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
firms hows
Develop importance ratings
Evaluate competing products
Compare performance to desirable technical
attributes
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
51
Quality Function
Deployment
QFD is an approach to continual
improvement that brings
customers into the design of
processes. It translates what the
customer wants into what the
organization produces. QFD was
originally developed in Japan
Japans
Kobe Shipyard in the 1960s. A
QFD matrix takes the shape of a
house.
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
52
Quality Function
Deployment
Customer information falls into two broad
categories: input and feedback. Feedback is
given after the fact; input is given before the fact
(early in the product development cycle). Both
types of information can be further classified
according to the following categories:
Solicited
Unsolicited
Quantitative
Qualitative
Structured
Random.
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
53
Quality Function
Deployment
The steps for implementing QFD are
as follows:
Form the project team.
Establish monitoring procedures.
Select a project.
Conduct a kickoff meeting.
Train the team.
Develop the matrices.
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
54
QFD House of Quality
What the
customer
wants
Interrelationships
How to satisfy
customer wants
Relationship
matrix
Target values
Competitive
assessment
Customer
importance
ratings
Weighted
rating
Technical
evaluation
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
55
House of Quality Example
Your team has been charged with
designing a new camera for Great
Cameras, Inc.
The first action is
to construct a
House of Quality
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
56
Interrelationships
House of Quality Example
What the
Customer
Wants
Relationship
Matrix
Analysis of
Competitors
How to Satisfy
Customer Wants
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
What the
customer
wants
Customer
importance
rating
(5 = highest)
Lightweight
Easy to use
Reliable
Easy to hold steady
Color correction
3
4
5
2
1
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
57
Interrelationships
House of Quality Example
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
Relationship
Matrix
Ergonomic design
Paint pallet
Auto exposure
Auto focus
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
Aluminum components
Low electricity requirements
What the
Customer
Wants
Analysis of
Competitors
How to Satisfy
Customer Wants
How to Satisfy
Customer Wants
58
Interrelationships
House of Quality Example
What the
Customer
Wants
High relationship
Medium relationship
Low relationship
Lightweight
Easy to use
Reliable
Easy to hold steady
Color corrections
Relationship
Matrix
Analysis of
Competitors
How to Satisfy
Customer Wants
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
3
4
5
2
1
Relationship matrix
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
59
Interrelationships
House of Quality Example
What the
Customer
Wants
Relationship
Matrix
Analysis of
Competitors
How to Satisfy
Customer Wants
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
Ergonomic design
Paint pallet
Auto exposure
Auto focus
Aluminum components
Relationships
between the
things we can do
Low electricity requirements
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
5 10
Interrelationships
House of Quality Example
What the
Customer
Wants
Relationship
Matrix
Analysis of
Competitors
How to Satisfy
Customer Wants
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
Lightweight
Easy to use
Reliable
Easy to hold steady
Color corrections
3
4
5
2
1
Our importance ratings
22
27 27
32
25
Weighted
rating
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 11
Interrelationships
How to Satisfy
Customer Wants
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
How well do
competing products
meet customer wants
Lightweight
Easy to use
Reliable
Easy to hold steady
Color corrections
Our importance ratings
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
3
4
5
2
1
22
Company B
Relationship
Matrix
Company A
What the
Customer
Wants
Analysis of
Competitors
House of Quality Example
G
G
F
G
P
P
P
G
P
P
5
5 12
Interrelationships
How to Satisfy
Customer Wants
Relationship
Matrix
Failure 1 per 10,000
2 circuits
2 to
75%
Target
values
(Technical
attributes)
0.5 A
Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation
Company A 0.7 60% yes 1
Technical
evaluation Company B 0.6 50% yes 2
Us
0.5 75% yes 2
Panel ranking
What the
Customer
Wants
Analysis of
Competitors
House of Quality Example
ok G
ok F
ok G
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 13
Company B
Company A
Ergonomic design
Paint pallet
Auto exposure
Auto focus
Aluminum components
Completed
House of
Quality
Low electricity requirements
House of Quality Example
Lightweight
G P
Easy to use
G P
Reliable
F G
Easy to hold steady 2
G P
Color correction
ok
0.6 50% yes
ok
0.5 75% yes
ok
Us
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
Panel ranking
2 circuits
0.7 60% yes
75%
Company A
Technical
evaluation Company B
0.5 A
2 to
Target values
(Technical
attributes)
Failure 1 per 10,000
Our importance ratings 22 9 27 27 32 25
5 14
House of Quality Sequence
Deploying resources through the
organization in response to
customer requirements
Quality
plan
Customer
requirements
House
1
House
2
House
3
Production
process
Design
characteristics
Design
characteristics
Specific
components
Specific
components
Production
process
House
4
Figure 5.4
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 15
Quality Loss Function
Shows that costs increase as the
product moves away from what
the customer wants
Costs include customer
oriented
dissatisfaction, warranty
quality
and service, internal
scrap and repair, and costs to
society
tTarget-
Traditional conformance
specifications are too simplistic
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 16
Quality Loss Function
L = D2C
High loss
Unacceptable
Loss (to
producing
organization,
customer,
and society)
Poor
Fair
Good
Best
Low loss
where
L = loss to society
D = distance from
target value
C = cost of deviation
TargetTarget-oriented quality
yields more product in
the best
best category
TargetTarget-oriented quality
brings product toward
the target value
Frequency
ConformanceConformance-oriented
quality keeps products
within 3 standard
deviations
Lower
Target
Upper
Specification
Figure 6.5
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 17
Chapter 6 Product & Process Design in Manufacturing
Quality Loss Function
Genichi Taguchi states that instead of
constantly directing effort toward
controlling a process to assure
consistent quality, design the
manufactured good to achieve high
quality despite the variations that will
occur in the production line.
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 18
Chapter 6 Product & Process Design in Manufacturing
Quality Loss Function
Taguchis loss function explains the economic
value of reducing variation in manufacturing.
L(x) = k(x - T)2
[5.1]
where:
L(x) is the monetary value of the loss associated
with deviating from the target, T
x is the actual value of the dimension,
k is a constant that translates the deviation into
dollars
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
Example
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 19
Traditional Goal Post View of
Conforming to Specifications
5 20
10
Exhibit 6.3 Variation in U.S.-Made Versus
Japanese-Made Television Components
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 21
Exhibit 6.4 Nominal-Is-Best Taguchi Loss Function
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 22
11
Taguchi Example
Suppose that the specification on a part is 0.500 0.020 cm. A detailed
analysis of product returns and repairs has discovered that many failures
occur when the actual dimension is near the extreme of the tolerance
range; that is, when the dimensions are approximately 0.48 or 0.52 and
costs $50 for repair.
Thus, in Equation 5.1, the deviation from the target, x T is 0.02 and L(x)
= $50. Substituting these values we have 50 = k(0.02)2 or k = 50/0.0004
= 125,000.
Therefore the loss function is L(x) = 125000(x T)2.
This means when the deviation is 0.10, the firm can still expect an average
loss per unit of L(0.10) = 125,000(0.10)2 = $12.50
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 23
Taguchi Example (continued)
Knowing the Taguchi loss function helps designers to
determine appropriate tolerances economically. For example,
suppose that a simple adjustment can be made at the factory
for only $2 to get this dimension very close to the target.
If we set L(x) = $2 and solve for x T we get
2 = 125000(x T)2
x T = 0.004
Therefore, if the dimension is more than 0.004 away from the
target, it is more economical to adjust it at the factory and the
specifications should be set as 0.500 0.004.
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 24
12
Design Review
Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)
a systematic method of analyzing product
failures
Fault tree analysis (FTA)
a visual method for analyzing
interrelationships among failures
Value analysis (VA)
helps eliminate unnecessary features and
functions
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 25
FMEA for potato chips
Failure
Mode
Stale
Broken
Too Salty
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
Cause of
Failure
Effect of
Failure
Corrective
Action
low moisture content
tastes bad
add moisture
expired shelf life
wont crunch
cure longer
poor packaging
thrown out
better package seal
too thin
lost sales
cant dip
shorter shelf life
change recipe
too brittle
poor display
change process
rough handling
injures mouth
change packaging
rough use
chocking
poor packaging
perceived as old
outdated receipt
lost sales
eat less
process not in control
drink more
uneven distribution of
salt
health hazard
lost sales
experiment with recipe
experiment with
process
introduce low salt
version
5 26
13
Fault tree analysis
(FTA)
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 27
Value analysis (VA)
Can we do without it?
Does it do more than is required?
Does it cost more than it is worth?
Can something else do a better job?
Can it be made by
a less costly method?
with less costly tooling?
with less costly material?
Can it be made cheaper, better, or faster by
someone else?
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 28
14
Cost Reduction of a Bracket
via Value Engineering
Figure 5.5
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 29
Design for Environment
Design for environment
designing a product from material that can be recycled
design from recycled material
design for ease of repair
minimize packaging
minimize material and energy used during manufacture,
consumption and disposal
Extended producer responsibility
holds companies responsible for their product even
after its useful life
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 30
15
Design for Environment
(cont.)
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5 31
Measure Design Quality
% of revenue from
new products or
services
% of products
capturing 50% or
more of market
% of process
initiatives yielding a
50% or more
improvement in
effectiveness
% of suppliers
engaged in
collaborative design
2008 Prentice Hall, Inc.
% of parts that can be
recycled
% of parts used in
multiple products
% of parts with no
engineering change
orders
Average number of
components per
product
Things gone wrong
(TGW)
5 32
16
