Quality Function Deployment

QFD for Software Requirements

Management

Guy Davis
Carmen Zannier
Adam Geras
 Objectives

Upon completion of this chapter, students will:

 Understand what Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is
 Understand how QFD compares to other software
development life cycles
 Be able to identify the primary QFD tools and concepts
 Be able to identify the QFD practices that might be
useful in non-QFD working environments

2 of 46
 1. Introduction to QFD

Requirements Engineer
? QFD

3 of 46
1(a) QFD - Definition

VOICE OF THE
CUSTOMER

+ QFD

= CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION
4 of 46
1(a) QFD – Definition (Cont.)

[ASI, 2000]

5 of 46
 1(b) QFD - Benefits

[ASI, 2000]

6 of 46
 1(c) QFD - History

STATISTICAL
PROCESS CONTROL

DESIGN QUALITY QFD

VALUE
ENGINEERING

7 of 46
 1(d) Software Engineering Context

TQM

SDLC
Requirements Engineer
SQFD

Customer

Software Engineer

8 of 46
1(e) Requirements Engineering
Context

Requirements Engineer

Voice of the
SQFD Customer

Requirements
Prioritization

Customer

9 of 46
 2. QFD Life Cycle Considerations

 QFD Process
 SQFD Process

10 of 46
2(a) Traditional QFD Phases

11 of 46
 2(b) Adapting QFD to Software

Measurable High Leve l Methods,

Procedures
Objectives Design tools
Customer Voice

Methods, tools
Measurable
Objectives

High Level
Design
Product Design Process Production
Planning Planning Planning Planning

Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 4:

Conceive Develop Manufacture Deliver

12 of 46
2(b) SQFD Process

13 of 46
3. The House of Quality

5.
5.Roof
Roof

3.
3.Technical
Technical
Requirements
Requirements

2. Planning Matrix
Requirements
1. Customer

4.4.Inter-
Inter-
relationships
relationships

6.6.Targets
Targets

14 of 46
3(a) Customer Requirements

Structured
Requirements
Document

Title Card

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

15 of 46
 3(b) Affinity and Tree
Diagrams
Does not Accessible
Comfortable Attractive
restrict movement Gear Loops
Fits over
Fits over Lightweight Does not
Different clothes
Different clothes restrict movement
Accessible
Comfortable Gear Loops Safe
Safe
Attractive Lightweight

Facilitates Climbing

Usability Attractive Performance

16 of 46
Exercise 1 – Affinity Workshop

17 of 46
 3(c) The Planning Matrix

 Quantifies Customer Requirements.

 Quantifies Perceptions of Existing Products.
 Allows adjustment based on design team.

COMFORTABLE 5 4 3 2 1

EASY TO PUT ON 5 4 3 2 1

FITS OVER
DIFFERENT CLOTHES 5 4 3 2 1

18 of 46
 3(c) The Planning Matrix

Customer Satisfaction – existing products fulfilling

specified requirements.
Improvement Ratio = Planned Performance / Existing
Performance

Sales Point – weight for marketability

Overall Weighting = Importance Weighting x
Improvement Ratio X Sales Point

19 of 46
 3(c) The Planning Matrix

ng

on
ion
hti

cti

tio

ng
act
eig

sf a

Ra

hti
isf
W

ati

eig
nt

int
t
S
nce

Sa

me

ll W
r

Po
me

ed
r ta

ove

les

era
nn
sto
po

pr

Sa
Pla

Ov
Cu
Im

Im
Comfortable 5 2 5 2.5 1.4 17.5
Easy to Put On
1 1 2 2 1.0 2
Fits over different clothes
2 3 4 1.3 1.1 2.9
20 of 46
 3(d) Technical
Requirements
 Engineering Characteristics, Voice of the Company.

 Identify Measurable Characteristics related to

Customer Requirements.

 Direction of change included to lead to

improvement of product performance.

21 of 46
 3(e) Interrelationships

 Between customer requirements and technical

requirements
 Translation and correlation step
 Critical to generate consensus between
development team and customers.

Critical Question:
How significant is technical requirement A in
satisfying customer requirement B?

22 of 46
3(e) Interrelationships

Overall Weighting
Webbing strength
High - (9)

Harness weight

# of buckles
Medium - (3)

Low - (1)

Light weight 3.0

Does not restrict movement 11.2
Safe 6.0
Technical Priority

23 of 46
 3(f) “The Roof”

 Considers impact of technical requirements on each

other
 Feature to feature comparison
 Augment or impede?

Critical Question:
 Does improving one requirement cause a
deterioration or improvement in another
requirement?

24 of 46
 3(f) “The Roof”

Legend
Webbing strength

Padding thickness
Harness weight
Meets standards

positive/
+ supporting

- negative/
tradeoff

25 of 46
 3(g) Targets

 Summarize previous  Results from previous

steps steps:
 Draw conclusions  Customer requirements

 Prioritized customer
Consists of:
requirements
 Technical Priorities  Technical requirements
 Competitive  Correlated requirements
Benchmarks
 Feature
 Final Product Targets
interdependencies

26 of 46
 3(h) Technical Priorities

Overall Weighting
Webbing strength
High - (9)

Harness weight

# of buckles
Medium - (3)

Low - (1)

Light weight 3.0

Does not restrict movement 11.2
Safe 6.0
Technical Priority

27 of 46
 3(i) Competitive Benchmarks

Padding thickness
Webbing strength
Meets standards

Harness weight

# of buckles
Existing System
Competitor #1
Competitor #2
28 of 46
 Target System
Meets standards

Harness weight

Webbing strength

Padding thickness
3(j) Final Product Targets

# of buckles
29 of 46
 3(k) House of Quality Summary

 Inputs:
 Customer requirements
 Technical requirements
 Customer priorities
 Market reality / competitive analysis
 Organization’s strengths & weaknesses
 Outputs
 Prioritized technical requirements
 Measurable, testable goals

30 of 46
Exercise 2 – Build a House of
Quality

31 of 46
 3(l) House of Quality Pros and
Cons
 Pros:
 Generates specific technical requirements
 Requirements are traceable
 Follows a repeatable, quantitative process
 Effectively translates Voice of the Customer
 Records rationale for each technical requirement

 Cons:
 Time-consuming process for >10 requirements
 Data storage, manipulation and maintenance costs
 Very dependent on customer requirement gathering
 Inflexible to changing requirements; must recalculate

32 of 46
4. QFD Life Cycle Comparisons

XP

CLEANROOM SASD
?
? QFD
? SSM
RUP
?
? ? PD
JAD
RAD

33 of 46
4(a) QFD and Cleanroom

[SAIC, 2001]

34 of 46
4(b) QFD and SASD

Environmental
Models

Behavioural
Models

Implementation
Models

35 of 46
 4(c) QFD vs. JAD

QFD is a Quality-focused approach JAD is a communication-focused approach

36 of 46
 4(d) QFD and PD

Workers and Designers work together

37 of 46
 4(e) QFD vs. RAD

QUALITY SPEED

38 of 46
 4(f) QFD vs. SSM

[Wilson, 2001]

39 of 46
 4(g) QFD and RUP

[Ronin, 2001]

40 of 46
 4(h) QFD and XP

[Wells, 2001]
41 of 46
 5. Conclusions

Requirements Engineer
? QFD

42 of 46
 5. Conclusions (Cont.)

Requirements Engineer
? QFD

43 of 46
 5. Conclusions (Cont.)

Requirements Engineer
? QFD

44 of 46
 QFD Designer

 QFD Designer Business Improvement

Software
 Templates to define various aspects of QFD
 Icons, graphs, simplify add/delete

45 of 46
References

46 of 46