Product Design Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development Kevin N. Otto Massachusetts Institute of Technology Kristin L. Wood University of Texas at Austin Prentice [Qe AIIM Upper Saddle River, Nj 07458Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data orzo, Kevin % Product design/ Otte, Kevin W. and Mood, Kristin 1 j P. cn. includes blbliogzaphica? references end index ISBN 0-13-021271-7 1, Design, Industrial. 2, New products. 3. Production Managenent I, Wood, Kristin b. Ir. Title Acquisitions Editor: Laura Qusless Vice-President and Director of Production and Manufacturing, ESM: David W. Riccardi Vice-President and Editorial Director of ECS: Marcia Horton Executive Managing Editor: Vince O'Brien Managing Editor: David A. George ‘Art Management: Xiahong Zhu ‘Manufacturing Buyer: Pat Brown Marketing Manager: Danay Hoyt 2001 Prentice Hall "cs Foe Ine Uppes Saddle Rives, New Jersey 7458 Prentice Hell books are widely used by corporations and government agencies for training, market- ing, and resale. The publisher offers discounts on this book when ordered in bulk quantities. or more information, contact Corporate Sales Department, Phone: 800-382-3419, Fax: 201-236-7141; E-mail: corpsales@prenhall.com. ‘Or write: Prentice Hall, Corp. Sales Dept,, One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, NF 07458. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher ISEN # 0-23-¢21271-7 Printed in the United States of America 10987654321 Prentice-Hall International (UK) Limited, London Prentice-Hall of Australia Pty. Limited, Sydney Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., Toronto Prentice-Hall Hispanoamericana, $.A., Mexico Prentice-Hall of india Private Limited, New Delhi Prentice-Hall of Japan, Inc. Tokyo Prentice-Hall Asia Pee, Singapore Editoza Prentice-Fiall do Brasil, Ltda., Rio de Janeiro Dedicated t love, To those the Laurie; my p Bob, ard Jud first kindledBaNcHPIARNING Ano Esraalisnine Aneinies CIAICATION: ompory and should not Rather, one should identify competitors who #42 suc~ ‘ologies, such ‘cessful in tae market. and then the benchmarking activity should aking systen focus on determining what iis the carspetiors do that rakes therm that "bench- success pany Vistoon “The second point one should realize about benchmarking is one that a student might think would go without sayirg except chat tis us- tect partial ally the key problem with benchmarking, Most often a company wil the roadmap complete of pay for an external benchmarking and then do ab uct poryfoiie Solutely nothing with the results. They may read the results, bu: lestones over soften companies will” explain asey” any shortcomings oftheir prod foran indus- ties or processes and not make Fundantental change. This is espe cially true when it will involve a major restructucing of company mpanies for processes. This consistently happens, because people are afraid of steon can re- mey remain necessary change. rune ‘The point to take away is that benchmarking {s one activity in a product development process, and as discussed in Chapter 1, dif told realize ferent companies operate in different markets. As all Cecis.ons in ing technol- product development, the decision over the level aad frequency of snow: com. ‘benchmarking requires wisdom and judgment, and the act-ons thar arkets rarely a benchmarking activity indicate are required should not be light rm, Further, ly ignored aan Ie any case, the establishment af opportunities and specifications fer peampls: jure products is required whether er 10 benchmarking is done, We processing next turn to discuss the activity of establishing product performance saunas specifications. “chasing the tld be cere- V. SETTING PRODUCT sidcsone SPECIFICATIONS ategy to a vald use the Having benchmarked competitive products on customer and techei acompany cal criteria, one next step is to use this information to set targets fora tition. Also, new product development effort, Since nev procict specifications are nology that the purpose behind and culmination of the benchmarking process, we "negate the discuss it next. The benchmarking process allows us to understand Ald be care- ‘where there are potential openings in the market ard so establish what mation, it would take to take advantage of suca opportunities, We now hegin to mitigate to establish these new required levels of performance ie competi- \We are therefore leaving behind the first phase of preduct develop~ rest no in- ment-—understand the opportunity—andare moving on o inmtiate the u probably second phase of product develop: develop a concept: Figure 16) 263Proouer Desi Specification Process Specifications fora new product are quantitative, measurable criteria that the product should be designed to satisfy. They are the measurable goals for the des gn team. Specifications, like much design informa: tion, should be established early and revisited often ‘There are two aspects toa specification that need to be clarified. First, the specification: on a dimension that can support units, That i, there are associated dirvensions: meters, degeees Fahrenheit, lumens, horse- power,and so fort. A quantity that has units we will also callan engi- . neering requirement. In addition to having units, though, a specification 4 ‘nueds a arget value. Ths isa number along the dimensional unit that establishes required performance. A target value can bea specific value or a range: 1, 30-42, 270, blue, and so an. Product specifications can occur at many levels at different points in a development process: targets at the precancept phase are different from cefined targets at the embodiment phase. For example, withthe coffer mill, knowing or no: knowing that one will use a removable chopping chamber in the new cortcept will obviously make 3 difference in the appropriaieness of a “chamber removal force” specification. ‘ Early concept independent criteria (such as “Opening ease") get re he Ht fined into performance specifications fora selected concept, which in i term get refined into specifications for subspstems, assemblies. parts, 5 features, and so cn Each specification should be measurable—testable or veriiable—at i tach stage of the cevelopment process not just at the end of the process H when the produc. is designed and buile. In the end, "if it isn't testable E H and quantifiable, t isn'ta specification.” The testis), the means of mea- E / suring the perfomance of the product's system ‘and subsystems), should always be stated and agreed on up front i ‘We present here ove important milestone of establishing specifications, F ‘one that occurs justafiera benchmarking activity and just before new concept development, Ths stage isa point in the development proces ‘when overall product specifications should be well considered. De- tailed specifications for individual parts and assemblies can wait, but > \ high-level performance targets should be established. ‘We develop specif cations using two approaches, the first from a check- = list viewpoint and the second from a viewpoint of the translation of P qualitative customer needs, Both are necessary. For the translation of E, Customer needs, We present two methods, a Basic approach ting the House of Quality and an advanced approach using value analysis. First, t however, we will resentan important distinction among design spec : i o LL 784BancMARKING ANb Esrabusiine ENeINEMING Seeccarions fications, that of functional performance requirements versus overall, product constraints ttable criteria ve measurable Functional Requirements Versus Constraints ign informa When developing the eagincering requirements for a product devel ‘opment project, the design eam must coliect enough information from lied. First r the customersand other sources to produce a specie set of needs, En That is, there gincering requirements fall into two categories, fictional requirements ens, horse: and constraits veal an. engi- Eunctional requirensents are statements of the specific performance of specication 1, that is, what the device should da. Functional requirements tal uni that should he stated, initially, in the broadest {most generic) terms, They Pevific vale should focus on performance, be stated in terms of logical relacion~ ships, and be stated, initially, in "solution neutral” terms nt points in Aclear definitions) ofthe function(s} is essentil in design, To solve are different any technical problem, we need to describe in a clear and repro~ ate. with the ducible way the relatioaship between each of the available (or spec: ‘removable ified) inputs and each of the desired (or required) outputs. These a difference relationships between the inputs and the outputs establisa the fune- vecification, tion af the system (Chapter 5). im this sense, the function is an ab- Sse) get re: siract formulation of the task thar is te be acconeplisied ard is Pt, which in independent of any particular solution (physical systema) tat is em bhies, parts ployed toackieve the desired result Functions are generally stat in terms of physically quantifiable (measurable) effects and in terms of ‘ifable—at mathematica relationships, Textual (or verbal) desriptions oF func the process tions usual y consist of verb anéa nouns “increase presse "trans an testable fer torque,’ 0° “reduce speed Functional requirements shoutd be rnsof mea- stated in these terms followed hy appropriate quantification to mes- systems) suce the specification Constraints are external factors that, in some way, limit the selection ‘ifications, of system or subsystem characteristics. They aze not directly related before new to the function (or functional objective) of the system. but apply ent process across the set of functions for the system. They are generally im- dered. Do- posed by factors outside the designers’ control. Cost and schedule 9 wait, but are constraints, Size, weight, materials properties, and safety issues such as nontoxic, nontlammable materials are constraints. Specisi cations relative to surface finish and tolerances may of may not be considered constraints (e.., in the case of a mirsor a particular sur face finish would be coasidered a functional recuirement rather than. aconstraint), macheck: 'slation of 'slation of sing the lysis, Fist, Constraints can drive the solution of many products, especially large sign spec scale systems. Because of this fact, the constraints should be added with 285Paoover Besien particular care, ard no constesint should be added frivolously, but only if it really exists, These guidelines Iead to the following guideline ‘Constraints should e estab hed only afer critical evaluation, {n addition to identifying functional requirements and constraints it is useful to guide she specification generation process with 2 function: al decomposition straiegy, as in Chapter 5, That i, each specification «can be considera: being met when several more-detaled specifications are simultaneous met. By taking this flow-down approach, specifica- tions witl be more directly elevant to particular subsystems and com- ponents and so have @ greater likelihood of attainment. This will be further developec in Chapter 9 in discussions on product architecture and modularity. Basic Method: Specification Sheets Customer needs 4o not necessarily provide a complete picture for a design task. ‘They provide the foundation to focus design efforts, but there also exist other criteria that are important toa design task that the customer may not even perceive, such as standards, ethics, and manu- facturing, Therefore, itis important to supplement and complerment consumer needs with engineering requirements. One method to sup- plement consumer needs isto consider a larger “customer” base in cluding stakeholders, such as the manufacturers, the assemblers, the marketers, and the distributors, and consider them desiga customers, {This approach tends to obscuze and diminish the point-of-view of the person who will he buying the product, Alternatively, we may apply an approach known as Specification List Gereration that uses decompesition to guide a search for relevant spec- ications. This approach focuses on specifications that are latent (the customers do need them, but they do not think to express them}, such as satty, regulations, and environmental factors, Designating eaca spec ification as 2 required demand or a desirable wish will communicate itslevel of imporance. Consider the checklist in Table 7.2 that is qaite useful in identifying specifications, (developed by Franke, 1975), Franke studied a number of specification processes in industry to develop this list It provides a decomposition strategy for developing specifcations, listing categories that aid a comprehensiveness and completeness ‘Using the Franke breakéown, a convenient procedure for developing general specifications will now be outlined, This procedure represents basic approach fr specification generation, but it must be augmented with the necessary effort and “perspiration.” 786BENCHMARONG AND ESTABLISHING ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS TABLE 7.2, CATEGORIES FOR SEARCHING AND DECOMPOSING utonl 7e: : SPECIFICATIONS (FRANKE, 1975). Syecinenion enepey Descipe ‘Geant Diners, ae renee hindi Kimersatics ‘Type and direction of macion, ve'ncity. atl Forces Drrection and magnitude. frequency. load impened by. Lain ‘ehesgy type. eflicieney, capacity: conversing. temperature anene Materia Properties af final praduet, Now st materials. design for xifica manufacturing «DEMO Icom- Signa dep and utp py will be sales Prteston ses ecture xgommics Cv tes, tumaninetae ses Prodeton Factory isting wate Quy Cont Pri fort Assenbly Seley BFMA or pci yulnans we eee fora “Tansee a peat Fvronmet es 6 48 mine plied Mioemine Sg iu _ Manuacting cons eras ots a Schedules Time consis eee ‘sup: eine al 1. Compile specifications. Arrange the functional requirements (FR) ihe and constraints (C) into dear order. Table 7,3 shows at exarnple Specification-sheet template for compiling the specifications. toy rocket product is shown in the te-piate 1 List When compiling the specifications, begin with the functional re specs quirements and then ist the constraints. Also, vemen:be> thet at (the the preconcept stage, specifications must not be domain or form such specific; for example, a specification on “Gear speed" woud be in pee appropriate initially. This guideline on domain specifications on! a holds true before concepts are developed. Once a preferred con- «cept is selected, che form-independent specifications are expannd- ying ed into particular form-specific specifications, aber 2. Determine if each of the functional requirements and constrairts lesa is a demand or a wish, mnies 3, Determine if the functional requirements and constraints are logi- cally consistent. Check fr obvious confit. It is important to rzake ving sure that the customer needs (and thus the specications) ean 2¢ ans ‘met and that they are technically and economically feasible. if asys- xted tem cannot be buil to meet the stated speciicetions or within the stated constraints the customer should be sold immediately 287Pay wc Desks & TABLE 7.3. SPECIFICATION SHEET TEMPLATE, EXAMPLE OF ATOY ROCKET PRODUCT (PARTIAL) Denard Project Toy rocker dig specication Dats grain sheet func requiements/constcnts Responsibly ‘TewWerifeation uncial Reguroments 12S Provicethnistfor maxima height DE Bemnoull and Conservation of (Gelucity > 20m) ‘Moaentum Analysis 129 Dnt subi versal het pat es ha aR Flight ets wih rottype design of than 28 m deciaton “rom vertal profile) ‘expevimerts Const Geometre 12S D_—_—Rockot length = 15em WE Seif with eng drawings during ‘concept generation, embodiment et, ms ow Kinernatis NASD Safe cperaton = tua? wi Vesity Huis analysand proxnype Safety 126 Nucdetachable parts es tha S em in Kw ify wit dimensional check of Simeter ett pape al te est) ‘engineeing desing 4, Quart ver possible, The team may begin with rather qual= itative statements,but :tisimportant, in the end, to develop a quan titative statement of the specification—no remaining statements such as “design ese of construction.” 5. Determine detailed approaches for ultimately testing and verity ing the specifications during the product development process. Ex- amples of tests and verifications include engineering analyses; ets of scaled, fllsize, partial, or complete prototypes: checks of engi- neesing drawings. flute modes analyses: or aser tests with an ap propriate sample size. 6. Circulate specifications for comment and/cr amendment. Itis help- ful to circulate the specificaions for comment to all members of the design team, customers, interested colleagues, management, and ethers Evaltate comments and amendments. When comments are r ‘turned, examine objections and suggested amendments. Resolve the objections and, if necessary, incorporate the amendments in the specifications Itis critical that all specifications be clearly stat ‘ed and fully justiied, f specifications are too restrictive. we ray 288BENCHMARKING AND EcsABLSHG Encarm AK TABLE 7.4, EXAMPLE: LOUDSPEAKER DESIGN, QUALITATIVE SPECIFICATIONS VS, QUANTITATIVE i Specification ype Spzuiicaions Quansifcatin vot Qvalatve Functiont: design of Broad dynamic range Broad frequency range Very tinear Conse Use stenanre box shape Functional Dynamic ange 100175. sop Frew age 20-2009 Ho wit =u ; THD Coal Ramon Doron) sets 7 . Comsrain ce Geometry fo larger than XY « ZOE) her quale miss better solution. If specifications are not restrictive enough, Paquan. the goals of a project may notbe met. Table 7.4 depicts heth quan- atements titative and qualitative specifications for a loudspeaker design be- fore diffrent concept are developed sd verify e Basic Method: The House of Quality sof eng At chis point, fom previous work the design team should understand thanap- the customer needs, expressed in ther voice. They should also under stand the current product (if it exists) and how it satisfies these needs. fe ‘We now need to determine the priorities For design to achieve the de Wesar sign goals and make the product beter. Ta accomplish this task we must Bement, D find the weakly satisfied customer needs D- theirdeperdencies or interreationships Rech D determine what product changes we ca effect improve these sents in weak points ny stat. This process will define the level of modeling required, both in func- pe ny, tion and in product components. 289)Paowucr Dexsx Quality fetion deployment {QED} isa methodology for defining the cus tomers desiresin the customers own voice, prioritizing these desires, tans- lating them into engineering requirements ‘quantified specifications). «establishing targets for meeting the requirements, I also embodies a toot for defining the “right” problem to solve (scoping), where a series of max ‘rice are used to stricture information acquisition and dacumentation, Each matrix is called a House of Quality (Hauser and Clausing, 1988). FD was developed in 1972 at Mitsubishi's Kobe shipyard and basically introduced into the United States by the Xerox Corporation after they had learned of it from their Japanese partner Fuji Xerox (Clausing, 1994), thas been adopted ina number of industries, including txeau- tomotive and electronics Overview In product design, the tility to fame the problem is important to suc- 25 to ask the right question atthe right time of the right person. QED isa process intended to ad the design team in asking the right questions, atthe right time, and of he right people. It isa development team com sensus-building activity, to get agreement among the team on how the product should perform It supports and documents the benchmarking and customer-need-anshsis 2rocesses, and its inten: is to improve the quality of products in the broadest sense. It means much more than avoid-ng repairs for consumers. It means learning from customer experience and reconciling what customers want with what engincers can reasonably build It means aligning different disciplinary subsystem boundary specificationsto establis a working whole product. Before the irdustrial revclution, products were simple and the producers vere close fo their customers, tey dealt with them and their needs ona one-on-one basis, and thes they had a better sense of theie needs, With di ciplinary specialization, shere has been an increasing degree of separa- tion between producers and consumers. Many of those most responsible for detailed disciplinary cesign decisions have“lost touch" with customer needs. QFD is a too! thatcan be used to reestablish this connection, ‘To establishing the linkto the customer, QF, an in particular the House of Quality, is used to first establish engineering requirements that can be used as measicabie surrogates forthe more-qualitativecus- tomer needs, QFD isalso used to make clear the elationships between customer needs and engineering requirements, document bench ‘marking data (both quantitative and qualitative), form specifications by establishing target values on each engineering requirement, check for conflicts in engineering requirements, and finally record expected tech nical dificult: These purposes establish our intended use for the House of Quality. The House of Quality forms.aclear summary statement of 290BaNcHKARKING ANO EstaausHine Eneiizmne Spscmcarions the product specifications anc: supporting data consisting of bench- cance : rear sy ‘tcations), and Filling in the Matrix bodies a tool Figure 7.12 illustrates a template for a House of Quality. The prace- series of ma- dure for documenting information in ths template i as follows ccumentation. sing, 1988). ; 1. Kdentify the customer(s) {both internal and external} dand basically } Consumers, production (manufacturing), regulators, market- tion ater they ingldiseributionisales ox (Clausing, 4 luding the au- ‘ortant to sue- person. QFD tht questions, nt team con- 00 how the anchmarking J oo improve the Requirements bh more than m customer vat engineers *y subsystem Pia 1 Tener) seproducers reeds ona ds. With dis- Whar ‘eof separa responsible seme theusomer Requirements 1eetion, How Relationship Mates Trmporanse Rating ‘Customer Targets Rings ticular the guitements ltativecus- psbetween ant bench- xifications sw check for 7 ected tech, the House sement of ‘TARGETS How Much YY Figure 7.12. Template tor the House of QualityProouer DEian 2. Determine the customer needs (or WHATS). Customer requirements ate the" WHAT IS TO BE DONE” definition of a project. These cs tomer needs may bedocumentee based on the results of Chapter 4 )The“what’ canbe liste in primary secondary. and tertiary se quence. List needs inthe customer's own voice (“ea5y“fast”“light- weight”) 3. Determine the relaive importance or priority of the customer needs (scale of 1-5 or 1-10). Importance levels should be deter: ‘mined following the methods in Chapter 4 4. Translate customer needs into measurable engineering requir snents (or HOWS). Determine how the product can be changed in performance to better meet customer needs. The customer dornain, tells us wharto do, tieengineering domain tells us how to do itt leas in terms of mecsurements For any customer need, there may be multiple enginetring requirements that can be expressed in ‘quantifiable terms. One should document > each how in terms of a label and specification value ) the direction fer improvement for each how, using a + or Determine relationship of engineering design requirements to customer needs. Indicate the relationship and the strength of the relationship between the engineering requirements and the cus- omer needs, inietor Meaning Steagth ° Indiesosa strong telsicaship oe much imorance ° Indkeaessome relsonsip or some portance luckcsesa sal ieashp or importance Incicaesno elton hip If there are ao strong engineering requizements for a given cus jomer need, there isa problem, Possible engineering requirement responses for the customer need should be reconsidered 6, Perform or execute vompetitive benchmarking, Here the objective is to determine how the customer perceives the competition's abit- ity to meet cach of tneir needs, Use a simple device to capture, omer input, stich as a compressed scale such as 1-5, with 1 representing not sitisfied and 5 fully satisfied, comparing the benchmark’s design attributes with the list of customer needs. This step represents a qualitative benchmarking exercise, capturing the “feelings” of the customer. 22sirements§ ‘hese cuse ‘hapter 4. ‘riary se= lights ustomer ve deter requires anged in 4 domain doit, at vere may essed in ator lents to rof the he cus- Suengen meus ement jective ‘sabil- recus- vith 1 vg the s.This ng the BaicHnamina ano srasusNINs Enanesine Srscincanons Rank the technical difficlty of each engineering requirement ‘Again a pair-wise comparison can be used to determine ranking, ‘The technical dificulty of aehiewing each customer need in tems ofthe changes defined bythe engineering requirement should also be defined, again using. seale of 1-5 or 1-10 Correlate technical relationships to determine interrlationships of design requirements, Thi step entails completing the "roct” of the House of Quality. Tecanical characteristics may be competing rather than complementary. These reiationships must be defined and resolve. Indicator Meaning @ Indicates high pontine eeelation + Inicetes postive corel legones negative coneation nccate high negative cortation Set engineering requirement targets (specifications) forthe prod- uct design, One can do this by comparing the requizemert mea- suremerts of each of the benchmarking products and positioning the new product among these specifications Fundamentally, one must consider two factors when setting tar- get: the cost and the benefit of achieving a value. One might gain some from a very low coffee mill noise specification, but it may be prohibitively costly. One must weigh these qualitatively i the basic House of Quality approach. More quentitative means are discussed in the next section of value analysis. Setting targets early inthe design process is advantageous. Speci {values work best for targets. Relatively narrow ranges of values ate next best, but fa range is used, be wary of allowing the least isfactory end ofthe range to be adopted a8 a defacto target, espe- cially when such an approach is adopted for every range Select areas for improvement. Similar in spirit to the proposal for redesign above, here we can use analysis of the QED matrix to define final design targets and to identify areas that need f ther concentcated effort. To make these decisions, the impor tance rating of the customer needs must be considered in conjunction with the qualitative beachmarking. This analysis leads to the choice of the most critical engineering requirernents through the relationship matrix. The HOWs, technical difficul- ty.correlation matrix, target values, and quantitative benchmarks should be used to guide further development and product improvements. 293Paooucr Daven Product Example: Automatic Iced Tea Brewer Figure 7.13 shows a partial House of Quality foran automatic eed es brewer product. The primary customer need are ltd asthe rons of the male, ranging fom “atronger tea" to"adequately contain steam” ‘These customer need: are converted to measurable engineering spec- iz g z ales g azz] |)3]2 2 2 S12)3]2| [8 fry, é Hel jile ¢ 2. 5 elslalelelei € % 2 4 eles] ailé 2 4 2 2 Slelelevelelele|a sls 2 § 2 2 = Sele 22222 PET 7 ae Espo sf 1 lols sos Gace i a Es 2 eats Ey aise > oss 3 Bie hoger an AC sa Contain stam oe as Tinie SEO Measurement nts Spee faba bt al Onest urge vales pea aa 9 [sf [Onccive [es Berd fa etna s oil ap Menus fa Cote Teles fi Tiehid 2 NW cof Mater Tata o[ ps als foi Fasion W pets lads fall Powdered Tex = ote] [> [soll [reams —Jatole efafolefe|a pax] ingorance [Rete SPREEE ET ae Y Figure 7.13, ‘Automatic iced tea maker House of Quality (paral)BancHWanxine arto dsvADLsHINe ENGINEERING SPECIACA-IONS ifications sn the columns of the matrix, In this case, the metrics for stronger tea (not a J:] mapping of a customer seed to « metric) are temperature of the water end the time that tea isin contact with she water, The metric for easy-to-add ice is the volume of the water in the tank, since this volume, ata high temperature, will define the quentity of ice needed, The greater the volume, the more ie that will be needed Metrics ate listed for the rensaining customer needs, For each of the metrics, units are listed below the customer needs asa row. Artows ate included above the metrics to show the goal of the metric, minimize, maximize, or a target value. In the case of volume of water in the brewer lank, we wish to minimize it, because mor ‘water will require more ice io cool it. As longas the recuisite tea favor is infused, additional cooler water may be added to the brewed tea to obtain the desiced quantity of ised tex. The matrix clls correlate the customer needs {rows} to the mel {columns} This correlation is not necessarily Tel but i typically Limany. that i there willenst more thas one metric,on average, foreach easter need, The corelation cells ar filed with e strong, weak, or no rations. Inthe case ofthe tea brewer, stronger tea, for example, i related strongly to ts two metris, with no (o¢ minimal) correlation fo the othe metrics ‘The roof of the House of Quality, located above the metrics, shows the relationships between the performance metrics. A strong positive rela- ‘tionship indicates that as one metic is significantly improved, the other improves significantly as well (ané vice versa). negative celationship,on the other hand, represents a conflict. If one metric improves, the other will deteriorate. Such confliets must always be corefully analyzed and "monitored, In the eave of the tea brewer, the total volume hes 4 strong, negative relationship to the largest amount to brevs A large storage con tainer is desired to brew large quantities of tea; however, a small total volume of the brewer isalso desired for stowage purposes. These metrics strongly conflict; yet, by separating the storage container from the brew cr (separation in t.me and space), stowage problems are reduced, ce- easing the importance of easy o store.” Overall, both of these metrics st be analyeed together to understané the traceofs in the confit. Qualitative and quantitative benchmack values are also shown on the House of Quality. These values help to understand the market position of a product. They «leo provide 2 logical means of seting target va.ues for product evolution, In the case of the ta brewer, iceal goals are given by the benchmark comparisons :o the powered tea brewing and old-fesh ioned method of tea brewing. These goals provide a normalization when ymparing products, The tea brewer QED also shows a comparison ot ‘b90 tea brewers currently on the market. if our products the West Bend 295Proswer | 1 Drewer, we need to set aggresive goals in stronger tea containing steam and stowage space to compete in he equivalent value market. Target values of the West Ben! show goals for mecting or surpassing the competition, Finally, che House of Quality shows the celative and absolute ranking of the product metrics. as listed at the bottom of the figure. Por the tea brewer, product developmen: should focus on the fitst three or five metric to satisfy the voice of the customer. These chcices depend on the resources (time and money) available and the technical difficulty expected for improving a metric (as shown in the matrix), The tex brewer shows that the volumeof water in the tankis relatively easier to address technically compared to the other high-ranked metres. This retric should thus be addressed first, in conjunction with temper- ‘ure of the water due to the strong negative relationship. In sum, the House of Quality srovides a large quantity of information Jina very concise and well-organized forr.A logical progression through this information leads tothe setting of priorities, allocation of resources, and the development of real engineering specifications (metrics) for a product. I: also establishes, a «basic level, the current market status of a product and the desired target values (or surpassing the competition, Comments on House of Quality ‘Anumbe of hits exist foreFetively using the House of Quality For ‘example, one should not let the matrix grow too large; one should keep it under 0 rows and columns Lf it gets too large it beconses unwieldy. ‘Tokeep it simple, one should operate at different levels in the product, For example, considering the benchmarking of automobile product, one «can develop vehicle-wide specifications with a vehicle-wide House of ‘Quality. Entries might include overall dimensions and weight (measur able) and “ease of unlocking” (ot measurable). These specifications can then be flowed doven to doorlevel specifications and a separate House ‘of Quality completed atthe door level. Here the “ease of unlocking” spec ification might flow into @ measurable key-turning torque specification. Similarly, the “ease of unlocking” might flow down differently into dif ferent measurable specification on the elgcironics subsystems House of ‘Quality, where a keyless remote specification might be established for distance thatthe remote operates, Patting both of these and theie coun- terperts in one large detaled vehicle House of Quality 3 unreasonable, Separate House of Quality’s can be developed along the functional de- composition of the product. Tais approach willbe further developed in Chapter 9 in discussions on product architecture and modularity, Another hint isto use the function structure to help establish the spec- ications. Every subfunetion has fows in and out, Differences between 296ining steam “Target vahues| competition, solute ranking’ ure. For the tea, st three or five: «es depend on nical difficulty 4 uric). The tea tively easier to | metrics. This sith tempera finformation ssion through nnof resources, netries) for a arket status of competition, Quality. For eshould keep nes unwieldy. the product product, one ide House of ght (measur- iffcations can >arate House acking” spec specification, tlyinto adif- ns House of tablished for their coun- reasonable, netional de Jeveloped in larity. sh the spec ces between JARKING AND EoramuisHiInG ENoIMeeRING SPscifICATIONS these flows are readily measurable and so are candidates for spcifca- tions, Chapter 6 details an approach for relating product functions to engineering eoquirements {metrics Finally. should be kept in mind that the intent of the House of Qual ityis consensus building. Its tool to ensure thatthe variety of spec~ fications, typically eepresenting a variety of diferent disciplines and development subgroups al converge toa successfil product The sa trix does not generate specifications; it documents them. Advanced Method: Value Analysis In the approaches discussed so far, target values are established by de sign team judgersent. Basically, forary engineering requirement a tar- get value is determined by simul:aneously judging the cost of attaining that target and the customer desire in delivering that target. ‘A more quantitative approach is to create models of these two factors, For each specification value, one might e-eate 2 model of customer preference over the possible target. This model can be developed by using customer questionnaires ("How much more would you pay for twice as much performance”) oF through conjoint analysis studies bbath discussed in Chapter 4. Similarly. one could estimate the cast of delivering different levels of performance, based on estimation of components requirec and! their cost of manufacture. With these to models of customer desire D and cost to produce C both measured in dollars, one can determine the foremost target value to use. We can define value or worth asthe difference in the desire of the cus tomer from the cast of producing it vaD-c ma) and then we can pick a target value that maximizes this quantity. Other forms include ves (12> ce normalized form that can be less sensitive to model ertors, such as if all ofthe cost estimates are made using the same cost analysis tool and are off by the same factor. A normalized form also need not have the desire and the costs expressed in identical units. ‘This analysis can be completed in detail. For example, the cost function can be expressed over the subassemblies and down to the components ‘ofa product. The desiced furiction can be expressed asan overall func 27