Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 13 - Designing For Quality: PTTE 434 Jim Wixson - Instructor
Chapter 13 - Designing For Quality: PTTE 434 Jim Wixson - Instructor
Presentation based on excerpts from Product Development Forum by Ken Crow, NPDP, President of DRM Associates, San Diego, CA.
Website URL: http://www.npd-solutions.com/index.html
Process Outputs
Value Engineering
Design Reviews
Design reviews . Design reviews are formal reviews conducted during the development of a product to assure that the requirements, concept, product or process satisfies the requirements of that stage of development, the issues are understood, the risks are being managed, and there is a good business case for development. Typical design reviews include: requirements review, concept/preliminary design review, final design review, and a production readiness/launch review. Value Engineering can also be included in the design review process to validate the design and reduce cost.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Quality Function Deployment requires that the basic customer needs are identified.
Frequently, customers will try to express their needs in terms of "how" the need can be satisfied and not in terms of "what" the need is. This limits consideration of development alternatives. Development and marketing personnel should ask "why" until they truly understand what the root need is. Breakdown general requirements into more specific requirements by probing what is needed
16
17
Once customer needs are identified, preparation of the product planning matrix or "house of quality" can begin.
Customer needs or requirements are stated on the left side of the matrix
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Step 7 - Interactions
Determine potential positive and negative interactions between product requirements or technical characteristics using symbols for strong or medium, positive or negative relationships. Too many positive interactions suggest potential redundancy in "the critical few" product requirements or technical characteristics. Focus on negative interactions - consider product concepts or technology to overcome these potential tradeoff's or consider the tradeoff's in establishing target values.
27
28
29
30
31
QFD Summary
Product plan is developed based on initial market research or requirements definition. If necessary, feasibility studies or research and development are undertaken to determine the feasibility of the product concept. Product requirements or technical characteristics are defined through the matrix. A business justification is prepared and approved, and product design then commences.
32
33
34
35
Concept Evaluation
The product requirements, or technical criteria serve as evaluation criteria (just like in VE). The importance rating and target values (not shown) are also carried forward and normalized from the product planning matrix. Product concepts are listed across the top. The various product concepts are evaluated on how well they satisfy each criteria in the left column using the QFD symbols for strong, moderate or weak. If the product concept does not satisfy the criteria, the column is left blank.
36
Concept Evaluation
The symbol weights (5-3-1) are multiplied by the importance rating for each criteria. These weighted factors are then added for each column. The preferred concept will have the highest total. This concept selection technique is also a design synthesis technique. For each blank or weak symbol in the preferred concept's column, other concept approaches with strong or moderate symbols for that criteria are reviewed to see if a new approach can be synthesized by borrowing part of another concept approach to improve on the preferred approach.
37
Concept Selection
Based on this and other evaluation steps, a product concept is selected. The product concept is represented with block diagrams or a design layout. Critical subsystems, modules or parts are identified from the layout. Criticality is determined in terms of effect on performance, reliability, and quality. Techniques such as fault tree analysis (see book) or failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) (see book) can be used to determine criticality from a reliability or quality perspective.
38
A powerful analysis method is created when FAST is used in conjunction with QFD.
QFD enables the uses of the Value Analysis Matrix. An example of a value analysis matrix for the pencil example is shown next.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Part II
Introduction to Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
From: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis(FMEA), by Kenneth Crow, DRM Associates
http://www.npd-solutions.com/fmea.html
47
48
49
50
From: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis(FMEA), by Kenneth Crow, DRM Associates
http://www.npd-solutions.com/fmea.html
51
WHY?
ALLOW SAFETY
OUTPUT
(concept)
INPUT
W H E N
CONVEY Information
PROJECT IMAGE
GENERATE LIGHT
CONVERT ENERGY
RECEIVE CURRENT
TRANSMIT CURRENT
(concept)
GENERATE HEAT
DISSIPATE HEAT
AMPLIFY IMAGE
GENERATE NOISE 52
The diagram shows the logical relationships of components and activities [Functions] and establishes a structure around which the FMEA can be developed. Identify Failure Modes. A failure mode is defined as the manner in which a component, subsystem, system, process, etc. could potentially fail [or has failed] to meet the design intent. A failure mode in one component can serve as the cause of a failure mode in another component. [This is a basic premise of FAST] Failure modes should be listed for function of each component or process step. At this point the failure mode should be identified whether or not the failure is likely to occur.
From: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis(FMEA), by Kenneth Crow, DRM Associates
http://www.npd-solutions.com/fmea.html
53
From: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis(FMEA), by Kenneth Crow, DRM Associates
http://www.npd-solutions.com/fmea.html
54
From: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis(FMEA), by Kenneth Crow, DRM Associates
55
http://www.npd-solutions.com/fmea.html
Possible Effects
Injury to the user
From: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis(FMEA), by Kenneth Crow, DRM Associates
http://www.npd-solutions.com/fmea.html
56
From: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis(FMEA), by Kenneth Crow, DRM Associates
http://www.npd-solutions.com/fmea.html
57
Possible Causes
Improper torque applied
Improper alignment
Excessive loading Excessive voltage
From: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis(FMEA), by Kenneth Crow, DRM Associates
http://www.npd-solutions.com/fmea.html
58
Each of these controls should be assessed to determine how well it is expected to identify or detect failure modes.
From: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis(FMEA), by Kenneth Crow, DRM Associates
http://www.npd-solutions.com/fmea.html
59
From: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis(FMEA), by Kenneth Crow, DRM Associates
http://www.npd-solutions.com/fmea.html
60
61
62
Analyze Information Define Problem Isolate Functions Develop FAST Model Create Function - Cost Model (or other applicable Function Attribute model such as performance, or risk). Identify problem functions Brainstorm potential causes to problem functions Rate potential causes (1 - 10 scale) Choose a cut-off (~6) and identify most likely causes to these problems
63
WHY
Follow Inspection Plan
Determine Condition
Inspect Container
Write Inspection Plan Verify Inspection Plan Develop Inspection Plan Validate Inspection Plan
WHEN
Determine Disposition
Identify Defects
INPUT
64
Identify key functions where performance may be less than adequate (LTA)
For the functions where performance is LTA, brainstorm likely causes of failure. Next, rate these causes on a scale of 1-10 as to which are the most likely causes of the problem(s).
65
Incorrect Container ID Incorrect Contents Inaccurate Determination Deterioration After Inspection/Damage After Inspection Inadequate Procedures Inadequate Equipment False Positive Reading for Excessive Thinning Inadequate Training
1 5
10 9
10
Management Pressure to Perform Inadequate Quality Checks Inadequate Inspection Criteria Subjective Inspection Criteria Poor Container Condition hampers inspection Time - Availability - 5 min./drum, 1 min. for inspection Poor Weather/Environment al Conditions - Human Factors
6 2 10+ 9 7
66
67
Inadequate Procedures Results Not Tested/Verified Writer of Procedure is not familiar with process Vague Text Inadequate Training Trainers have not had direct experience with the inspection process. Inadequate Training Materials: Poor Illustrations Field Examples Poor Materials not definitive enough
Inadequate Inspection Criteria Too vague Driven by Management Goals Unclear goals and objectives available for development of criteria. Too little quantitative measures and performance parameters. Condition could not be assessed. No measurement of wall thickness...etc. Figure 3
68
70
Summary
Value Engineering is a powerful, interdisciplinary problem solving tool.
VE is used to improve cost, and performance without sacrificing quality. In fact, VE can be used to improve quality. FMEA applied to FAST greatly enhances VEs ability to improve quality in existing products, process, or services FMEA applied to FAST can also improve new product development
71
72