EDGE™ Using QFD to Establish Design Specifications prepared by Prof. Marcos Esterman (ISE) Prof. Edward Hensel (ME) & Prof. Paul Stiebitz (ISE) Copyright.
Post on 31-Mar-2015
217 Views
Preview:
Transcript
EDGE™
Using QFD to Establish Design Specifications
prepared by Prof. Marcos Esterman (ISE)
Prof. Edward Hensel (ME)
& Prof. Paul Stiebitz (ISE)
Copyright © 2005 Rochester Institute of TechnologyAll rights reserved.
EDGE™
Outline
• QFD Overview • Drill Example
Copyright © 2005 Rochester Institute of TechnologyAll rights reserved.
EDGE™
Specification Table
EDGE™
Questions to be Addressed in Developing Specifications
• What is the function of the product?
• What is the state of the product?– e.g. size
• What costs are involved?
• What sort of buying experience will customers encounter?
• What will be experienced in the field?
Clausing, D., Total Quality Development,: A Step-By-Step Guide to World Class Concurrent Engineering, ASME Press, NY 1994, pp. 126 - 127
EDGE™
Setting the Final Values
• Develop Technical Models– Analytical– Physical
• Develop Cost Models
• Trade-offs where Necessary – E.G. Cost vs. Performance– Conjoint Analysis
• Specification Flow-down
EDGE™
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž ¤ mŽ mŽ ¤ m¤ mŽ ¤ Ž
PartsCharacteristics
EngineeringCharacteristics
Key ProcessOperations
ProductionRequirements
Houseof Quality
PartsDevelopment
ProcessPlanning
ProductionPlanning
I II III IV
Cu
sto
me
rA
ttri
bu
tes
En
gin
ee
rin
gC
ha
ract
eri
stic
s
Pa
rts
Ch
ara
cte
rist
ics
Ke
y P
roce
ssO
pe
ratio
ns
Hauser, J., Clausing, D.., “The House of Quality”, Harvard Business Review, May/June 1988, Vol. 66, Iss. 3, pg. 63 – 74.
These are tasks completed by a cross-functional team.
EDGE™
The House of Quality
2. customer/sponsor
requirements3
. cu
sto
mer
’s a
sse
ssm
ent
of
imp
ort
an
ce
4. design specifications/engineering metrics
6. a
sse
ssm
en
t o
f c
om
pet
ito
rso
r ex
isti
ng
de
sig
n
7. correlation
matrix
8. absolute importanceof each specification
10. target specifications
9. relative importanceof each specification
11. risk evaluation ofeach specification
5. relationshipmatrix
(how customerrequirementsare driven byspecifications/
metrics)
1. design objective
12. assessment of competitorsor existing design
EDGE™
1. Design Objective• What aspect of the design is this QFD analysis focused on?
2. Customer Needs• Subjectively describe the voice of customer (VOC)
• What does the customer/sponsor say they want the design to do, or how it should perform
3. Customer Needs Importance• Linear Scale of 1-10
• 10 = absolutely essential, 1 = unimportant• Non-Linear Scale
• 9 = Very Important• 3 = Somewhat Important• 1 = Not Very Important
• Pair-wise Comparison
House of Quality - Notes
EDGE™
House of Quality – Notes (cont.)
4. Design Specifications (Engineering Metrics)• What must be achieved in order deliver the customer
requirements • Quantifiable• Measurable
5. Relationship Matrix• Relationship between CUSTOMER NEDS and DESIGN
SPECIFICATIONS• Fundamental question answered: “If the specification is
successfully achieved, will the customer need be satisfied and to what degree”?• 9 = strong correlation• 3 = medium correlation• 1 = weak correlation
EDGE™
6. Customer Perception Benchmarking• Customer’s perception of your products ability to meet identified need relative to
competitive solutions
7. Correlation Matrix• Indication of how the design specifications reinforces or oppose each
other.• The level of correlation can be attained through analysis, experiment,
or engineering judgment.• Important to consider direction of improvement for Design Specification
++ = strongly positively correlated+ = positively correlated- = negatively correlated-- = strongly negatively correlated
8. Absolute Importance of Specification• Inner Product (sum product) of customer need importance and
relationship matrix column corresponding to individual specification
House of Quality – Notes (cont.)
EDGE™
House of Quality – Notes (cont.)
9. Relative Importance of Specification• the absolute scores normalized to 1.0
10. Target Specifications• Quantitatively describe information about
product/specifications• The ideal value of the specification to satisfy customer
• If possible, capture tolerance
11. Risk Evaluation• Indication of the likelihood of successfully achieving each
specification12. Technical Specification Benchmarking
• Assessment product performance relative to competitive solutions on particular specification
EDGE™
Relationship Matrix Evaluation: Tips for Success
• Maintain a high hurdle for significance– Less than 50% of the cells should be populated
• Usually involves much discussion to build team consensus– Do not allow the matrix to exceed 30 x 30– Rank order customer needs
• Set a time limit then stop– Take a poll at the beginning of each cell
• If there is consensus, move on• Sanity Check
– Does the relationship make sense?– Is it supported by field data?
Clausing, D., Total Quality Development,: A Step-By-Step Guide to World Class Concurrent Engineering, ASME Press, NY 1994, pp. 133 - 134
EDGE™
Process Check
• Are there any empty columns or rows?– Empty row
• Customer need not being addressed
– Empty column
• Superfluous EM
• Missing customer need
• Column with too many relationships– EM probably defined too broadly
• Iterate between Customer Needs, Design Specifications & Relationships until consensus built
Clausing, D., Total Quality Development,: A Step-By-Step Guide to World Class Concurrent Engineering, ASME Press, NY 1994, pp. 135
EDGE™
Conclusions So Far & What To Do Next
• Most important design specifications identified– Do they make sense
• If not, investigate• If so, these become the critical parameters to
track through development and assign resources to
• Analyze the degree of interdependence among the engineering metrics– Correlation Roof
• Develop the next decomposition of the system parameters to subsystem parameters
EDGE™
Total System to Subsystem Matrix
Total System Expectations Mis
feed
Rat
e
Mul
tifee
d R
ate
Jam
Rat
e
Cop
y R
ate
Jam
Cle
aran
ce T
ime
Pap
er D
amag
e R
ate
UM
C
Pap
er S
peed
Del
iver
y T
ime
Misfeed Rate < 70/106 9
Multifeed Rate < 30/106 9
Jam Rate < 100/106 9 9 9Copy Rate 70 +/- 2 CPM 9 9Jam Clearance Time < 20 Sec 9
Paper Damage Rate < 100/106 9 9UMC < $6000 9
< 7
0/10
6
< 3
0/10
6
< 3
0/10
6
70 +
/- 2
CP
M
< 2
0 S
ec
< 4
0/10
6
< $
250
11.7
+/-
0.3
ips
141
+/-
10
mse
c
Subsystem Expectation(Friction Retard Feeder)
EDGE™
The Dynamic Nature of Setting Specifications
Clausing, D., Total Quality Development,: A Step-By-Step Guide to World Class Concurrent Engineering, ASME Press, NY 1994, pp. 100
EM
Concepts
Design
EM
Concepts
Design
Rigid Freeze
Progressive Freeze
Complete, but not Frozen
Do it once, do it right
top related