Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

QualityFunction

Deployment(QFD)

OutlineIntroductionQFD TeamBenefits Of QFDVoice Of The CustomerHouse Of QualityBuilding A House Of QualityQFD ProcessSummary

IntroductionDr. Mizuno, Prof. EmeritusMitsubishi Heavy Industries

Kobe Shipyards, 1972Toyota Minivans (1977 Base)

1979 - 20% Reduction In Start-Up Costs1982 - 38%1984 - 61%

Dr. Clausing, Xerox, 1984Any Manufacturing Or Service Industry

QFD TeamSignificant Amount Of Time

CommunicationTwo Types Of Teams

New ProductImprove Existing Product

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

Benefits Of QFDCustomer DrivenReduces Implementation TimePromotes TeamworkProvides Documentation

Customer DrivenCreates Focus On Customer RequirementsUses Competitive Information EffectivelyPrioritizes ResourcesIdentifies Items That Can Be Acted OnStructures Resident Experience/Information

Reduces Implementation TimeDecreases Midstream Design ChangeLimits Post Introduction ProblemsAvoids Future Development RedundanciesIdentifies Future Application OpportunitiesSurfaces Missing Assumptions

Promotes TeamworkBased On ConsensusCreates Communication At InterfacesIdentifies Actions At InterfacesCreates Global View-Out Of Details

Provides DocumentationDocuments Rationale For DesignIs Easy To AssimilateAdds Structure To The InformationAdapts To Changes (Living Document)Provides Framework For Sensitivity

Analysis

Voice Of The CustomerDriving Force Behind QFD

Customer Dictates Attributes Of ProductCustomer Satisfaction

Meeting Or Exceeding Customer ExpectationsCustomer Expectations Can Be Vague & General

In NatureCustomer 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 InformationSolicited, Measurable, Routine

Cus. & Market Surveys, Trade TrialsUnsolicited, Measurable, Routine

Customer Complaints, LawsuitsSolicited, Subjective, Routine

Focus GroupsSolicited, Subjective, Haphazard

Trade & Cus. Visits, Indep. ConsultantsUnsolicited, Subjective, Haphazard

Conventions, Vendors, Suppliers

House Of Quality

Technical Descriptors(Voice of the organization)

Prioritized TechnicalDescriptors

Interrelationshipbetween

Technical Descriptors

Cus

tom

er

Req

uire

men

ts(V

oice

of t

he

Cus

tom

er)

Prio

ritiz

ed

Cus

tom

erR

equi

rem

ents

Relationship betweenRequirements and

Descriptors

Building A House Of QualityList Customer Requirements (What’s)List Technical Descriptors (How’s)Develop Relationship (What’s & How’s)Develop Interrelationship (How’s)Competitive AssessmentsPrioritize Customer RequirementsPrioritize Technical Descriptors

QFD Matrix

Absolute Weight and Percent

Prioritized Technical Descriptors

Degree of Technical Difficulty

Relative Weight and Percent

Target Value

Cus

tom

er

Req

uire

men

ts

Prio

ritiz

ed

Cus

tom

erR

equi

rem

ents


Primary

Prim

ary

Seco

ndar

y

Secondary

TechnicalCompetitiveAssessment

Cus

tom

erC

ompe

titiv

eA

sses

smen

t

OurA’sB’s

Cus

tom

er

Impo

rtan

ceTa

rget

Val

ueSc

ale-

up F

acto

rSa

les

Poin

tA

bsol

ute

Wei

ghtOur

A’s

B’s

Relationship betweenCustomer Requirements

andTechnical Descriptors

WHATs vs. HOWs

StrongMediumWeak

+9+3+1

Strong PositivePositiveNegativeStrong Negative

+9+3-3-9

Interrelationship betweenTechnical Descriptors

(correlation matrix)HOWs vs. HOWs

Customer Requirements (What’s)C

usto

mer

Req

uire

men

ts(W

HA

Ts)

Prim

ary

Seco

ndar

y

Tert

iary

Technical Descriptors (How’s)Te

chni

cal D

escr

ipto

rs(H

OW

s)

Prim

ary

Seco

ndar

y

Tert

iary

L - Shaped Diagram

Cus

tom

er

Req

uire

men

ts


Primary

Prim

ary

Seco

ndar

y

Secondary

Relationship MatrixC

usto

mer

Req

uire

men

tsTechnical

DescriptorsPrimary

Prim

ary

Seco

ndar

ySecondary

Relationship betweenCustomer

Requirements andTechnical Descriptors

WHATs vs. HOWs

StrongMediumWeak

+9+3+1

Correlation MatrixC

usto

mer

R

equi

rem

ents


Primary

Prim

ary

Seco

ndar

y

Secondary



WHATs vs. HOWs


+9+3-3-9

Interrelationship between TechnicalDescriptors (correlation matrix)

HOWs vs. HOWs

StrongMediumWeak

+9+3+1

Customer Competitive AssessmentC

usto

mer

R

equi

rem

ents

Cus

tom

erC

ompe

titiv

eA

sses

smen

t

Our

sA

’sB

’s

53125144



WHATs vs. HOWs

StrongMediumWeak

+9+3+1

1 3 4 2 1 2 1 4

Technical Competitive AssessmentC

usto

mer

R

equi

rem

ents

Cus

tom

erC

ompe

titiv

eA

sses

smen

t

Our

A’s

B’s

53125144



WHATs vs. HOWs

StrongMediumWeak

+9+3+1Technical

CompetitiveAssessment

OurA’sB’s

Prioritized Customer Requirements

Importance RatingTarget ValueScale-Up FactorSales PointAbsolute Weight & Percent

(Importance Rating)(Scale-Up Factor)(Sales Point)

739

102481

Cus

tom

er

Req

uire

men

ts

Prio

ritiz

ed

Cus

tom

erR

equi

rem

ents


Primary

Prim

ary

Seco

ndar

y

Secondary


Cus

tom

erC

ompe

titiv

eA

sses

smen

tOurA’sB’s

Cus

tom

er

Impo

rtan

ceTa

rget

Val

ueSc

ale-

up F

acto

rSa

les

Poin

tA

bsol

ute

Wei

ght

1 3 4 2 1 2 1 4

53125144

53235244

1.51

1.21.511

1.51

1.51

153

Our

A’s

B’s



WHATs vs. HOWs

StrongMediumWeak

+9+3+1


Degree Of DifficultyTarget ValueAbsolute Weight & Percent

Relative Weight & Percent

a j Rijcii

n

1

bj Rijdii

n

1

R is Relationship Matrixc is Customer Importance

R is Relationship Matrixc is Customer Absolute Weights

Absolute Weight and Percent


Degree of Technical Difficulty

Relative Weight and Percent

Target Value1 8 4 2 9 8 2 5

90133

2 3 4 3 1 3 1 5

739

102481

Cus

tom

er

Req

uire

men

ts

Prio

ritiz

ed

Cus

tom

erR

equi

rem

ents


Primary

Prim

ary

Seco

ndar

y

Secondary


Cus

tom

erC

ompe

titiv

eA

sses

smen

t

OurA’sB’s

Cus

tom

er

Impo

rtan

ceTa

rget

Val

ueSc

ale-

up F

acto

rSa

les

Poin

tA

bsol

ute

Wei

ght

1 3 4 2 1 2 1 4

53125144

53235244

1.51

1.21.511

1.51

1.51

153

Our

A’s

B’s



WHATs vs. HOWs

StrongMediumWeak

+9+3+1


+9+3-3-9

Interrelationship betweenTechnical Descriptors

(correlation matrix)HOWs vs. HOWs

QFD ProcessW

HA

Ts

HOW MUCH

HOWs

WH

ATs

HOW MUCH

HOWs

Phase IProduct Planning

DesignRequirements

Cus

tom

erR

equi

rem

ents

Phase IIPart Development

Part QualityCharacteristics

Des

ign

Req

uire

men

ts

Phase IIIProcess Planning

Key ProcessOperations

Part

Qua

lity

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Phase IVProduction Planning

ProductionRequirements

Key

Pro

cess

Ope

ratio

ns

Production Launch

QFD SummaryOrderly Way Of Obtaining Information & Presenting ItShorter Product Development CycleConsiderably Reduced Start-Up CostsFewer Engineering ChangesReduced Chance Of Oversights During Design

ProcessEnvironment Of TeamworkConsensus DecisionsPreserves Everything In Writing