TQM

1. QUALITY FUNCTION
DEPLOYMENT

2. Brief History of QFD
Origin - Mitsubishi Kobe Shipyard 1972
Foundation - Belief That Products Should Be Designed
To Reflect Customer Desires and Tastes
Developed By Toyota and Its Suppliers
Expanded To Other Japanese Manufacturers
Consumer Electronics, Home Appliances, Clothing, Integrated
Circuits, Apartment Layout Planning
Adopted By Ford and GM in 1980s

3. = QFD
HIN SHITSU
Quality
Features
Attributes
Qualities
KI NO TEN KAI
Deployment
Diffusion
Development
Evolution
Function
Mechanization
Quality Function Deployment - “Customer
Driven Product / Process Development”
QFD FROM THE JAPANESE -

4. There is no single, right definition for QFD; this one
captures its essential meaning:
A system for translating customer requirements into
appropriate company requirements at each stage
from research and product development to
engineering and manufacturing to marketing/sales
and distribution
DEFINITION OF QUALITY FUNCTION
DEPLOYMENT :
Prerequisites to QFD are ‘Market Research’ and ‘VOC
gathering’.

5. Quality Function Deployment
Is a structured method that is intended to transmit and
translate customer requirements, that is, the
Voice of the Customer
through each stage of the product development and
production process, that is, through the product
realization cycle.
These requirements are the collection of customer needs,
including all satisfiers, exciters/delighters, and
dissatisfiers.

6. Return on Investment from
Using QFD
Companies using QFD to reflect "The Voice of the
Customer" in defining quality have a competitive
advantage because there is/are:
1. Fewer and Earlier Design Changes
2. Fewer Start-up Problems
3. Shorter Development Time
4. Lower Start-up Costs
5. Warranty Cost Reductions
6. Knowledge Transfer to the Next Product
7. Customer Satisfaction

7. QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT
Identify customer wants
Identify how the good/service will satisfy
customer wants
Relate customer wants to product hows
Identify relationships between the firm’s
hows
Develop importance ratings
Evaluate competing products

8. 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

9. QFD HOUSE OF QUALITY

10. Technical Descriptors
(Voice of the organization)
Prioritized Technical
Descriptors
Interrelationship
between
Technical Descriptors
Customer
Requirements
(Voiceofthe
Customer)
Prioritized
Customer
Requirements
Relationship between
Requirements and
Descriptors

11. Absolute Weight and Percent
Prioritized Technical
Descriptors
Degree of Technical Difficulty
Relative Weight and Percent
Target Value
Customer
Requirements
Prioritized
Customer
Requirements
Technical
Descriptors
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Technical
Competitive
Assessment
Customer
Competitive
Assessment
Our
A’s
B’s
CustomerImportance
TargetValue
Scale-upFactor
SalesPoint
AbsoluteWeight
Our
A’s
B’s
Relationship between
Customer Requirements
and
Technical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
Strong
Medium
Weak
+9
+3
+1
Strong Positive
Positive
Negative
Strong Negative
+9
+3
-3
-9
Interrelationship between
Technical Descriptors
(correlation matrix)
HOWs vs. HOWs

12. CustomerRequirements
(WHATs)
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary

13. TechnicalDescriptors
(HOWs)
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary

14. Customer
Requirements
Technical
Descriptors
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary

15. Customer
Requirements
Technical
Descriptors
Primary
Primary
Secondary Secondary
Relationship between
Customer
Requirements and
Technical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
Strong
Medium
Weak
+9
+3
+1

16. Customer
Requirements
Technical
Descriptors
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Relationship between
Customer Requirements
and
Technical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
Strong Positive
Positive
Negative
Strong Negative
+9
+3
-3
-9
Interrelationship between Technical
Descriptors (correlation matrix)
HOWs vs. HOWs
Strong
Medium
Weak
+9
+3
+1

17. Customer
Requirements
Customer
Competitive
Assessment
Ours
A’s
B’s
5
3
1
2
5
1
4
4
Relationship between
Customer Requirements
and
Technical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
Strong
Medium
Weak
+9
+3
+1

18. 1 3 4 2 1 2 1 4
Customer
Requirements
Customer
Competitive
Assessment
Our
A’s
B’s
5
3
1
2
5
1
4
4
Relationship between
Customer Requirements
and
Technical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
Strong
Medium
Weak
+9
+3
+1Technical
Competitive
Assessment
Our
A’s
B’s

19. Importance Rating
Target Value
Scale‐Up Factor
Sales Point
Absolute Weight & Percent
(Importance Rating)
(Scale‐Up Factor)
(Sales Point)

20. 7
3
9
10
2
4
8
1
Customer
Requirements
Prioritized
Customer
Requirements
Technical
Descriptors
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Technical
Competitive
Assessment
Customer
Competitive
Assessment
Our
A’s
B’s
CustomerImportance
TargetValue
Scale-upFactor
SalesPoint
AbsoluteWeight
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
Our
A’s
B’s
Relationship between
Customer Requirements
and
Technical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
Strong
Medium
Weak
+9
+3
+1

21. 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
90
133
2 3 4 3 1 3 1 5
7
3
9
10
2
4
8
1
Customer
Requirements
Prioritized
Customer
Requirements
Technical
Descriptors
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Technical
Competitive
Assessment
Customer
Competitive
Assessment
Our
A’s
B’s
CustomerImportance
TargetValue
Scale-upFactor
SalesPoint
AbsoluteWeight
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
Our
A’s
B’s
Relationship between
Customer Requirements
and
Technical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
Strong
Medium
Weak
+9
+3
+1
Strong Positive
Positive
Negative
Strong Negative
+9
+3
-3
-9
Interrelationship between
Technical Descriptors
(correlation matrix)
HOWs vs. HOWs

23. Design
Requirements
Customer
Requirements

24. Part Quality
Characteristics
Design
Requirements

25. Phase III
Process Planning
Key Process
Operations
PartQuality
Characteristics

26. Phase IV
Production Planning
Production
Requirements
KeyProcess
Operations
Production Launch

27. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
You’ve been assigned
temporarily to a QFD
team. The goal of the
team is to develop a new
camera design. Build a
House of Quality.

28. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
☺High relationship Medium relationship Low Relationship
Customer
Requirements
Customer
Importance
Target Values

29. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
☺High relationship Medium relationship Low Relationship
Target Values
Light weight
Easy to use
Reliable
What the customer desires
(‘wall’)
Aluminum
Parts
Auto
Focus
Auto
Exposure
Customer
Requirements
Customer
Importance

30. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
☺High relationship Medium relationship Low Relationship
Customer
Requirements
Customer
Importance
Target Values
Light weight
Easy to use
Reliable
Aluminum
Parts
Auto
Focus
Auto
Exposure
3
1
2
Average customer
importance rating

31. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
☺High relationship Medium relationship Low Relationship
Customer
Requirements
Customer
Importance
Light weight
Easy to use
Reliable
Aluminum
Parts
Auto
Focus
Auto
Exposure
3
2
1
Relationship between customer
attributes & engineering
characteristics (‘rooms’)

32. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
☺High relationship Medium relationship Low Relationship
Customer
Requirements
Customer
Importance
Target Values
Light weight
Easy to use
Reliable
Aluminum
Parts
Auto
Focus
Auto
Exposure
3
2
1
5 1 1
Target values for engineering
characteristics (‘basement’);
key output ☺

33. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
☺High relationship Medium relationship Low Relationship
Customer
Requirements
Customer
Importance
Target Values
Light weight
Easy to use
Reliable
Aluminum
Parts
Auto
Focus
Auto
Exposure
3
2
1
5 1 1
☺

34. SAME EXAMPLE – COMPLETE YOUR
SELF WITH THE FOLLOWING “WHAT”
Lightweight
Easy to use
Reliable
Easy to hold steady
Color correction

35. SOLUTION

36. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
Customer
importance
rating
(5 = highest)
Lightweight 3
Easy to use 4
Reliable 5
Easy to hold steady 2
Color correction 1
What the
customer
wants
What the
Custome
r
Wants
Relationship
Matrix
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
How to Satisfy
Customer
Wants
Interrelationships
Analysisof
Competitor
s

37. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
What the
Custome
r
Wants
Relationship
Matrix
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
How to Satisfy
Customer
Wants
Interrelationships
Analysisof
Competitor
s
Lowelectricity
requirements
Aluminumcomponents
Autofocus
Autoexposure
Paintpallet
Ergonomicdesign
How to Satisfy
Customer Wants

38. Lightweight 3
Easy to use 4
Reliable 5
Easy to hold steady 2
Color corrections 1
HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
What the
Custome
r
Wants
Relationship
Matrix
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
How to Satisfy
Customer
Wants
Interrelationships
Analysisof
Competitor
s
High relationship
Medium relationship
Low relationship
Relationship matrix

39. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
What the
Custome
r
Wants
Relationship
Matrix
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
How to Satisfy
Customer
Wants
Interrelationships
Analysisof
Competitor
s
Lowelectricity
requirements
Aluminumcomponents
Autofocus
Autoexposure
Paintpallet
Ergonomicdesign
Relationships
between the
things we can
do

40. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
Weighted
rating
What the
Custome
r
Wants
Relationship
Matrix
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
How to Satisfy
Customer
Wants
Interrelationships
Analysisof
Competitor
s
Lightweight 3
Easy to use 4
Reliable 5
Easy to hold steady 2
Color corrections 1
Our importance ratings 22 9 27 27 32 25

41. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
CompanyA
CompanyB
G P
G P
F G
G P
P P
Lightweight 3
Easy to use 4
Reliable 5
Easy to hold steady 2
Color corrections 1
Our importance ratings 22 5
How well do
competing products
meet customer
wants
What the
Custome
r
Wants
Relationship
Matrix
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
How to Satisfy
Customer
Wants
Interrelationships
Analysisof
Competitor
s

42. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLEWhat the
Custome
r
Wants
Relationship
Matrix
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
How to Satisfy
Customer
Wants
Interrelationships
Analysisof
Competitor
s
Target
values
(Technical
attributes)
Technical
evaluation
Company A 0.7 60% yes 1 ok G
Company B 0.6 50% yes 2 ok F
Us 0.5 75% yes 2 ok G
0.5A
75%
2’to∞
2circuits
Failure1per10,000
Panelranking

43. HOUSE OF QUALITY EXAMPLE
Completed
House of
Quality
Lightweight 3
Easy to use 4
Reliable 5
Easy to hold steady 2
Color correction 1
Our importance
ratings
Lowelectricityrequirements
Aluminumcomponents
Autofocus
Autoexposure
Paintpallet
Ergonomicdesign
CompanyA
CompanyB
G P
G P
F G
G P
P P
Target
values
(Technical
attributes)
Technical
evaluatio
n
Company A 0.7 60% yes 1 ok G
Company B 0.6 50% yes 2 ok F
Us 0.5 75% yes 2 ok G
0.5A
75%
2’to∞
2circuits
Failure1per10,000
Panelranking
22 9 27 27 32 25