Introduction

Electrical and telecommunication poles, or utility poles, have been a crucial component of modern infrastructure for over a century. These poles support various electrical and communication systems, such as power lines, street lighting, and telephone and cable lines12. The development of these poles resulted from the rapid expansion of electrical and telecommunication systems, which have made it possible for people to connect to the world more easily. The history of electrical and telecommunication poles can be traced back to the late nineteenth century3,4. The widespread use of electricity for lighting and power in homes and businesses created a demand for more efficient distribution systems1,3. The first electrical poles were made of wood and used to support cables between them. These wooden poles were gradually replaced by metal poles made of iron, which were stronger and could support larger loads. As the electricity demand grew, so did the size and complexity of electrical distribution systems. By the early twentieth century, electrical poles were made of steel and aluminum, which could support larger loads and withstand the harsh weather conditions that they were exposed to. With the advent of telecommunication systems, utility poles were further modified to include attachments for communication cables, antennae, and other equipment. In recent years, there has been a growing concern over using materials in manufacturing electrical and telecommunication poles5. Wood, once the primary material used in the construction of poles, is now considered unsustainable and environmentally harmful. This is because wood takes a long time to grow, is easily damaged by weather, and is prone to decay and rot. Steel and aluminum are non-renewable resources that require large amounts of energy to produce, and their production releases large amounts of industrial sectors. New materials are being developed and used to manufacture electrical and telecommunication poles to address these environmental concerns. One of the most promising materials is fiberglass, a composite material made of glass fibers and a polymer resin6. Fiberglass poles are lighter, stronger, and more durable than traditional wooden or metal poles1,6. They are also resistant to corrosion and weather damage and are expected to last longer than other materials. These materials have similar properties to fiberglass but are more sustainable and environmentally friendly1. Composite poles are also lighter and stronger than traditional materials and are expected to have a longer lifespan7. In addition to these new materials, advances in manufacturing technology have made it possible to produce electrical and telecommunication poles more efficiently and cost-effectively8. The history of electrical and telecommunication poles has been shaped by the development of electrical and communication systems and the need to find more sustainable and environmentally friendly materials for their manufacture4. New materials such as fiberglass and composite materials made from recycled plastic are being used to produce these poles more efficiently and sustainably7. Improvements in manufacturing technology have enabled them to be produced more cheaply. These advancements will continue to influence electrical and telecommunication poles’ future, ensuring they are crucial in developing modern poles material. Applying QFD in manufacturing electrical and telecom poles aims to achieve several important goals, including focusing on customer demands, superior product design, decreased development time and costs, and excellent communication and teamwork. QFD may assist in guaranteeing that the product satisfies client requirements and expectations by incorporating these goals into the design and manufacturing processes, enhancing customer satisfaction and competitiveness. Numerous businesses employ the QFD approach to assess customer expectations and incorporate them into product requirements9,10,11,12. created the model to select the best materials for manufacturing poles.

According to studies1,6 have explored various materials for pole manufacturing that still lack structured decision-support frameworks. This study contributes by:

  • Integrating QFD into industrial decision-making for pole selection.

  • Systematically prioritizing functional and client requirements.

  • Providing a comparative analysis of pole types based on structured evaluation.

Objective

The QFD approach will be implemented to determine the optimal selection among steel, aluminum, and GFRP electrical and telecommunication poles in this study. This method integrates customer requirements directly into the design and manufacturing processes, leading to enhanced quality, performance, and overall customer satisfaction. Additionally, QFD streamlines resource distribution and minimizes iterative design cycles, thereby accelerating product development while reducing costs. It also fosters interdepartmental collaboration to confirm that both technical feasibility and industry standards are met. This comprehensive strategy is designed to refine decision-making in pole manufacturing, encourage innovation, and support sustainability. Its primary objectives include:

  • QFD systematically collects and evaluates customer needs to ensure that these expectations are fully incorporated into both the design and production stages, thereby maximizing product satisfaction.

  • By embedding customer input at every phase of the design and manufacturing process, QFD helps produce poles that closely meet consumer demands while minimizing the occurrence of product defects and customer complaints.

  • Integrating client feedback early in the design process not only streamlines development but also cuts down on both time and financial expenditure, leading to increased operational efficiency and a competitive market edge.

  • Through a holistic integration of design elements, QFD ensures that the final product aligns with both customer expectations and company-specific objectives and constraints, ultimately delivering a product that is both functional and cost-effective.

  • The process encourages cross-functional teamwork, thereby simplifying complex processes and improving both design and production outcomes.

This integrated framework leverages the strengths of QFD to facilitate informed decision-making and optimize the development process for electrical and telecommunication poles.

Research methodology

The methodology in this study follows a structured approach that integrates the QFD framework to ensure an optimal selection process for electrical poles. The framework consists of four key steps: data collection, identification of KPIs, development of the HoQ, and analysis and scoring, as shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Research Methodology.

Full size image

Integrated decision-making structure leveraging QFD principles

This study uses the QFD approach to assess the demands and expectations of the best materials for manufacturing poles, including steel poles, GFRP (Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic) poles, and aluminum poles. Using KPIs and performing analytical studies to aid in decision-making, this proposed technique enables decision-makers and designers to choose. This study uses the QFD approach to assess the demands and expectations of the best materials for manufacturing poles based on customer satisfaction.

Collecting client voice

The HoQ, widely recognized as the primary tool within the QFD methodology, was employed to identify and evaluate customer requirements for selecting the most appropriate materials for pole manufacturing based on KPIs. To gather these requirements, a focus group was formed, and a comparative analysis was conducted among the various material options considered for pole production.

Construction of HoQ

Inter-functional communication and visualization within the HoQ are facilitated through a cognitive mapping approach, as illustrated in Fig. 2. The step-by-step procedures for constructing the HoQ matrix are based on methodologies outlined in previous research, including works by9,14,15,16,17,18.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The House of Quality13.

Full size image

The construction of the HoQ matrix followed a multi-stage process:

  • Collection of client requirements (WHATs): Ten KPIs were identified from surveys and interviews, including lifetime, total cost, production time, and others. Each was assigned a weight based on client importance.

  • Identification of functional requirements (HOWs): Nine technical attributes were developed corresponding to the KPIs.

  • Establishing relationships: A 1-3-9 scale was used to indicate weak, moderate, and strong correlations between each KPI and functional requirement. This formed the core relationship matrix.

  • Weight calculation: Absolute and relative weights were computed by multiplying the client importance scores by the relationship scores.

  • Technical correlations: A correlation matrix assessed the interdependencies between functional requirements, identifying positive, negative, or no correlation.

  • Competitive benchmarking: Steel, aluminum, and FRP poles were evaluated against each KPI using a 1–5 performance scale.

  • Final scoring and ranking: Each material’s final score was calculated based on the technical importance ratings derived from the HoQ matrix.

Demonstration of the HoQ development process

According to19, we may use the HoQ to create a QFD to find the weighted KPI evaluations and various pole materials. The HoQ in this study was built up of eight significant parts. Microsoft Excel (version 2021) was used to construct the HoQ, and Fig. 3 illustrates the development process. All QFD matrix computations and visualizations were performed using Microsoft Excel (version 2021), available at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/excel.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Methodology Flowchart to develop the Building a House of Quality9,12.

Full size image

To improve the HoQ chart for weighted evaluation, go to stage 1 (Room A). The creation of the client/decision-maker requirements (WHATs), which were produced expressly and implicitly by the clients and decision-makers (e.g., lifetime, total cost, production time), was the first stage in this process (voice of the client). The KPIs were then placed beside these, as shown in Table 1. To determine the best materials for manufacturing poles, this study assessed them using QFD and 10 construction KPIs gleaned through survey research, focus group talks, and individual interviews. The first and most important phase in the QFD process for this study was determining what the customers desired and anticipated from the various pole production materials, which are mentioned in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 What’s—Room (A) in HoQ.
Full size table
Table 2 How’s—Room (C) in HoQ.
Full size table

As shown in Fig. 3, the second stage (stage 2-Room C) included the preparation of functional requirements and technical requirements (HOWs), which consist of a collection set of related and equivalent product characteristics, according to Table 2. Ten (10) KPIs and the significant values they represent were developed for this study using market research, focus groups, and individual interviews, according to Table 1.

Figure 3 shows the third stage (stage 3-Room D), which depicts how the QFD team views the connections between the technical and customer needs. As shown in Table 3, the quantification of the matrix elements was completed using a 1-3-9 scale to designate weak, moderate, and strong correlations based on the effect of satisfying the customer demands for the KPIs.

Table 3 Relationship between Whats and Hows.
Full size table

Table 3 shows the findings from the market survey, focus group discussions, and personal individual interviews about the link between WHATs vs. HOWs. The fourth stage (stage 4-Room A and Room B), shown in Fig. 3, exemplifies the customer perceptions discovered through market research. This builds the weight chart in room A" and considers the relative weight and relevance of the customer needs, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Relationship matrix between Whats and Hows.
Full size table

The relative weight is typically utilized to prioritize technical or functional requirements to efficiently satisfy customer expectations. To illustrate the significance of the client’s demands, relative weights and competitive assessment (evaluation) were graphically presented.

  • Absolute Weight & Percent

    $${a}_{j}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}{R}_{ij}{c}_{i}$$

where R is the Relationship Matrix and c is the Client’s Importance.

  • Relative Weight & Percentwhere R is the Relationship Matrix and c is the Absolute Client Weights.

    $${b}_{j}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}{R}_{ij}{d}_{i}$$

Each necessary KPI’s importance score, collected directly from market research, is contained in the important field. The importance of the required KPIs was scored on a scale of 1 to 10, as shown in Table 5. Additionally, as shown in Table 5, the relative weights and competitive benchmarking are visualized and portrayed to show the importance of the client’s demands.

Table 5 Importance of KPIs and relative weight values.
Full size table

Shows the different materials used to make poles and the effectiveness of competitors in fulfilling these requirements (Competitive Client Assessment) in room B. For the sake of evaluating and benchmarking procedures for the different materials used to manufacture poles (steel, aluminum, and FRP poles), three competitors were examined for the comparing and benchmarking processes for the material poles. As shown in Table 6, a scale of "1 = Low to 5 = High" was once more used.

Table 6 Client competitive evaluation matrix for different materials for manufacturing poles.
Full size table

Figure 3 shows the fifth stage (stage 5-Room E), which is used to identify how the technical requirements affect the product design (Interrelationship among technical descriptors—Technical correlation matrix). The interaction between technical descriptors is shown at the bottom of Table 7, and this scale was used to assess the degree of interdependence between technical features using the correlation matrix. In this study, a positive relationship was found between “The duration of the existence of a pole"," Usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss”, “A measure of a material’s ability to conduct an electric current”, “Type of fixation method and No need for complex equipment to install”, “Easy to store and delivered to the customer”, and “Easy to handle or control”. A negative relationship was found between the “Minimum life cycle cost”, “Corrosion resistance or sun rays’ resistance”, and “Minimum manufacture duration”. Functional requirements could have no relationship, as indicated in Fig. 4.

Table 7 Relationship among functional requirements.
Full size table
Fig. 4
figure 4

Results for the relationship between all functional requirements.

Full size image

Figure 3 shows the client impressions in the market surveys in the sixth stage (stage 6-Room F) (Prioritized Client Requirements). The technical needs, performance metrics, and complexity associated with producing each requirement are prioritized, documented in Table 8, and recorded in the seventh stage (stage 7-Room F"), shown in Fig. 3. The result of the matrix is a set of goal values for each technical need to be satisfied by the new design in stage eight (stage 8), which is shown in Fig. 3. These target values are connected to the demands of the client/decision-makers, which are described in Table 8, as shown in Fig. 3. Figure 5 presents the HoQ’s final proposal for the materials for manufacturing poles. The approach (functions and equation) used to produce the HoQ-Chart is that described by The Home was constructed using a spreadsheet application (i.e., MS Excel) shown by12.

Table 8 Final output of the matrix.
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Final proposal of the HoQ for the structural system of electrical poles.

Full size image

Figure 6 presents a radar chart that plots the normalized performance of steel, aluminum, and FRP poles across the ten KPIs. It highlights the superior performance of the FRP pole in most categories, especially in total cost, lifetime, and accident reduction.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Radar Chart of KPI Performance for Pole Types.

Full size image

Figure 7 displays a 3D bar chart comparing the individual KPI scores for each pole type. This visualization emphasizes how each KPI contributes to the final ranking, with the steel pole leading in installation methods and FRP poles dominating in most other KPIs.

Fig. 7
figure 7

3D Bar Chart of Pole Type Scores by KPI.

Full size image

Discuss the results

QFD serves to align customer expectations with technical specifications, ensuring that end-user feedback directly influences the quality planning process. The research followed the eight-step QFD methodology to guide its implementation. The initial and most essential phase involved accurately identifying client expectations and preferences. This was achieved through an extensive review of literature, combined with surveys, focus group discussions, and one-on-one interviews, resulting in the identification of ten KPIs from clients.

Following this, a targeted survey was developed to gather insights from clients and decision-makers regarding the preferred material characteristics for manufacturing electrical poles. The survey was distributed both in person and through Google Forms to a total of 125 participants. Researchers then analyzed the data to determine the relationship between customer KPIs and technical criteria, the desired direction of technical improvement, and correlations among technical requirements based on participants’ expectations.

Survey responses were used to calculate weighted averages, which helped identify the most suitable material for pole manufacturing. Participants evaluated various materials based on performance and relevance to the decision-making criteria. In the next phase, three material types, steel, aluminum, and FRP, were evaluated using the HoQ technique. The ten client KPIs were mapped to ten technical requirements in the third stage. Each functional requirement was assigned a weight, helping determine which KPIs significantly influenced the material selection process.

Finally, scores were computed for each material type. According to the HoQ evaluation, FRP poles received the highest score (4.12 out of 5), followed by aluminum poles (3.216 out of 5), and steel poles (2.872 out of 5). These findings suggest that decision-makers can adapt and prioritize material requirements to align with client needs better. The list of technical features can be expanded to incorporate additional functions if required. A comparative analysis of the three materials is shown in Table 9, Fig. 6 and 7.

  1. (a)

    Unlike conventional studies that rely on structural or financial analysis, this study integrates multi-dimensional criteria, including client satisfaction and functional mapping. While earlier works by Desai & Yuan (2006) and Metiche & Masmoudi (2013) evaluated the mechanical properties of FRP poles, they did not provide a structured selection methodology. Our framework fills this gap.

  2. (b)

    The proposed QFD framework can be adapted to other sectors, such as construction, energy, and telecommunications. It supports informed procurement decisions, streamlines cross-departmental collaboration, and aligns technical capabilities with market expectations.

  3. (c)

    Utility managers can use this model to optimize pole selection during planning and budgeting.

  4. (d)

    Manufacturers can prioritize product attributes aligned with customer demands.

  5. (e)

    Procurement teams can justify material choices through a transparent scoring mechanism.

Table 9 Comparison between Steel Pole, Aluminum Pole, and FRP Pole.
Full size table

Conclusion

This research focused on evaluating the development of utility poles specifically electrical and telecommunication poles over the past two decades, emphasizing information integration and visual connection approaches. QFD was a strategic tool within industrial applications to help development teams prioritize customer requirements throughout the product lifecycle. It effectively translates customer demands into appropriate technical criteria at every cost stage of the lifecycle.

The study applied the QFD methodology to determine KPIs influencing optimal materials selection for three types of electrical poles: steel, aluminum, and FRP. By implementing the HoQ, the researchers were able to evaluate and weigh the identified KPIs against the characteristics of these pole types to recommend the most appropriate option. The HoQ matrix was developed using Microsoft Excel, facilitating a structured evaluation of customer needs based on the prioritized KPIs.

The research employed an extensive methodology to gather the necessary data, including literature reviews, surveys, focus group discussions, and in-depth interviews. A total of 125 participants—selected for their expertise and experience in industrial sectors—completed the survey, which explored customer expectations and methods for improving the design of electrical poles. The results enabled the team to rank the KPIs according to their impact on material selection during the conceptual design phase, based on respondents’ insights into their influence on decision-making.

In addition to survey analysis, interviews with prominent industry professionals and relevant case studies were used to validate the study’s conclusions. The step-by-step procedure for constructing the HoQ guided the decision-making process for identifying the most suitable electrical pole materials. The FRP pole emerged as the top-ranked option, with “total cost” and “service life” identified as the most influential KPIs. This proposed framework empowers engineers and stakeholders to make informed design decisions that align with client satisfaction metrics and supports further analytical exploration for utility pole optimization.

This study proposed an industrial integration framework using QFD to optimize the selection of electrical and telecommunication poles. Based on client requirements and functional performance indicators, three steel, aluminum, and FRP materials Key findings include:

  • FRP poles achieved the highest overall score due to their superior lifespan, cost, and durability performance.

  • The developed framework offers a replicable approach for customer-focused decision-making.

  • QFD enables alignment between engineering capabilities and user expectations, supporting innovation and cost efficiency.

This research highlights the value of integrating client feedback into early design decisions. Future work could explore hybrid decision-making models combining QFD with AHP or fuzzy logic and apply the framework to other infrastructure components.