QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT

History of QFD
QFD originated at Bridgestone Tyre, Kurume

Plant
First application at Mitsubishi, Heavy Industries

Ltd., in the Kobe Shipyard, Japan in 1972

Toyota employed QFD technique to overcome the rusting problem of cars

QFD helped Toyota with the door problems in their pick up trucks. Also implemented by Toyota in the production of mini-vans in 1977 20% reduction in startup costs in 1979

38% reduction by November 1982

61% (cumulative) reduction by April 1984

Introduced in US in 1984 by Xerox

QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT A system for translating specific customer needs into detailed product requirements which are deployed throughout design,

production,
operations.

marketing

and

support

QFD Purpose

Translate consumers voice into technical design requirements

Determine & prioritize customer needs

Translate customer parameters

needs

to

product

design

Coordinate efforts and skills of an organization from a projects inception to its completion Ensure customer expectations Avoid manufacturing catastrophe
5

QFD can be used to:

Reduce product development time Cut start-up & engineering costs Reduce time to market Reduce the number of design changes Lower rework

Reduce facilitys maintenance/operation costs

Improve quality
6

Improves Customer Satisfaction

Creates focus on customer requirements Uses competitive information effectively Prioritizes resources Identifies item that can be acted upon Decreases midstream design changes Limits post introduction problems Avoids future development redundancies Identifies future application opportunities Based on consensus Creates communication at interfaces Identifies actions at interfaces Creates global view out of details

Reduces Implementation time

Promotes Teamwork

Provides Documentation

Documents rationale for design Is easy to assimilate Adds structure to information 7 Provides framework for sensitivity analys

The Overall Goal

Increase customer satisfaction

=
Increase business success
8

House of Quality

QFDs primary tool

Arranges facts

Forms relationships
Measures success

The What's & How's

What side
Customer requirements/needs

How side
How to meet those needs

10

House of Quality
Interrelationships
Technical requirements Voice of the customer Relationship matrix Technical requirement priorities

Customer requirement priorities

Competitive evaluation
11

Conduct marketing research to determine the VOCs Place it in part A. Determine the various technical requirements with respect to VOCs. Place them in Part B. Determine the relationship values between various VOCs and technical requirements. Place these in part C.
Determine the correlation values between various technical requirements. Place them in Part D.

D B

12

Survey the customers to determine the importance of ratings of various VOCs. Place these in Part E. Survey the customers to determine the ratings of the company and its main competitors wrt the various VOCs. Place these in Part F. Determine the ratings of the company and its main competitors wrt the various technical requirements Place these in part G. Find the absolute and relative weights of the various technical requirements and select the technical requirements with high weights.

G
13

EXAMPLE
A Company manufactures bicycle components. To expand their product line they want to produce Handlebar stems for mountain bikes. For which they use QFD.

14

15

STEP 1. LIST CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS (WHATS)

16

STEP 2. LIST TECHNICAL DESCRIPTORS (HOWS)

17

STEP 3. Develop a Relationship Matrix between Whats and Hows (contd.)

Relationship Matrix A solid circle represents a strong relationship A single circle represents a medium relationship. A triangle represents a weak relationship. The box is left blank if no relationship exists.

Later, the symbols are replaced with numbers. =9 =3 =1

18

19

Step 4. Develop an Interrelationship Matrix between HOWs

The roof of the house, called the correlation matrix Identifies interrelationships between each of the technical descriptors = strong positive = positive

X = negative * = strong negative

20

21

Step 5. Competitive Assessments

Customer and Technical Competitive assessment The numbers 1 through 5 are listed in the respective column and row. (1 being the worst and 5 the best)

22

23

24

Step 6. Develop prioritized customer requirements

Importance to customer
Target Value

Scale-up factor
Absolute Weight = imp to customer X scale up factor

25

26

Step 7. Develop prioritized technical descriptors

Degree of difficulty
Target Value Absolute weight: the dot product of the column in the relationship matrix and the column for importance to customer Relative Weight: the dot product of the column in the relationship matrix and the column for absolute weight in the prioritized customer requirements
27

28

Higher absolute and relative ratings identify areas where engineering efforts need to be concentrated.
The primary difference between these weights is that the relative weight also includes information on customer scale-up factor.
29

Problems With QFD

Matrix is too large Customer priorities not clear

Customers stated preferences and actions differ

QFD is messy

30

Three Aspects of Quality: Kanos Model

Dissatisfiers are product characteristics that are basic or expected and are usually taken for granted by customers when present.
Customer Satisfaction +

Satisfiers are product Delighters characteristics that0% customers want in their products and are one Satisfiers dimensional or linear in the sense of the more we provide, the happier the customer.

Performance 100%

Dissatisfiers

Delighters are product characteristics that are attractive or exciting which often pleasantly surprise customers 31 when they are first encountered.

Kanos Model (contd.)

Dissatisfiers: Cause dissatisfaction only when missing; customer complaints are the primary source of information for finding them Satisfiers: Tend to be easy to measure and are usually used for benchmarking and comparative analysis Delighters: Difficult to assess since they represent unexpected quality which cannot be ascertained through surveys and/or complaints Represent unspoken and unmet needs, possibly new markets 32