New QFD

THE TWENTIETH SYMPOSIUM ON
QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT

October 24, 2008
Santa Fe, NM
TM
ValueBasedProduct DevelopmentUsingQFDand AHPto Identify,Pri
oritize,andAlignKeyCustomerNeedsandbusinessgoals
ChadM.Johnson
TRWCertified6SigmaMasterBlackBelt,QFDBlackBelt
GlennH.Mazur
QFDRedBelt
Abstract
Inordertoseparateourselvesfromthecompetitivepack,itisbecomingincreasinglyimportanttoseeka
deeper understanding of valuedriving customer needs during the early stages of product/process de
velopment. Inthis casestudy,TRWAutomotivehasutilizedQFDandaugmenteditwith theAnalytical
HierarchyProcess(AHP)todevelopaworkingmodelforprojectleaderstoprioritizeandfocustheirde
signefforteffectively.ThisBlitzQFDmodelenablesproduct/processdesignmanagerstocomprehend,
prioritize, and merge the various goals of the business (both corporate and project) with the derived
needsofthecustomer.Further,itservesasacentral,clarifyingcenterpieceofprojectdirectionandre
mainsfluidsoifprioritiesarechallenged,themodelcanbeusedtorecalibratethedesignfocus.
KeyWords
BlitzQFD,AHP,VOC,DFSS,brakesensor
Introduction
This paper presents an application of modern QFD to the design & selection of an TRW Automotive
brakesystemsensor.Wewillshowhowthemethodology,whichgoeswellbeyondbasicrequirements
analysis,wasinstrumentalinassuringthatthehighestpriorityneedsofthecustomersandstakeholders
were delivered in the final solution. In doing so, we can also see how the application of modern QFD
canalsoaidprojectmanagerstokeepthedevelopmentteamonthecorrectpathwithoutdeviationsor
distractions which often lead to cost overruns, design iterations, and missed project milestone delive
rables.
QualityFunctionDeploymentbeganintheJapaneseautomotiveindustrywiththefirstreportedapplica
tionbyBridgestoneTirein1966.
1
Atthattime,thegoalwastoassurethequalityofanewatireduring
the development stage by understanding key quality requirements and how they were positively and
negativelyaffectedbyprocessandmaterialdesign.Thiswasashiftinqualitycontrolstrategyfromsolv
ingproblemsaftertheyoccurredtopreventingthembeforetheyoccurredbyunderstandingthecorre
lationsbetweenproductrequirementsandprocessrequirements.Sincethen,theJapaneseautomotive
industry has been on a relentless pursuit of customer satisfaction by starting the process further and
furtherupstream.
The 20th Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, October 24, 2008, Santa Fe, New Mexico USA
Copyright 2008 QFD Institute. All rights reserved.
23
In 1983, Dr. Yoji Akao, one of the cofounders of QFD, published an article in Quality Progress
2
and
taughtthemethodataseminarintheUnitedStates.AmongtheearliestadoptersweretheBig3North
Americanautocompanies(GeneralMotors,FordMotorCompany,ChryslerCorporation)andtheirtier1
suppliers. As key auto companies continue to press for market advantage in a global economy, QFD
toolsandtechniqueshavegrownmorepowerfulbyprovidingvalueintheformofabetterunderstand
ingthekeyneedsoftheircustomers.
TraditionalQFDvs.ModernQFD
The engineering community in mid20
th
century Japan was quite different. Lifetime employment was a
social guarantee, work hours were long, college graduates were hired instantly in employment cam
paignseachspring,theabacuswasacommondesktoptool,andcustomersweregenerallyconsidered
thenextstepintheprocess.Whatthismeantwasthataproductdevelopmentteamhadthetimeand
resources to do a comprehensive analysis of the quality requirements and how to resolve them. While
manufacturingwasmovingtowardslean,thetechnicalsideofthebusinesswasanythingbut.
Theattentiontodetailwaswellrepaid.Pullthroughbenefitsfromathoroughanalysisofdesignissues
helpedToyotaAutoBodyreducestartupcostsby61%from1977to1984
3
(Figure1).AkiraFukuhara,
thequalityassurancemanageratthattime,attributed
this not only to the improvements resulting from re
peatedapplicationofQFDtotheproductline,butalso
to the increased awareness of how all product quality
issues drive customer satisfaction. The Lite Ace mini
van project documented this detail by identifying four
major improvement opportunities in steering, rust,
sliding doors, and a moon roofs. The rust study (ac
tuallyareliabilitystudyandnotaQFD),deployedto16
levels of matrices and took some two years to com
plete.
ThepurposeoftheQFDmatrixistotransferthepriorityofsomeinputdataintopriorityofsomeoutput
data.Thatoutputisthenlinked(i.e.,deployed)astheinputforthenextleveldown,andsoforth.Thus,
any priority changes to the inputs of the first matrix (customer needs) could be reflected in changed
priority of all the subsequent linked matrices. This Toyota example applied this technique in the most
comprehensive way by deploying the customer needs from design all the way through to process con
trolwithatotalof16matrices.
The first of the 16 matrices showed 42 tertiary customer needs (there were about 800 needs in eight
hierarchicallevels)deployedtotertiaryqualitycharacteristics.Thesecondmatrixexpandedjustoneof
thetertiaryneedstoits53eighthlevelneedsanddeployedthesetoeighthlevelqualitycharacteristics.
Thethirdmatrixidentifiedcriticaloperationenvironmentsinwhichdifferentkindsofrustoccurredand
accelerated test conditions to mimic the environment. The fourth matrix deployed the impact of the
testsonbodystructure.Thefifthmatrixdeployedthebodyinwhitestructuretomanufacturingfacility
Figure1: ToyotareducesstartupcostswithQFD
24
conditions. The sixth matrix deployed manufacturing facility conditions to operation standards. The
seventh matrix deployed sealing conditions to process equipment. The eighth matrix deployed opera
tionstandardstoworkcontrolconditions.Theninthmatrixdeployedoperationstandardstooperation
controlconditions.Thetenthmatrixdeployedprocessoperationconditionstoworkcontrolconditions.
The twelfth matrix deployed quality characteristics into dip surface treatment conditions. The thir
teenthmatrixdeployedintermediatecoatingconditionsintoequipmentconditions.Thefourteenthand
fifteenth matrices deployed equipment conditions into operation standards, and finally, the sixteenth
matrixdeployedoperationstandardsintoworkcontrolconditions.Inotherwords,thiscomprehensive
approachgoesendtoend,fromdesigntoprocesscontrol.Thisisthehallmarkofassuredquality.
ThisstudybecameoneofthefoundationsofautomotivesupplierQFDintheU.S.andelsewhere,butits
magnitude was hard for beginners to grasp. A FujiXerox study
4
that used just four matrices was
adapted by American automotive suppliers to address common reliability concerns, and what became
knownasthe4phasemodelofQFDwasborn.Thefirstofthesephases,theHouseofQuality,evolved
to become synonymous with QFD, and practitioners eagerly grew these charts to sizes that approach
one million intersecting cells. Dr. Akao, when first showed one of these charts, struggled to bless the
effortsofoneautomotiveteambypraisinghowstraightthelineswere.(Japanesechartsweretypical-
ly drawnbyhandatthattimeandthiswasoneofthefirsttobeprintedonaplotter.)
Thestraightforward4Phasedeploymentof
productrequirementstoqualitycharacteristics(similartoToyotas2
nd
matrixabove),
qualitycharacteristicstopartparameters(3
rd
matrix),
partparameterstooperationconditions(5
th
matrix),and
operationconditionstoprocesscontrol(10
th
matrix)
islogicalandeasytolearn.AsaresultitquicklybecameTHEwaytodoQFDinnearlyeverycountryout
sideJapan.
Phase IV
Production
Controls
Qualit y Cont rol
Charts
CPRs
UCL
LCL
Phase IV
Production
Controls
Qualit y Cont rol
Charts
CPRs
UCL
LCL
CDRs CDRs
Phase II
Design Deployment
Design
Elements &
Characteristics
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Targets
Phase II
Design Deployment
Design
Elements &
Characteristics
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Targets
Phase III
Process Planning
Process Elements
& Parameters
D
e
s
i
g
n
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
ic
s
Targets
Phase III
Process Planning
Process Elements
& Parameters
D
e
s
i
g
n
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
ic
s
Targets
CCRs CCRs
Phase I
Developing Metrics
Company
Measures
Targets
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
R
o
o
t

W
a
n
t
s
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Phase I
Developing Metrics
Company
Measures
Targets
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
R
o
o
t

W
a
n
t
s
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
I D
V
D I D
V
D
Figure2:Typical4PhaseQFDmodel
Unfortunately, not all companies using QFD are auto part suppliers building to specifications from an
OEMautomaker.Manycompaniesmakeendproducts,services,software,foodproducts,etc.Evenfirst
and second tier auto part suppliers have major design responsibility. In such cases, the 4Phase QFD
modelmaynotcoverallthenecessarydeployments,thatis,itdoesnotgoendtoendtoassurequality.
25
The better approach, used in modern QFD, is to custom tailor a subset of the QFD matrices and other
toolsthatrepresentthemosteffectiveandefficientuseofteammemberstime.
ModernizingQFD
ModernQFD,utilizingtheBlitzQFDapproach,offersamoreefficientuseoftimebyreplacingmostif
notallmatriceswithmoreefficienttables,thattrackonlyasmallnumberofthemostcriticalcustomer
needs endtoend through the analysis, design, development, and build phases. The House of Quality
matrix,ontheotherhand,isonlythedeploymentoftheanalysisphaseintodesign(Figure3.)Additional
matricesmaybeneededtodeploypriorandfollowingproductdevelopmentissues.
TheautomotivesupplierbasewasreliantontheirOEMcustomertounderstandtheircustomersneeds
and priorities. Unfortunately, this was not always the case and so even suppliers with well developed
components suffered if the finished vehicle did not sell well. Thus, a stronger front end analysis of the
valuechainandmarketsegmentswasaddedinmodernQFD.
Figure3:BlitzQFDandHouseofQuality
Traditional QFD, as it developed in 1960s Japan in the precalculator and personal computer age, was
done by hand. To do the math, a simple five rating point scale was adopted that could be calculated
withanabacus.AlthoughitresemblesthefamiliarfivepointLikertScaleoftenusedinmarketresearch,
the QFD scale is used to determine importance and correlation, not agreement with a statement. Be
cause the fivepoint scale is an ordered scale, that is the interval between 1 and 2 is not necessarily
equidistanttotheintervalbetween4and5,statisticalanalysesarelimitedtomodeandmediancalcula
tions.ThismeansthatmanyofthemathoperationsintraditionalQFDviolatethislimitationandthere
sults have questionable meaning. The better approach, used in modern QFD, is to develop ratio scale
numbersusingtheAnalyticHierarchyProcess(AHP).
5
Finally,sincethe1960sandespeciallytoday,rightsizinghasleadmostorganizationstocutstafftothe
leanest possible levels. Add to this the pressures of rapidly advancing technology, global competitors,
multitaskingonseveralprojects,andcompressedtimetomarketdemands,andnewproductdevelop
mentteamsarehardpressedtofindtimetodoalltheQFDtheyshould.Tohelpaddressthemostcriti
26
cal needs first, modern QFD has included Blitz QFD as a matrixfree approach to first deploy only the
most important needs of the customer, endtoend throughout all the quality assurance phases. In the
Toyotaruststudy,forexample,BlitzQFDwouldincludeonlythecriticalfewconcernsofall16matric
es.
BrakeSensorCaseStudyDemonstratesModernQFDTools
Many automotive suppliers, such as TRW Automotive, tried using QFD only in terms of the 4Phase
modelabove,orevenasonlythefirstphase,theHouseofQualityMatrixwithlimitedsuccess.Aspres
surestoinfuseleanmethodsintotheproductdevelopmentprocesshaveincreased,thevalueofthese
matrices has come into question; engineering and program management are continually overwhelmed
withmanagingalltheproductrequirementsthatcustomersconsiderhighlyandequallyimportant.En
gineering teams and program managers lose interest in QFD very quickly when product delivery sche
dules are impacted. They typically default to a we know what the customers want mentality often
based on the loudest and most frequent demands, only to find later that some things were missing or
thattheyhadlostsightoftheoriginal projectpriorities.Thatisbecausethereisnoprojectwide,deep
understanding of customer needs or a structure in which to think about or comprehend them. Many
individualsmayeachcarryabitofthisdeepknowledge,butitcannotbeleveragedfortheteamuntilit
iscollected,organized,andprioritizedbybusinessandprojectgoals.
To gain this understanding, TRW Automotive applied the Blitz QFD approach to the design of a brake
system sensor. Blitz QFD focuses only on a small number of the most critical customer needs unlike
thetraditionalmatrixQFDwhereallcustomerneeds,qualitycharacteristics,functions,billofmaterials,
processes,etc.arecomprehensivelyanalyzed.Thus,itiscrucialthattheseneedsbeidentifiedcorrectly.
This requires some upfront clarification of what makes a need important (Figure 4). The voice of cus
tomer (VOC) analysis tools used in Blitz QFD are a powerful way to identify key customer needs. The
brakesensorstudywillbeusedtodemonstratesomeofthesetools.
27
0.249
0.195 0.192
0.158
0.147
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
Apply design
to multiple
platforms
without
concern over
sensor (plug&
play)
Consistent
Slip Control
System
operation
Develop new
vehicle
applications
with flexibility
andlowrisk
Reliable
systemover
life of vehicle
Robust to
environmental
noise-factors
0.558
0.263
0.122
0.057
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
Flexible,
Performing
Design
LowCost (BOM)LowCost (Total) Desirable
Product / High
Value
2. Project
Goals
3.
6. CVT
8. Cust. Needs
Hi erarchy
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
A
p
p
ly
d
e
s
ig
n
to
m
u
ltip
le
D
e
v
e
lo
p
n
e
w
v
e
h
ic
le
C
o
n
s
is
te
n
t
S
lip
C
o
n
tro
l
R
o
b
u
s
t to
e
n
v
iro
n
m
e
n
ta
l
R
e
lia
b
le
s
y
s
te
m
o
v
e
r
P
ro
te
c
t u
s
e
o
f
e
le
c
tr. C
irc
u
its
R
e
lia
b
le
F
a
ils
a
fe
&
P
ro
v
id
e
d
riv
e
r
w
ith
re
q
u
e
s
te
d
U
n
c
o
m
p
lic
a
te
d
a
s
s
e
m
b
ly
o
f
E
a
s
ily
s
e
rv
ic
e
s
e
n
s
o
r
"D
e
c
k
" th
e
M
/C
w
ith
o
u
t
E
a
s
y
to
a
s
s
e
m
b
le
M
/C
E
a
s
ily
re
m
o
v
e
M
/C
a
s
s
e
m
b
ly
E
a
s
y
to
a
s
s
e
m
b
le
10. QP
Table
11.
Top
Five
34.4%
32.9% 32.4%
26.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
LowCost (Total) LowCost (BOM) Desirable Product / High
Value
Flexible, Performing
Design
0.402
0.316
0.204
0.045 0.034
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
Best Quality
(Total Cost)
Lowest BOM
Cost
Minimal risk
to Customer
Innovative
Technology
Global Reach
Project goals weighted with
respect to Business goals
4.
1. Business
Goals
VOC
5.
Figure4:BlitzQFDsteps
1. BusinessGoals
Thefirststeptowardsastrongerfocusonkeycustomerneedsistoclarifyandprioritizethegoalsofthe
business. These priorities assure alignment of the business with the most critical customer messages.
Therearemanystakeholdersandcustomersthatmustbeconsidered.Akeyobjectivewastodelivera
coresensordesignthatofferedthemostvalueandlargestpositiveimpactwithrespecttokeystake
holders:theTRWbusiness,TRWengineeringgroupsforactuation,slipcontrol,andsensordevelopment,
TRWassembly,andOEMengineering&assembly.Table1definessomeofthebusinessgoals.
Table1:TRWbusinessgoals
28
2. ProjectGoals
Itiscommonintodaysglobalautomotivemarketforaprojecttobegiventoengineeringwiththesin
gulargoaloflowcost.Butwhatdoesthatmeanandwheredoesthatgoalstandwithrespecttoquali
ty,innovation,marketpenetration,orsaleabletomultiplecustomers?Toooften,thewordslowcost
areinterchangedwithlowprice.Thisclarificationisveryimportantanditmustbecommunicatedto
allstakeholdersoftheproject.
Projectgoalsare,bydefinition,morespecifictotheprojectthanbusinessgoals(Table2).Theyhelpcla
rify how a project will lead to the more general business goals and strategies. QFD and other cross
functional team members often serve, and are evaluated by, different organizational bosses, however.
Thus,teamobjectivesandprioritiescoulddifferfromindividualperformanceevaluationfactors.Clarifi
cation of departmental and team goals is important so that neither customers nor team members are
caught in the crossfire of internal battles. For example, engineering has the goals of performance and
billofmaterialscost.Manufacturinghasgoalsrelatedtoscrapandthroughput.Qualityiswatchingout
for production and postproduction related costs. Lest we forget, the customer wants a product that
meetsorexceedstheirrequirements.Obviously,inordertoavoidaseriouslysuboptimalsolution,some
caremustbetakentocombinethesevariousgoalswiththestatedneedsofthecustomer.
Table2:Brakesensorprojectgoals
3. PrioritizingwithAHP
ThebusinessandprojectgoalsshowninTables1and2describethevalueoftheprojecttoTRW,notthe
customer.NotallgoalsareequallyimportantandsotheywereprioritizedusingtheAnalyticHierarchy
ProcessorAHP(Table3).
PrioritizationinmulticriteriadecisionmakingwasadvancedbytheresearchofDr.ThomasSaatyinthe
1970sattheU.S.DepartmentofDefenseandlaterattheWhartonSchoolofBusinessattheUniversity
ofPennsylvania.Saatyfoundthatdecisionmakersfacingamultitudeofelementsinacomplexsituation
innatelyorganizedthemintogroupssharingcommonproperties.Hethenorganizedthosegroupsinto
higherlevelgroups,andsoonuntilatopelementorgoalwasidentifiedthusformingahierarchy.When
makinginformedjudgmentstoestimateimportance,preference,orlikelihood,bothtangibleandintang
iblefactorsmaybeincludedandmeasured.TheAnalyticHierarchyProcess(AHP)wascreatedtoman
agethisprocessinamannerthatcapturestheintuitiveunderstandingoftheparticipantsandalsoyields
mathematicallystableresultsexpressedinanumerical,ratioscale.Anumerical,ratioscaleispreferred
forthefollowingreasons:
29
1) Numericalprioritiescanbeappliedtolateranalysestoderivedownstreampriorities.
2) Ratio scale priorities show precisely how much more important one issue is than another. Or
dinalscalesonlyindicaterankorder,butnotthemagnitudeofimportance.
3) Numericalscalescanbetestedforjudgmentinconsistency,sensitivity,andotherproperties.
AHPhasbeensuccessfullyappliedinmanygovernmentandindustrydecisionstoclarifyfuzzyandoften
emotionalgoals,andbuildconsensusonthebestwaystoaddressthem.
AtTRW,AHPwasusedtorealigntheprojectteamwithkeycorporateobjectivesandpriorities.Thefour
business goals were examined via pairwise comparison for relative importance on a verbal scale from
equalimportancetoextremelymoreimportant.Theseverbalcomparisonswereconvertedtoanu
merical scale of 19 in accordance with the AHP methodology. Best quality is considered equal to
moderatelymoreimportantthanlowestpriceandsoa2wasenteredintothegridshowninTable3.
Similarevaluationsweremadebetweenallsixpossiblepairingsofthebusinessgoalsshowninthecen
ter of the grid (goals compared to themselves and inverses are shaded yellow). Applying AHP, the re
sultsshowtheratioscalepercentageofrelativeimportanceintherightmostcolumnofthegrid,labeled
rowaverage.Asignificantlydeeperlevelofcomprehensionofthebusinessgoalscannowbecommu
nicated given the ratiobased relationship between Best Quality and Innovative Technology; relating
49%to6%carrieswithitasignificantlydeepermeaningthan1
st
to4
th
place.
Table3:TRWbusinessgoalsprioritizedwithAHP
Four Best Quality
Lowest
Price
Global
Reach
Innovative
Technology sum
row
avg
Best Quality 1 2 5 7 0.543 0.609 0.357 0.438 1.946 0.486
Lowest Price 1/2 1 7 7 0.271 0.304 0.500 0.438 1.513 0.378
Global Reach 1/5 1/7 1 1 0.109 0.043 0.071 0.063 0.286 0.071
Innovative Technology 1/7 1/7 1 1 0.078 0.043 0.071 0.063 0.255 0.064
1.843 3.286 14.000 16.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 4.000 1.000
0.00
Inconsistency
Ratio

4. Deployingbusinessgoalsintoprojectgoals
Projectgoalsmustalignwithorbedrivenbythebusinessgoals.Iftheydonot,theprojectrunstherisk
ofdeliveringsomethingtothecustomerthattheoverallbusinessstrategycannotsupport.Thebusiness
goalsaregenerallystablebuttheirrespectiveprioritiesmaychangeovertimeduetomarketingstrate
gies or fluctuations due to various economic pressures. If they do change, the relative (ratioscale)
prioritiesmustbedrivendownstreamintheproductdevelopmentprocess.Thatis,thestrategiesmust
be communicated through the business goals, on through the project goals, and ultimately into the
productitself.
Themechanicsofchecking&aligningtheprojectgoalswiththebusinessgoalsareasfollows:
1. Developarelationshipstrengthtable withAHPderivedpriorities.Therelationshipstrength
betweentheBusinessandProjectgoalsisindicatedwiththeModernQFDsymbolsetbased
oninternationalweathersymbolsandquantifiedusingAHP(Table4).Theweathersymbols
indicatethestrengthoftherelationshipbetweenthebusinessgoalsandtheprojectgoals
30
specificallythedegreetowhicheachprojectgoalshelpstoachieveeachbusinessgoal.The
strongestrelationshipisafullyfilledincircleandthenitdecreasestoanopencircleasthe
weakest,andasimpledottoindicatethereisnotarelationshipbutitwasatleastdiscussed.
ThesesymbolsareweightedusingAHPtoquantifythemonaratioscale(remembertheor
dinalscaleintraditionalQFDdoesnotsupporttherequiredmathfunctions).
2. Askthequestionofeachintersectionofbusinessandprojectgoals,howstronglydoespro
jetgoalXpositivelyimpactbusinessgoalY?Forexample,beginbyaskingthequestionfor
oneoftheintersectingpairs,TowhatdegreedoestheProjectGoalofFlexibleDesigndrive
theBusinessGoalofBestQuality?IntheTRWsensorproject,managementsresponseto
this question was that this was a weak relationship. This was indicated by an empty circle
symbolandrespectivelyanAHPderivedweightof0.035(Table4).
3. Aftertherelationshipsymbolsaredetermined,therowweights(businessgoalpriorities)are
multiplied bythesymbol weightsandtheproducts aresummed column bycolumn. These
arecalledtheabsoluteweightsinthesecondfromlastrow(Table5).
4. Normalize the absolute weight priorities such that they sum to unity. This method allows
for as many as nine levels of relationships instead of the three in traditional QFD, and to
scoretheminratioscaleinsteadofthelimitedordinalscale.Inthesemathematicalanalys
es,generallyaminimumoffivelevelsispreferredtoassurestatisticalprecision.
Referencing Table 5 again, the intent was to offer a comparison of perspectives between the original
project goal priorities as engineering had comprehended them from the given requirements package
and priorities that were deployeddown from the business goals. The comparison made obvious some
significantdiscrepanciesfromthesetwoperspectives.
Table4:QFDrelationshipstrengthwithsymbols
Symbols Priorities
Extremely strong relationship 9 0.503
Very strong relationship 7 0.260
Strong relationship 5 0.134
Moderate relationship 3 0.068
Weak relationship 1 0.035
No relationship 0 0.000

31
Table5:Businessgoalprioritiesdeployedintoprojectgoalpriorities
Business Goals
1 0 5 9
0.035 0.000 0.134 0.503
1 9 0 5
0.035 0.503 0.000 0.134
7 7 7 7
0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260
0 0 9 0
0.000 0.000 0.503 0.000
0.049 0.209 0.116 0.314
0.071 0.304 0.169 0.457
Deployed (Absolute) Weights
Normalized & Aligned Project Goal Weights
0.150
Global Reach 0.071
Innovative Technology 0.064
Original Project Goal Assumptions/Priorities =>
0.378 Lowest Price
Best Quality 0.486
L
o
w

B
O
M

P
r
i
c
e
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

d
e
s
i
g
n
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
L
o
w

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

R
i
s
k
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
)
Project Goals
0.508 0.257 0.085
Ofparticularinterestinthisspecificdeployment
was how the project goal priorities were af
fected by the business goals. Notice that the
project goal of Flexible Design was initially car
ryingjustover50%(0.508)oftheprojectpriori
ty (Figure 5). However, after it was deployed
across (i.e., aligned with) the business goal
priorities, it fell to just over 7%. This is a very
significant piece of (discrepant) information for
the engineering and management teams! This
activity of aligning with the business goals lead
toincreasedawarenessforbothparties.
Figure5:Projectgoalalignmentbybusinessgoals
5. VoiceofCustomer
Themostcriticalgoalsofthisprojectwerenowclarified;reducerisktotheOEMcustomerandachievea
low bill of materials price as indicated by the above matrix. To achieve this, internal customers who
makeotherdesigndecisionsthataffectriskandcostneededtobeincludedintheanalysis.Thus,engi
neerswithin theactuationandsensorgroupwereinterviewedto learntheirlikesand dislikeswiththe
currentdesign,theirwantsandneedsforafuturedesign,anddesignprocessopportunitiestoworkto
gethermoreeffectively.
6. CustomerNeeds
All interview verbatims and technical specifications were recorded and parsed into simplified state
ments for further analysis in the Customer Voice table (CVT). Table 6 shows how the CVT was used to
map the sensor requirements back to the customer needs. Additional customer needs were derived
30%
17%
46%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Flexible
design
Low BOM
Price
Technology
Leadership
Low
Customer
Risk
Original
Priorities
Aligned to
Business
32
fromsituationswheretherewerepreviouslyidentifiedproblems.Thistoolincreasedtheunderstanding
ofeachvoiceofcustomer(VOC)inputinthecontextofthecustomersenvironmentandlanguage.Cus
tomer needs have a unique definition in QFD; they are positively worded, singular statements that de
scribeaproblem,opportunity,orinimageconcernfromthecustomersperspective.Theyarenotabout
ourproduct;theyareaboutthecustomersproductorprocess.
TheCVTactivityhelpedsurfacethekeycustomerneedssuchthattheycouldbeconnectedwithproject
goalsand,subsequently,prioritizedonaratioscale.Thisisanoteworthypoint;theprojectmanagercan
now comprehend the requirements (where everything is said to be of equal and high/utmost impor
tance)onaratioscale.Whentradeoffsmust(astheyalwaysdo)bemadeintheproductdevelopment,
theprojectmanagernowhasadefensiblemaptonavigateandguidehimorhertomaketheappropri
atechoicefortheoverallprojectsuccess.
Table6:CustomerVoiceTable(CVT)mappingvoiceofcustomerintotruecustomerneeds(partial)
7. CustomerNeedsAffinityDiagram
Oncethecustomerneeds aredefined, they must beprioritizedsothatweknowwhereto concentrate
ourvaluableengineeringeffort.InmodernQFD,weuseasequenceofthreetoolstodothis.Thethree
tools are affinity diagram to capture the customers mental structure about their needs, hierarchy dia
gram to check the structure and discover unspoken needs, and the AHP to get the customers to easily
andaccuratelyprioritizetheirneeds.
TheaffinitydiagramisagroupingtechniquedevelopedbyaJapaneseculturalanthropologisttouncover
underlyingstructuresinthebeliefsystemsofforeigncultures.Inasense,customersareaforeigncul
turetothedevelopmentteam,andthistoolisveryhelpfulinhelpingbreakexistingparadigms.Thecus
tomer needs are written on cards which customers then arrange into groups and super groups which
theyname,respectively,withmoreabstractheadercards(Figure6).
33
Figure6:Affinitydiagramofcustomerneeds(partial)
8. HierarchyDiagram
The hierarchy diagram is used to check the structural levels of the customer needs. (Figure 7) It is also
used to discover additional missing needs. These two tasks are important to subsequent prioritization
with AHP, where the accuracy of the results is improved when the items in the hierarchy are mutually
exclusive and collectively exhaustive (MECE). For example, to compare the juiciness of an apple to an
orange,onecouldestablishthattheorangewasjuicierandevendeterminetherelativedegreeofjuici
nessontheAHPverbalscaleofequaltoextreme,explainedabove.However,ifthehierarchystructure
isincorrect,wemightbeaskedtodeterminewhichisjuicier,anappleorapieceoffruit.Sinceanapple
isapieceoffruit(itisasubsetoffruit),anaccuratecomparisoncannotbemade.
Thesecondtaskofuncoveringmissingneedsisdonebeexploringthegroupsinthehierarchydiagram.
Forexample,ifourfruitgroupincludesapple,orange,banana,pear,andplum,weshouldaskifthere
areotherfruitstoconsider,suchaspeachesandpears.Forthesensorproject,theaffinitydiagramout
putsarerotated90degreesinordertoillustratethehierarchy.
9. PrioritizingCustomerNeedswithAHP
OncethecustomerneedshierarchyhasmettheMECEtest,weaskthecustomerstotelluswhichneeds
aremostimportant.TheAHP,describedpreviously,iseasyforcustomerstoevaluateandproducesvery
accurateratioscaleresultsofrelativeimportance.Itiseasyforcustomersbecausewhenthereisalarge
numberofneeds,customerscanusethehierarchicalstructuretotheiradvantagetoreducetheeffort.
They can begin the pairwise comparison at the primary level, and then only pursue the high priority
branchestothesecondarylevel,andsoon.Thiscanreducethenumberofevaluationstolessthanone
thirdofalltheitems.Inatraditionalsurvey,however,customersmustrateeachoftheneedsonanor
dinalscale,resultinginfatigueandnumberswithlimitedusefulnesslaterintheQFD.Table7showsthe
resultsoftheprioritization ofthecustomerneedsfortheTRWbrakesystemsensor.Again,noticethe
impact of the ratioscale importance values compared to the lesser information that a top14 list with
ordinalbasedprioritywouldprovide.Onlythetop5customerneedsofTable7arecarriedforthinthe
casestudyforthesakeofbrevity.
34
Primary Secondary Terti ary
Easy to assembl e M/C assy. to vehi cl e
Easy to assembl e sensor el ectri cal
connecti on
Smooth Assembly
Process
80.0% local
Uncompl i cated assembl y of sensor
i nto actuati on unit
26.7% global
"Deck" the M/C wi thout damage
Assembl y &
Repai r
33.3%
Easi l y remove M/C assembl y
0
Si mple Repair
Process
20.0% local
Easi ly servi ce sensor
6.7% global
0
Successful
Desi gn
Figure7:Hierarchydiagramofcustomerneeds(partial)
Table7:CustomerneedsprioritiesfromAHP
10. QualityPlanningTabletoWeightsforCompetitiveBenchmarkingandSales
Dr. Akaos model for comprehensive QFD allows adjustment of customer needs weights to account for
competitive benchmarking and sales claims and effort. In traditional QFD, customer needs were priori
tized, competitive products were benchmarked, and sales claims or sales points were identified and
weighted using an ordinal 15 scale. However, when these numbers are multiplied to calculate an ag
35
gregateweight,thisusesanimpropermathoperationonordinalnumbers,thusyieldingaresultwhose
meaning cannot be determined. In modern QFD, this has been fixed (Table 7) by applying AHP once
againtoeachofthesecategories.
Table8:QualityPlanningTable(QPT)usingAHPderivedrelationshipstrengths
TheQualityPlanningTable,orQPTshowninTable8,iswhereallthevoicescometogethertoweighin
on the relative importance of the customer needs. One could take the view that if each of the key
customerneedsisnotfulfilled,theprojectwillbedeemedafailure.Therealityofphysicsoftendictates
otherwise; compromises and tradeoffs are always made. Further, if the customer needs are being ful
filledinconflictwiththebusinessplanandstrategy,itislikelythatacompanywontbeinbusinessvery
long. Those points in mind, the key customer needs were deployed across the project goals, Competi
tiveImprovementopportunity,andSalesPointopportunity.Again,inthisexamplethetop5customer
needsfromTable7werecarriedintotheQPTforbrevity.
ProjectGoalsAfairamounthasalreadybeensaidabouttheimportanceoftheproject
goals. Thus far, they inherited their priority from the business goals. Here in the QPT
theyaredeployedtothekeycustomerneeds.
CompetitiveImprovementHerethekeycustomerneedsaredeployedacrosstheop
portunitytopositionourproductagainstthecompetitionshouldwefulfillaspecificcus
tomerneed.Ifthefulfillmentofaparticularcustomerneedwouldprovideasignificant
competitiveadvantage,itshouldbegivenaslightincreaseinitsrelativeimportance.
SalesPointHerethekeycustomerneedsaredeployedacrosstheopportunitytogain
additionalsales.
11. AdjustedCustomerNeedWeights
Ultimately,theprocessresultedinaprioritizedlistofcustomerneedsthatcouldthenbeusedthrough
outthedesignprocess(Table9).
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

d
e
s
i
g
n
L
o
w

B
O
M

P
r
i
c
e
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
L
o
w

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

R
i
s
k
Top 5 Key Customer Needs Need 0.271 0.071 0.304 0.169 0.457 0.490 0.154 0.084
0.444 0.147 0.071 0.444 0.444 0.643
huge big some huge huge high
0.444 0.071 0.071 0.301 0.071 0.283
huge some some very big some moderate
0.444 0.037 0.147 0.444 0.301 0.074
huge none big huge very big none
0.071 0.037 0.147 0.301 0.301 0.283
some none big very big very big moderate
0.071 0.037 0.301 0.444 0.071 0.074
some none very big huge some none
0.054 0.005
0.474 0.040
0.208 0.018
0.009 0.054 0.005
0.208 0.018 0.039
0.059
Competitive Improvement
S
a
l
e
s

P
o
i
n
t
L
o
c
a
l

S
a
l
e
s

P
o
i
n
t

p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
G
l
o
b
a
l

S
a
l
e
s

P
o
i
n
t

P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
Sales Point
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
0.253
0.058
0.009
0.039
Theysay
about us
Theysay
about them
Goal 0.374
0.059
Robust to environmental noise-factors
0.095 0.026
0.080
Apply design to multiple platforms without
concern over sensor (plug &play)
Uncomplicated assembly of sensor into
actuation unit
Consistent Systemoperation
Develop newvehicle applications with
flexibility and lowrisk
0.022
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

G
o
a
l

p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
Project Goals
0.098
0.063
0.044
0.027
0.232
0.161
L
o
c
a
l

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
T
o
p
-
5
G
l
o
b
a
l

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

N
e
e
d
s

p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g

P
l
a
n
0.278
0.174
0.194
0.143
0.212
0.253
36
Adjusted Customer Needs
1 3 5 0
0.035 0.068 0.134 0.000
5 3 5 1
0.134 0.068 0.134 0.035
3 3 5 1
0.068 0.068 0.134 0.035
5 5 5 1
0.134 0.134 0.134 0.035
5 3 5 1
0.134 0.068 0.134 0.035
Absolute Weight 0.091 0.078 0.134 0.024
Normalized Weight 0.278 0.239 0.410 0.073
Robust to environmental noise-factors 0.174
Consistent Systemoperation 0.186
0.159
Develop new vehicle applications with
flexibility and low risk
0.172
Uncomplicated assembly of sensor into
actuation unit
Apply design to multiple platforms without
concern over sensor (plug & play)
0.309
S
e
n
s
o
r

B
S
e
n
s
o
r

A
S
e
n
s
o
r

C
S
e
n
s
o
r

D
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
)
Sensor Type
Table9:Top5deployedcustomerneedsusedinsensordesignselection
Ultimately,theeffortputforthtounderstandallthevariouscustomerneedsandorganizationalmotives
wasusedinaconceptselectionexercise.Table9showshowthedeploymentprocessdescribedpre
viouslywasessentiallyrepeatedtoselectsensordesignCbyasignificantmargin.Giventheclarity
andtraceabilityofferedbytheBlitzQFDapproach,theselectiondecisionwasbothdefensibleandwell
documented.
28%
24%
41%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Sensor
A
Sensor
B
Sensor
C
Sensor
D
Figure8:Sensordesignselectionresults
37
IntegratingQFDandPDP
TRWisembeddingQFDandotherDefineforSixSigma(DFSS)toolsandmethodsintotheirproductde
velopment process (PDP). This integration is beginning to pay dividends by adding value to the PDP;
improvingknowledgeincriticalareasthatweretypicallydriversofdesign,build,testiterationsandoth
erformsofengineeringwaste.ThisisValueBasedProductDevelopment.
SummaryandNextSteps
EarlyadoptersofQFDintheautomotiveindustryhavestruggledtofindthetimeandresourcestodo
thelargematricesthatweretaughtbeginninginthe1980s.QFDhasmodernizedinresponsetothe
changingneedsofitspractitioners(customers)ascompanieshavegrownmorelean,fasterpaced,and
moredemandingofvalueaddateverystepoftheproductdevelopmentprocess.Thisexampleillu
stratedthisadaptationbyassuringthattheproductwaswhatthecustomerswantedwithinthebounds
oftheclarifiedTRWbusinessgoals.Moreimportantly,thealignmentwiththeTRWbusinesspriorities
assistedtheprojectmanagersearlyintheprojectwithkeepingthevaluableengineeringeffortfocused
ondeliveringthemostimportantaspectsofthedesignwithoutdistractionsandunnecessaryiterations.
ByadoptingmodernBlitzQFD,TRWhopestomaintainitsleadershipasakeybrakesystemsupplierto
autocompaniesacrosstheglobe.
Additional papers and related topics may be found by linking on the Internet through the following
homepage:www.mazur.net
References
1
OshiumiKiyotaka.1966.PerfectingQualityAssuranceSysteminPlants,(Japanese)QualityControlVol.17(May
1966):6267(supp.).
2
KogureMasaoandAkaoYoji.1983.QualityFunctionDeploymentandCompanyWideQualityControlinJapan:a
strategyforassuringthatqualityisbuiltintoproducts.QualityProgress.October,1983.pp.2529.
3
Sullivan,LarryP.1986.QualityFunctionDeploymentasystemtoassurethatcustomerneedsdrivetheproduct
designandproductionprocess.QualityProgress.June1986.pp.3950.
4
King,Bob.1989.BetterDesignsinHalftheTime.GOAL/QPC.Prefacepage2.ISBN1879364018
5
Saaty,Thomas.2007.TheAnalyticHierarchyProcess:HowtoMeasureIntangiblesinaMeaningfulWaySideby
SidewithTangibles.Transactionsofthe19thSymposiumonQFD.QFDInstitute.ISBN1889477192
AbouttheAuthors
Chad M. Johnson has been involved with 6 strategy, material development, training delivery, and
projectimplementationacrossglobalTRWsitesforseveralyears.HeisaTRWcertified6MasterBlack
Belt and is a senior member of the American Society for Quality (ASQ). He is currently located at the
TRW Automotive Braking Division World Headquarters in Livonia, MI, where his attentions have been
primarily focused on the topics of Quality Function Deployment, Stochastic Variation Analysis, Design
Optimization, and the Design of Experiments. Chad holds a Bachelor of Science degree from General
Motors Institute in Mechanical Engineering. He began his engineering career with the Allison Gas Tur
bine division of General Motors in 1984 as a Quality department sponsored undergraduate coop stu
38
dent and remained there as a full time employee until 1991 when he transferred to Hughes Aircraft in
Troy,MIdevelopingNoise&Vibrationdiagnostic&testsystems.HemovedtoTRWAutomotivein1993
as a braking slipcontrol systems engineer and naturally returned to his Quality roots by moving into
the6Sigmaprogramin2001uponitsinceptionwithinTRW.
GlennH.MazurhasbeenactiveinQFDsinceitsinceptioninNorthAmerica,andhasworkedextensively
withthefoundersofQFDontheirteachingandconsultingvisitsfromJapan.Heisaleaderintheappli
cationofQFDtoserviceindustriesandconsumerproducts,conductsadvancedQFDresearch,andisthe
ConferenceChairfortheannualNorthAmericanSymposiumonQualityFunctionDeployment.Glennis
theExecutiveDirectoroftheQFDInstituteandInternationalCouncilforQFD,AdjunctLectureronTQM
attheUniversityofMichiganCollegeofEngineering(ret.),PresidentofJapanBusinessConsultantsLtd.,
andisaseniormemberoftheAmericanSocietyforQuality(ASQ),andtheJapaneseSocietyforQuality
Control(JSQC).HeisacertifiedQFDRedBelt(highestlevel),oneoftwoinNorthAmerica.Heisacerti
fiedQFDArchitekt#A21907byQFDInstitutDeutschland.
39

New QFD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New QFD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE TWENTIETH SYMPOSIUM ON

QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT

You might also like