Download to read offline
Qfd
- 1.
- 2. Brief History ofQFD 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 KINO TEN KAI Deployment Diffusion Development Evolution Function Mechanization Quality Function Deployment - “Customer Driven Product / Process Development” QFD FROM THE JAPANESE -
- 4. There is nosingle, 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 Isa 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 Investmentfrom 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 Identifycustomer 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 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
- 9. QFD HOUSE OFQUALITY
- 10. Technical Descriptors (Voice ofthe organization) Prioritized Technical Descriptors Interrelationship between Technical Descriptors Customer Requirements (Voiceofthe Customer) Prioritized Customer Requirements Relationship between Requirements and Descriptors
- 11. Absolute Weight andPercent 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.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15. Customer Requirements Technical Descriptors Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Relationship between Customer Requirementsand 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 TechnicalDescriptors 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 TechnicalDescriptors WHATs vs. HOWs Strong Medium Weak +9 +3 +1
- 18. 1 3 42 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.
- 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 42 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 andPercent 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.
- 24.
- 25. Phase III Process Planning KeyProcess Operations PartQuality Characteristics
- 26.
- 27. HOUSE OF QUALITYEXAMPLE 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 QUALITYEXAMPLE ☺High relationship Medium relationship Low Relationship Customer Requirements Customer Importance Target Values
- 29. HOUSE OF QUALITYEXAMPLE ☺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 QUALITYEXAMPLE ☺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 QUALITYEXAMPLE ☺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 QUALITYEXAMPLE ☺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 QUALITYEXAMPLE ☺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.
- 36. HOUSE OF QUALITYEXAMPLE 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 QUALITYEXAMPLE 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 touse 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 QUALITYEXAMPLE 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 QUALITYEXAMPLE 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 QUALITYEXAMPLE 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 QUALITYEXAMPLEWhat 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 QUALITYEXAMPLE 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