QualityFunction

Deployment(QFD)

Outline

� Introduction

�QFD Team

�Benefits Of QFD

�Voice Of The Customer

�House Of Quality

�Building A House Of Quality

�QFD Process

�Summary

Introduction

�Dr. Mizuno, Prof. Emeritus

�Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

�Kobe Shipyards, 1972

�Toyota Minivans (1977 Base)

�1979 - 20% Reduction In Start-Up Costs

�1982 - 38%

�1984 - 61%

�Dr. Clausing, Xerox, 1984

�Any Manufacturing Or Service Industry

QFD Team

�Significant Amount Of Time

�Communication

�Two Types Of Teams

�New Product

�Improve Existing Product

�Marketing, Design, Quality, Finance, Production, Etc.

Benefits Of QFD

�Customer Driven

�Reduces Implementation Time

�Promotes Teamwork

�Provides Documentation

Customer Driven

�Creates Focus On Customer Requirements

�Uses Competitive Information Effectively

�Prioritizes Resources

� Identifies Items That Can Be Acted On

�Structures Resident Experience/Information

Reduces Implementation Time

�Decreases Midstream Design Change

�Limits Post Introduction Problems

�Avoids Future Development Redundancies

� Identifies Future Application Opportunities

�Surfaces Missing Assumptions

Promotes Teamwork

�Based On Consensus

�Creates Communication At Interfaces

� Identifies Actions At Interfaces

�Creates Global View-Out Of Details

Provides Documentation

�Documents Rationale For Design

� Is Easy To Assimilate

�Adds Structure To The Information

�Adapts To Changes (Living Document)

�Provides Framework For Sensitivity Analysis

Voice Of The Customer

�Driving Force Behind QFD

�Customer Dictates Attributes Of Product

�Customer Satisfaction

�Meeting Or Exceeding Customer Expectations

�Customer Expectations Can Be Vague & General In Nature

�Customer Expectations Must Be Taken

Literally, Not Translated Into What The Organization Desires

Collecting CustomerInformation

�What Does Customer Really Want ?

�What Are Customer’s Expectations ?

�Are Customer’s Expectations Used To Drive Design Process ?

�What Can Design Team Do To Achieve Customer Satisfaction?

Types Of Customer Information�Solicited, Measurable, Routine

�Cus. & Market Surveys, Trade Trials

�Unsolicited, Measurable, Routine

�Customer Complaints, Lawsuits

�Solicited, Subjective, Routine

�Focus Groups

�Solicited, Subjective, Haphazard

�Trade & Cus. Visits, Indep. Consultants

�Unsolicited, Subjective, Haphazard

�Conventions, Vendors, Suppliers

House Of Quality

Technical Descriptors(Voice of the organization)

Prioritized TechnicalDescriptors

Interrelationshipbetween

Technical Descriptors

Cu

sto

mer

Req

uir

em

en

ts(V

oic

e o

f th

e

Cu

sto

mer)

Pri

ori

tized

C

usto

mer

Req

uir

em

en

ts

Relationship betweenRequirements and

Descriptors

Building A House Of Quality

�List Customer Requirements (What’s)

�List Technical Descriptors (How’s)

�Develop Relationship (What’s & How’s)

�Develop Interrelationship (How’s)

�Competitive Assessments

�Prioritize Customer Requirements

�Prioritize Technical Descriptors

QFD Matrix

Absolute Weight and Percent

Prioritized Technical Descriptors

Degree of Technical Difficulty

Relative Weight and Percent

Target Value

Cu

sto

me

r R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

Pri

ori

tize

d

Cu

sto

me

rR

eq

uir

em

en

ts

Technical Descriptors

Primary

Pri

ma

ry

Sec

on

da

ry

Secondary

TechnicalCompetitiveAssessment

Cu

sto

me

rC

om

pe

titi

ve

As

se

ssm

en

t

Our

A’s

B’s

Cu

sto

me

r Im

po

rta

nce

Ta

rge

t V

alu

e

Sca

le-u

p F

ac

tor

Sa

les

Po

int

Ab

so

lute

We

igh

tOu

r

A’s

B’s

Relationship between

Customer Requirements and

Technical DescriptorsWHATs vs. HOWs

Strong

Medium

Weak

+9

+3

+1

Strong Positive

Positive

NegativeStrong Negative

+9

+3

-3

-9

Interrelationship betweenTechnical Descriptors

(correlation matrix)HOWs vs. HOWs

Cu

sto

mer R

eq

uire

men

ts (W

hat’s

)

Customer Requirements

(WHATs)

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Tech

nic

al D

escrip

tors

(Ho

w’s

)

Technical Descriptors

(HOWs)

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

L - Shaped Diagram

Cu

sto

mer

Req

uir

em

en

ts

Technical Descriptors

Primary

Pri

mary

Seco

nd

ary

Secondary

Relationship Matrix

Cu

sto

me

rR

eq

uir

em

en

ts

Technical Descriptors

Primary

Pri

ma

ry

Se

co

nd

ary

Secondary

Relationship betweenCustomer

Requirements andTechnical Descriptors

WHATs vs. HOWs

Strong

Medium

Weak

+9

+3

+1

Correlation Matrix

Cu

sto

me

r R

eq

uir

em

en

tsTechnical

Descriptors

PrimaryP

rim

ary

Se

co

nd

ary

Secondary

Relationship betweenCustomer Requirements

andTechnical Descriptors

WHATs vs. HOWs

Strong Positive

Positive

NegativeStrong Negative

+9

+3

-3

-9

Interrelationship between TechnicalDescriptors (correlation matrix)

HOWs vs. HOWs

Strong

Medium

Weak

+9

+3

+1

Customer Competitive Assessment

Cu

sto

me

r R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

Cu

sto

me

rC

om

pe

titi

ve

As

se

ss

me

nt

Ou

rs

A’s

B’s

5

3

1

2

5

1

4

4

Relationship betweenCustomer Requirements

andTechnical Descriptors

WHATs vs. HOWs

Strong

Medium

Weak

+9

+3

+1

1 3 4 2 1 2 1 4

Technical Competitive Assessment

Cu

sto

me

r R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

Cu

sto

me

rC

om

pe

titi

ve

As

se

ss

me

nt

Ou

r

A’s

B’s

5

3

1

2

5

1

4

4

Relationship betweenCustomer Requirements

andTechnical Descriptors

WHATs vs. HOWs

Strong

Medium

Weak

+9

+3

+1TechnicalCompetitiveAssessment

Our

A’s

B’s

Prioritized Customer Requirements

� Importance Rating

�Target Value

�Scale-Up Factor

�Sales Point

�Absolute Weight & Percent

�(Importance Rating)

�(Scale-Up Factor)

�(Sales Point)

7

3

9

10

2

4

8

1

Cu

sto

me

r R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

Pri

ori

tize

d

Cu

sto

me

rR

eq

uir

em

en

ts

Technical Descriptors

PrimaryP

rim

ary

Sec

on

da

rySecondary

TechnicalCompetitiveAssessment

Cu

sto

me

rC

om

pe

titi

ve

As

se

ssm

en

t

Our

A’s

B’s

Cu

sto

me

r Im

po

rta

nce

Ta

rge

t V

alu

e

Sca

le-u

p F

ac

tor

Sa

les

Po

int

Ab

so

lute

We

igh

t

1 3 4 2 1 2 1 4

5

3

1

2

5

1

4

4

5

3

2

3

5

2

4

4

1.5

1

1.2

1.5

1

1

1.5

1

1.5

1

15

3

Ou

r

A’s

B’s

Relationship between

Customer Requirements and

Technical Descriptors

WHATs vs. HOWs

Strong

Medium

Weak

+9

+3

+1

Prioritized Technical Descriptors

�Degree Of Difficulty

�Target Value

�Absolute Weight & Percent

�Relative Weight & Percent

aj

Rijci

i

n=

=

∑

1

bj

Rijdi

i

n=

=

∑

1

R is Relationship Matrixc is Customer Importance

R is Relationship Matrixc is Customer Absolute

Weights

Absolute Weight and Percent

Prioritized Technical Descriptors

Degree of Technical Difficulty

Relative Weight and Percent

Target Value

1 8 4 2 9 8 2 5

90133

2 3 4 3 1 3 1 5

7

3

9

10

2

4

8

1

Cu

sto

me

r R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

Pri

ori

tize

d

Cu

sto

me

rR

eq

uir

em

en

ts

Technical Descriptors

Primary

Pri

ma

ry

Sec

on

da

ry

Secondary

TechnicalCompetitiveAssessment

Cu

sto

me

rC

om

pe

titi

ve

As

se

ssm

en

t

Our

A’s

B’s

Cu

sto

me

r Im

po

rta

nce

Ta

rge

t V

alu

e

Sca

le-u

p F

ac

tor

Sa

les

Po

int

Ab

so

lute

We

igh

t

1 3 4 2 1 2 1 4

5

3

1

2

5

1

4

4

5

3

2

3

5

2

4

4

1.5

1

1.2

1.5

1

1

1.5

1

1.5

1

15

3

Ou

r

A’s

B’s

Relationship between

Customer Requirements and

Technical DescriptorsWHATs vs. HOWs

Strong

Medium

Weak

+9

+3

+1

Strong Positive

Positive

NegativeStrong Negative

+9

+3

-3

-9

Interrelationship betweenTechnical Descriptors

(correlation matrix)HOWs vs. HOWs

QFD ProcessW

HA

Ts

HOW MUCH

HOWs

WH

AT

sHOW

MUCH

HOWs

Phase IProduct Planning

DesignRequirements

Cu

sto

mer

Req

uir

em

en

ts

Phase IIPart Development

Part QualityCharacteristics

Desig

nR

eq

uir

em

en

ts

Phase IIIProcess Planning

Key ProcessOperations

Part

Qu

ality

Ch

ara

cte

risti

cs

Phase IVProduction Planning

ProductionRequirements

Key P

rocess

Op

era

tio

ns

Production Launch

QFD Summary

� Orderly Way Of Obtaining Information &

Presenting It

� Shorter Product Development Cycle

� Considerably Reduced Start-Up Costs

� Fewer Engineering Changes

� Reduced Chance Of Oversights During Design

Process

� Environment Of Teamwork

� Consensus Decisions

� Preserves Everything In Writing