Fruit and Vegetable Quality

find the sequence of relationships as if all participants listened to the
most powerful part in the chain, in this case the retailer (R), and with
ignorance of the direct study of consumer needs. On the right side of
the roof, reading from the bottom to the top, we find the case as if the
producer (or seed producer) pushes his quality characteristics on the mar-
ket and the others have to set their quality characteristics accordingly.
Using the fully integrated House of Quality approach represents the
opposite alternative, e.g., S would study all the requirements of C, R,
W and G, decisions are consequently based on direct information, an
approach that could be both time-consuming and resource demanding.
Finally, as a more realistic approach the integrated House of Quality
could be used to decide where direct information is needed and where
indirect information is sufficient. In this connection both the number of
translation processes and the source of information are critical factors.
From a research perspective, many of the relationships in the roof are
well known; e.g., research on storage conditions and postharvest treat-
ment related to different cultures and varieties.
In Figure 11.3, we have the translation of customer requirements into
quality characteristics used by the different participants in the whole
chain. The following phases are individual for each of the participants
and include how to produce with attention to the cost and the safety
(foodborne disease, toxins, etc.) and reliability (shelf life, off-taste, etc.)
of the different alternatives (Mazur, 1994). In QFD terminology, the
phases are called quality, technology, cost and reliability deployment
(Akao, 1990). In Figure 11.4, the four phases (for the grower) are illus-
trated.
The first phase is part of Figure 11.3; phase II illustrates that the
grower has to choose between different varieties (or cultures) and agri-
cultural processes. In this matrix all alternatives are evaluated accord-
ing to the quality characteristics and the calculated importance, which
are results of phase I. A result of II would be the identification of promis-
ing alternative varieties and agricultural production processes according
to all the identified customer needs and wants. The roof of phase II il-
lustrates that varieties and the agricultural production processes are not
independent. The matrices may be defined for numerous purposes, e.g.,
the synergy between variety and process, or the synergy between vari-
eties, e.g., season or pollination. In Figure 11.4, varieties and agricul-
tural processes are illustrated side by side; alternatively, the agricultural
processes could be evaluated given the certain varieties, but as research
and development are often related to one of them, the separate or par-

214 HOUSE OF QUALITY—AN INTEGRATED VIEW