Uploaded byScience Square
Qfd
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a method for developing products and services by focusing on customer requirements. It involves cross-functional project teams who use a technique called a "House of Quality" to document customer needs and engineer the corresponding technical requirements. This helps prioritize design features and guide the development process to ensure it delivers solutions that satisfy customers. QFD was developed in the 1970s and has been shown to reduce product development timelines and costs while promoting effective communication between departments.
More Related Content
Qfd
- 1.
- 2. Outline Introduction QFD Team Benefits OfQFD Voice Of The Customer House Of Quality Building A House Of Quality QFD Process Summary
- 3. 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
- 4. QFD Team Significant AmountOf Time Communication Two Types Of Teams New Product Improve Existing Product Marketing, Design, Quality, Finance, Production, Etc.
- 5. Benefits Of QFD CustomerDriven Reduces Implementation Time Promotes Teamwork Provides Documentation
- 6. Customer Driven Creates FocusOn Customer Requirements Uses Competitive Information Effectively Prioritizes Resources Identifies Items That Can Be Acted On Structures Resident Experience/Information
- 7. Reduces Implementation Time DecreasesMidstream Design Change Limits Post Introduction Problems Avoids Future Development Redundancies Identifies Future Application Opportunities Surfaces Missing Assumptions
- 8. Promotes Teamwork Based OnConsensus Creates Communication At Interfaces Identifies Actions At Interfaces Creates Global View-Out Of Details
- 9. Provides Documentation Documents RationaleFor Design Is Easy To Assimilate Adds Structure To The Information Adapts To Changes (Living Document) Provides Framework For Sensitivity Analysis
- 10. Voice Of TheCustomer 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
- 11. Collecting Customer Information What DoesCustomer 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?
- 12. Types Of CustomerInformation 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
- 13. House Of Quality Interrelationship between TechnicalDescriptors Relationship between Requirements and Descriptors Prioritized Technical Descriptors Prioritized Customer Requirements Customer Requirements (Voice of the Customer) Technical Descriptors (Voice of the organization)
- 14. Building A HouseOf 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
- 15. QFD Matrix Technical Descriptors Primary Strong Medium Weak Prioritized Customer Requirements Secondary Primary Our A’s B’s Technical Our CompetitiveA’s Assessment B’s Degree of Technical Difficulty Target Value Absolute Weight and Percent Relative Weight and Percent Prioritized Technical Descriptors Customer Competitive Assessment Strong Positive Positive Negative Strong Negative +9 +3 +1 Customer Requirements +9 +3 -3 -9 Secondary Customer Importance Target Value Scale-up Factor Sales Point Absolute Weight Interrelationship between Technical Descriptors (correlation matrix) HOWs vs. HOWs Relationship between Customer Requirements and Technical Descriptors WHATs vs. HOWs
- 16.
- 17.
- 18. L - ShapedDiagram Technical Descriptors Primary Customer Requirements Secondary Primary Secondary
- 19. Relationship Matrix Technical Descriptors Primary Customer Requirements Secondary Primary Secondary Relationship between Customer Requirementsand Technical Descriptors WHATs vs. HOWs +9 +3 +1 Strong Medium Weak
- 20. Correlation Matrix Technical Descriptors Primary Customer Requirements Secondary Primary Secondary Interrelationship betweenTechnical Descriptors (correlation matrix) HOWs vs. HOWs +9 +3 -3 -9 Strong Positive Positive Negative Strong Negative Relationship between Customer Requirements and Technical Descriptors WHATs vs. HOWs +9 +3 +1 Strong Medium Weak
- 21. 5 3 1 2 5 1 4 4 Ours Customer Competitive A’s Assessment B’s Customer Requirements CustomerCompetitive Assessment Relationship between Customer Requirements and Technical Descriptors WHATs vs. HOWs +9 +3 +1 Strong Medium Weak
- 22. Technical Competitive Assessment Customer Requirements 5 3 1 2 5 1 4 4 Our A’s B’s 13 4 2 1 2 1 4 Customer Competitive Assessment Technical Our Competitive A’s Assessment B’s Relationship between Customer Requirements and Technical Descriptors WHATs vs. HOWs +9 +3 +1 Strong Medium Weak
- 23. Prioritized Customer Requirements Importance Rating TargetValue Scale-Up Factor Sales Point Absolute Weight & Percent (Importance Rating) (Scale-Up Factor) (Sales Point)
- 24. Technical Descriptors Secondary 5 3 1 2 5 1 4 4 Customer Requirements 7 3 9 10 2 4 8 1 5 1.2 3 1.5 2 1 3 1.5 115 5 1 1.5 3 2 1 1.5 4 1 4 Customer Importance Target Value Scale-up Factor Sales Point Absolute Weight 1 3 4 21 2 1 4 Our A’s B’s Technical Our Competitive A’s Assessment B’s Customer Competitive Assessment Primary Secondary Prioritized Customer Requirements Relationship between Customer Requirements and Technical Descriptors WHATs vs. HOWs Primary +9 +3 +1 Strong Medium Weak
- 25. Prioritized Technical Descriptors Degree OfDifficulty Target Value Absolute Weight & Percent n a = ∑ R c j ij i i=1 R is Relationship Matrix c is Customer Importance Relative Weight & Percent n b = ∑ R d j ij i i=1 R is Relationship Matrix c is Customer Absolute Weights
- 26. +9 +3 +1 Secondary 1 3 421 2 1 4 Technical Our Competitive A’s Assessment B’s Degree of Technical Difficulty 1 8 4 2 9 8 2 5 2 3 4 31 3 1 5 Target Value Absolute Weight and Percent 90 133 Relative Weight and Percent Prioritized Technical Descriptors 5 3 1 2 5 1 4 4 Our A’s B’s Primary Strong Positive Positive Negative Strong Negative Customer Requirements +9 +3 -3 -9 Secondary Customer Competitive Assessment Interrelationship between Technical Descriptors (correlation matrix) HOWs vs. HOWs 7 3 9 10 2 4 8 1 Strong Medium Weak 5 1.2 3 1.5 2 1 3 1.5 1 15 5 1 1.5 3 2 1 1.5 4 1 4 Prioritized Customer Requirements Primary Relationship between Customer Requirements and Technical Descriptors WHATs vs. HOWs Customer Importance Target Value Scale-up Factor Sales Point Absolute Weight Technical Descriptors
- 27.
- 28.
- 29. Phase II Part Development Design Requirements PartQuality Characteristics
- 30. Phase III Process Planning PartQuality Characteristics Key Process Operations
- 31. Phase IV Production Planning KeyProcess Operations Production Requirements Production Launch
- 32. QFD Summary Orderly WayOf 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