvement
of cooking and serving process’, were key determinants of 70% of
customer requirements.
Part 4: Technical matrix
The next step in completing the HOQ was establishing the abso-
lute and relative importance of each engineering characteristic.
The absolute importance weights were calculated by multiplying
the weight of customer requirements by the numerical relation-
ship between the requirements and characteristics, then followed
by summation. The relative importance was then calculated based
on the absolute importance.
Figure 3 reports the absolute and relative importance of the
engineering characteristics for the improved promotion of bulgogi
to American customers. The five most important characteristics
were ‘control of marinating time (9.5)’, ‘localization of bulgogi
menu (9.4)’, ‘improvement of cooking and serving process (8.8)’,
‘development of recipe by parts of beef (8.7)’, and ‘use of various
seasonings (7.9)’. Hong et al. (2007) suggests a specific way to im-
prove bulgogi. They conducted a focus group interview to test con-
sumer’s sensory evaluations of bulgogi and found that bulgogi
needed to be modified in terms of meat size, spices, and sauce
thickness. These improvements correspond to ‘localization of bul-
gogi menu’ and ‘application of various seasonings’ in this study.
The level of difficulty for achieving the performance target of
particular engineering characteristics should be measured by the
engineering and cost analysis. Technical difficulty of bulgogi was
scored from 1 to 9; considering the cost and time to perform each
characteristic. ‘Increasing distribution channel’, ‘training employ-
ees’, and ‘modernizing equipment’ were ranked higher on the list
because they are time-consuming or have higher-cost processes;
whereas ‘traditional concept’, ‘pricing by restaurant level’, and
‘control of marinating time’ are judged as relatively easy to
perform.
The final importance rating of HOWs was determined based on
relative importance, technical difficulty, and the correlation matrix
(roof of HOQ) (Hauser & Clausing, 1988). Considering these three
aspects, the final importance rating was computed and shown in
Fig. 3. The five HOWs with the highest importance ratings are
‘localization of bulgogi menu’, ‘control of marinating time’,
‘improvement of cooking and serving process’, ‘development of
recipe by parts of beef’, and ‘strong vegetable component’.
330 S.-H. Park et al. / Appetite 59 (2012) 324–332

Fig. 3. House of quality for bulgogi.

Discussion
Bulgogi, a marinated beef dish, is known as one of the most pop-
ular traditional Korean foods to American consumers. To increase
the consumption rate of bulgogi in the US market, this study inves-
tigated customer requirements, as well as technical methods by
applying QFD into the bulgogi dish with an aim to identify
customer’s needs for the item. Two surveys, one for customers
and the other for experts, were conducted.
First, this study found that the respondent’s recognition rate
(74.4%) and experience rate (69.2%) of bulgogi were relatively high.
Furthermore, about 30% of respondents (30.8%) had their first
experience eating bulgogi at a Korean restaurant in Korea town,
and friends were the strongest motivator for selecting bulgogi.
 S.-H. Park et al. / Appetite 59 (2012) 324–332
These findings suggest that it is important to develop promotional
strategies such as Word of Mouth (WOM) around Korea town.
Moreover, Americans can easily familiarize themselves with Kor-
ean food through WOM when compared to other ethnic foods
(Kim, 2007).
Second, this study investigated American customer’s percep-
tions of bulgogi. As a result, the most important attributes are
taste, freshness, flavor, tenderness, and juiciness. However, based
on the initial importance levels, as well as the calculated weight
of customer requirements, the five most significant customer
requirements were taste, juiciness, freshness, flavor, and ease of
purchase. One noticeable attribute in the planning matrix was
‘ease of purchase’; and thus the development of strategies for the
promotion of bulgogi in terms of American customer’s purchase
convenience is needed.
In addition, the 18 engineering characteristics, classified into
eight dimensions, were based on customer requirements and ex-
pert’s opinions. The largest number of characteristics were related
to ‘development’. Especially, ‘localization of bulgogi menu’ had a
strong correlation with other characteristics. As stated earlier, the
localization of Korean food is often mentioned in several studies
aimed at the globalization of Korean food (Kim, 2000, 2005,
2007; Lee, 2005; Min, 2003). Therefore, ‘localization of bulgogi
menu’ is a key attribute to entering the US market and to increas-
ing its consumption to American customers. Sushi, currently one of
the most popular ethnic foods for American consumers, actually
faced difficulties penetrating the US market initially due to culture
differences, such as American consumer’s aversion to raw fish and
seaweed. Efforts have been made to localize sushi for Americans,
such as the ubiquitous California rolls that use avocado instead
of tuna, and hide seaweed inside the roll, which has provided an
opportunity for approaching American customers more easily
(Korea Agricultural Trade Information, 2009).
Finally, the relative importance of each engineering characteris-
tic was calculated from the correlation between the customer
requirements and engineering characteristics. The findings show
that ‘control of marinating time’, ‘localization of bugogi menu’,
‘improvement of cooking and serving process’, ‘development of
recipe by parts of beef’, and ‘use of various seasonings’ are the
highest contributors to the overall improvement of bulgogi. How-
ever, not only the relative importance of engineering characteris-
tics, but also the correlation (the roof of HOQ) between
engineering characteristics and technical difficulties affect the final
ranking decision of the strategy. For example, ‘modernizing of
equipment’ and ‘food safety guidelines’ both have similar relative
importance levels, but the technical difficulty of ‘modernizing of
equipment’ is much higher. Thus, ‘food safety guidelines’ can move
to a higher position in the final strategy.
The study suggests the top five strategies for improving bulgogi
by considering the relative importance, technical difficulties, and
the correlation of engineering characteristics. These strategies are
‘localization of bulgogi menu’, ‘control of marinating time’,
‘improvement of cooking and serving process’, ‘development of
recipe by parts of beef’, and ‘strong vegetable component’. More-
over, these strategies are closely connected. To successfully per-
form these strategies, continuous research of the US market, as
well as sufficient monetary support, is necessary. Additionally, suc-
cess in the US food service market depends on the differential
improvement of bulgogi menu based on specific market research.
Furthermore, meal replacement products of bulgogi for American
customers should be developed to correspond with convenience,
the most recent food consumption trend.
This study has some limitations. Data for the study was only
collected in one region of the United States. The study could be
expanded to various locations, nationals, or cultures so the find-
ings can be generalized into larger audiences. Additionally, inves-
331
tigating relationships between the customer requirements and
the engineering characteristics is rather vague and subjective
since human judgement is indefinete. To compensate this defect
of this study, fuzzy set theory applied in the study of Ertay, Akyol,
and Araz (2011) which adopted QFD for the concrete industry can
be considered for the future studies. Ertay et al. (2011) calculated
the experts’ opinions of the importance of customer requirements
by fuzzy triangular numbers and then combined their opinions
into a group of a collective one by using Chen’s (1998) fusion
algorithm. After that, to determine the relationship between cus-
tomer requirements and engineering characteristics, the study
used fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) methodology devel-
oped by Ertay, Büyüközkan, Kahranman, and Ruan (2005), and
this methodology followed the process of calculation of matrices
that denoted the impact of the customer requirements on each
of the engineering characteristics, the inner dependence of the
customer requirements and the inner dependence of the engi-
neering characteristics (Ertay et al., 2005). Furthermore, the pres-
ent study employed the QFD process as a product improvement
tool, and we focused on the first matrix, Product Planning Matrix
(HOQ) of QFD. Although the HOQ provides the technical measures
for product planning by transforming customer requirements, the
customer requirements should be cascaded into the next phases
such as product design activities, process planning steps, or mar-
keting stages. Therefore, the Four-Phase model, repetitive applica-
tions of HOQ, through the product planning stage to the
production planning stage could suggest more systematical meth-
ods for increasing bulgogi consumption in the international
market.
References
Ahmed, S. M., Sang, L. P., & Torbica, Z. M. (2003). Use of quality function deployment
in civil engineering capital project planning. Journal of Construction Engineering
Management, 129, 358–368.
Akao, Y. (1990). Quality function deployment. Integrating customer requirements into
product design. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press, p. 3.
American Supplier Institute (1992). Proceeding from ASI 3-day workshop. Quality
function deployment. Dearborn, MI: ASI Press.
American Supplier Institute (1994). Proceeding from ASI 3-day workshop. Quality
function deployment (service QFD). Dearborn, MI: ASI Press.
Bai, Y. H., & Zhao, J. (2003). Marketing strategy for Korean restaurants in Florida-
through view of customer’s preference, recognition and satisfaction. Journal of
Foodservice Management Society of Korea, 6(2), 85–100.
Banović, M., Grunert, K. G., Barreira, M. M., & Fontes, M. A. (2009). Beef quality
perception at the point of purchase. A study from Portugal. Food Quality and
Preference, 20, 335–342.
Bech, A. C., Engelund, E., Juhl, H. J., Kristensen, K., & Poulsen, C. S. (1994). QFood-
optimal design of food products. MAPP Working Paper No. 19. Aarhus, Denmark:
University of Aarhus.
Bech, A. C., Kristensen, K., Juhl, H., & Poulsen, C. S. (1997). Development of farmed
smoked eel in accordance with consumer demands. In J. B. Luten, T. Børressen, &
J. Oehelenschläger (Eds.), Seafood from producer to consumer, integrated approach
to quality (pp. 3–19). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Benner, M. (2005). The chain information model. A systematic approach for food
product development. Doctoral dissertation. Wageningen, Netherlands:
Wageningen University.
Benner, M., Linnemann, A. R., Jongen, W. M. F., & Folster, P. (2003). Quality function
deployment (QFD). Can it be used to develop food products? Food Quality and
Preference, 14, 327–339.
Bergquist, K., & Abeysekera, J. (1996). Quality function deployment (QFD). A means
for developing usable product. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 18,
269–275.
Bicknell, B. A., & Bicknell, K. D. (1995). The road map to repeatable success-using QFD
to implement change. Florida, FL: CRC Press.
Bossert, J. L. (1991). Quality function deployment. A practitioner’s approach.
Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
Buzalka, M. (2001). Food trends to keep an eye on. Food Management, 36(12), 10.
Retrieved from http://food-management.com.
Chan, L. K., & Wu, M. L. (2002). Quality function deployment. A comprehensive
review of its concepts and methods. Quality Engineering, 15(1), 23–35.
Chen, S. M. (1998). Aggregating fuzzy opinions in the group decision-making
environment. Cybernetics and Systems, 29, 363–376.
Cohen, L. (1995). Quality function deployment. How to make QFD work for you.
Massachusetts, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
332 S.-H. Park et al. / Appetite 59 (2012) 324–332
Costa, A. I. A. (1996). Development of methodologies for quality modeling. An
application on tomato ketchup. Master’s thesis. Wageningen, Netherlands:
Wageningen University.
Costa, A. I. A., Dekker, M., & Jongen, W. M. F. (2001). Quality function deployment in
the food industry. A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 11, 306–314.
Datamonitor. (2005). Insights onto tomorrow’s ethnic food & drink consumers.
Targeting the consumption behavior of minority groups and mainstream
consumers. Production Code DMCM2363. Retrieved from http://
www.datamonitor.com/Products/Free/Report/DMCM2363/010DMCM2363.pdf.
Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M. T., & Kiziltas, S. (2005). Strategic use of quality function
deployment (QFD) in the construction industry. Building and Environment, 40,
245–255.
Ertay, T., Akyol, D. E., & Araz, C. (2011). An integrated fuzzy approach for
determining engineering characteristics in concrete industry. Applied Artificial
Intelligence, 25, 305–327.
Ertay, T., Büyüközkan, G., Kahranman, C., & Ruan, D. (2005). Quality function
deployment implementation based on analytic network process with linguistic
data. An application in automotive industry. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy
Systems, 16, 221–232.
Garcia, M., Carlos, P., Felipe, I., Briz, J., Morais, F., & Navarro, M. (2007). Proceeding
from the first international European forum on innovation and system dynamics in
food networks. Quality function deployment. Can improve innovation efficiency in
the food industry? Innsbruck, Austria: EAAE.
Geisler, M. (2010). Ethnic foods market profile. Retrieved from http://
www.agmrc.org/markets_industries/food/ethnic_foods_market_profile.cfm.
Gover, C. P. M. (1996). What and how about quality function deployment (QFD).
International Journal of Production Economics, 46–47, 575–585.
Griffin, A. (1992). Evaluating QFD’s use in US firms as a process for developing
products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9, 171–187.
Ham, S., Hwang, J. H., & Kim, W. (2004). Household profiles affecting food-away-
from-home expenditures. A comparison of Korean and US households.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(4), 363–379.
Ham, S., Yoon, B. J., & Leong, J. K. (2003). Demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics affecting Food-Away-From-Home expenditure patterns of the
U.S. households. Praxis: The Journal of Applied Hospitality Management, 6(1),
22–34.
Han, J. S., Huh, S. M., & Kim, M. H. (1995). American’s acceptance of Korean foods.
Journal of Research, Yeungnam University, 14(1), 93–99.
Hauser, J. R., & Clausing, D. (1988). The house of quality. Harvard Business Review,
66(3), 63–73.
Hill, A. (1994). Quality function deployment. Gower handbook of quality management
(2nd ed.). Brookfield, VT: Gower.
Hofmeister, K. R. (1991). Quality function deployment. Market success through
customer-driven products in food product development. From concept to the
marketplace. New York, NY: Van Nostrand and Reinhold.
Holmen, E., & Kristensen, P. S. (1996). Downstream and upstream extension of house
of quality. MAPP Working Paper No. 19. Aarhus, Denmark: University of Aarhus.
Holmen, E., & Kristensen, P. S. (1998). Supplier roles in product development.
Interaction versus task partitioning. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, 4, 185–193.
Hong, S. P., Lee, M. A., Kim, E. M., & Chae, I. S. (2007). Sensory evaluation of Korean
traditional foods for Americans. Journal of the Korean Society of Dietary Culture,
22, 801–807.
Jang, M. J., & Cho, M. (2000). Recognition and preference to Korean traditional food
of foreign visitors in Korea. Journal of the Korean Society of Dietary Culture, 15,
215–223.
Jang, S., Ha, A., & Silkes, C. (2009). Perceived attributes of Asian foods. From the
perspective of the American customers. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28, 63–70.
Jang, S., Ham, S., & Hong, G. (2007). Food-Away-From-Home (FAFH) expenditure of
senior households in the United States. A double-hurdle approach. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Research, 31(2), 147–167.
Joo, N., Kennon, L. R., Sim, Y. J., Lee, K. A., Jeong, H. S., Park, S. J., & Chun, H. J. (2001).
The perception and preference of American residing in Korea for Korean
traditional food. Journal of the Korea Home Economics Association, 39(6), 15–23.
Kamara, J. M., Anumba, C. J., & Evbuomwan, F. O. (1999). Client requirements
processing in construction. A new approach using QFD. Journal of Architectural
Engineering, 5, 8–15.
Kim, W. G. (2000). Proceeding from Korean society of food culture symposium. The task
and measure as an aspect of hygiene and service. Seoul, Korea: KSFC.
Kim, J. S. (2005). Universalizing Korean food. Journal of the Korean Society of Dietary
Culture, 20, 499–507.
Kim, M. Y. (2007). The perception of quick service restaurants and Korean foods by Los
Angeles residents. Master’s thesis. Seoul, Korea: Sejong University.
Kim, C. J., Kwon, D. Y., Cho, Y. J., Chun, H. S., Hong, S. I., Jang, D. J., & Kim, M. H.
(2003). Technology road maps for R&D strategy of KFRI. Gyeonggi-do, Korea: KFRI.
Korea Agricultural Trade Information (2009). A symbol of fusion and customization,
California Roll. Monthly Korea Agricultural Trade Information, 252, 64–68.
Korea Food Research Institute (2008). Developing marketing model of Korean food.
Gyeonggi-do, Korea: KFRI.
Korea tourism org. (2010). Quintessential Korean food. Retrieved from http://
english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/FO/FO_EN_6_3_1.jsp.
Korean Cultural Service NY. (2009). Bulgogi. Retrieved from http://
www.koreanculture.org/06aboutKorea/symbols/02kimchibulgogi.
Kruse, N. (2004). Chains use Asian flavors to satisfy customers’ taste for adventure.
Nation’s Restaurant News, 31. Retrieved from http://www.nrn.com.
Kumar, A., Antony, J., & Dhakar, T. S. (2006). Integrating quality function
deployment and benchmarking to achieve greater profitability. Benchmarking:
An International Journal, 13, 290–310.
Lager, T. (2005). The industrial usability of quality function deployment. A literature
review and synthesis on a meta-level. R&D Management, 35, 409–426.
Lee, S. Y. (2005). A study on the cultural determinants of foodservice organization staff
going abroad. Doctoral dissertation. Gyeonggi-do, Korea: Kyonggi University.
Lee, K. J., Cho, M. S., & Lee, J. M. (2007). Content analysis of the New York Times on
Korean food from 1850 to 2005. Journal of the Korean Society of Dietary Culture,
22, 289–298.
Martins, A., & Aspinwall, E. M. (2001). Quality function deployment. An empirical
study in the UK. Total Quality Management, 12, 575–588.
Min, D. W. (2003). Globalization strategy of Korean food. SERI Issue Paper. Retrieved
from http://www.seri.org.
Na, J. K. (2007). A study on globalization of Korean restaurants. Journal of Foodservice
Management Society of Korea, 10(2), 155–179.
Nilsson, C. (1990). Handbok i QFD, Kundorienterad produktutveckling (Guidebook for
QFD. Customer oriented product development). Stockholm, Sweden: Sverige.
Park, J. W. (2005). Service quality survey of HMR business using the QFD Technique.
Master’s thesis. Gyeonggi-do, Korea: Kyonggi University.
Prasad, B. (1998). Review of QFD and related deployment techniques. Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 17, 221–234.
Quinn, R. R. (2002). Proceeding from PSTC’s 25th anniversary technical meeting.
Quality function deployment (QFD). A case study. Atlanta, GA: PSTC.
Restaurant USA. (2000). A cultural melting pot. Retrieved from http://
www.restaurant.org/tools/magazines/rusa/magArchive/year/article/
?ArticleID=398.
Saccone, R. (1994). Business of Korean culture. New Jersey, NJ: Hollym.
Sterrenburg, P., & Ruten, L. C. J. (1998). The changing consumer. A challenge to the
beef production chain. In G. W. Ziggers, J. H. Trienekens, & P. J. P. Zuurbier (Eds.),
Proceedings of the third international conference on chain management in
agribusiness and the food industry (pp. 927–931). Wageningen, Netherlands:
Wageningen Press.
Sullivan, L. P. (1986). Quality function deployment. Quality Progress, 19(6), 39–50.
Tan, K. C., & Shen, X. X. (2000). Integration Kano’s model in the planning matrix of
quality function deployment. Total Quality Management, 11, 1141–1151.
Tran, T. L., & Sherif, J. S. (1995). Proceeding from IEEE international software
engineering standard symposium. Quality function deployment (QFD). An effective
technique for requirements acquisition and reuse. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.
Viaene, J., & Januszewska, R. (1999). Quality function deployment in the chocolate
industry. Food Quality and Preference, 10, 377–385.
Yoon, H. R. (2005). A study on recognition and preference of Korean foods for
foreigners in different nationality. Journal of the Korean Society of Dietary Culture,
20, 367–373.
Yoon, T. (2009). The influence of service marketing mix on eating-out customers’
perceptions value (focused on family restaurants in Seoul). The Journal of Korean
Society of Food & Cookery Science, 25, 306–316.
Zeithmal, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2006). Service marketing (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill Print Company.