Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Syde361 House Quality PDF

    Uploaded by

    Janardhan Ganniga
    56 views31 pages

    Original Title

    syde361-house-quality.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    56 views31 pages

    Syde361 House Quality PDF

    Uploaded by

    Janardhan Ganniga

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 31
    Coupling 3 Engineering characteristics 1 Customer | ov requirements 4 Correlation ratings Importance weights 3 Benchmark satisfaction ratings 6 Benchmark performance 7 New product performance targets FIGURE 3.5 Rooms of the product planning house of quality. ‘Engineering characteristics (unis | 5 3 Z FI é é glel8la= Bly 7 2/2/3/S) 3] ,|_| [S18] |2)customer a 8} e]5] lel 2/2] _| a] 3] | Shpatistaction Flas Sl eiS/ FF g1S/21 8 [2[ sume 2) 3/3/21 2) 3] 2] eleis] s/sig) 4} oo FL 3=/8/ 3) 8) 5] 2) alo] 3 2] 4/8/34) 00) i 2/2} 3] 2/ 2/3] S| S 2S] 3) sl} eis] 5 | 5) 2//z/es| are) 2l5|e/e/4lg)2 i Flee A128 Sialz|8 é/2|3 312 Customer requirements 1fai3ia{siel7[slsfiolitiaisliaiery a [e T [Doesn't side when using ~Or0}9 1313131911 a5 os 2_|Needs ite insertion forse —Jo.as| | [919 08 3 [Requires little insertion torquelo.os 3 a9 4 TOperates when penciisinsertedfo.i5j [| 9 2 10 [Collects pencils shavings well_[0.05 an £0 (6 [Empties shavings easily fo.20), 3fol il T3= 06 7 [Plugs into wall socket easily —J.05 T a9 ‘8 [Cordis Tong enough 10.05] 9 08 9 [Grinds pencil va sharp port 1.2 10 [Needs ouly one hand to operate [0.10 [3 Ct “Toll importance 100. nanee Current product(CP) I Niifololorolately] 6 ja0a (CRT Ne predier targets T[ofoTololslaT yp efatt FIGURE 3.6 ‘House of quality for an electric pencil sharpener. Process charactersticl] Par characteristcg Process planning “Engineering I —— Customer _| Part requirements design Product planning FIGURE 3.7 (Quality function deployment method uses cascading house of quality diagrams to structure product, Patt, process, and production information, HOw Functional Requirements Primary Secondary Teriary z Bs WHAT # Relationship a 3 : Matix 2 Cosomer i 5 Requremens | E i TARGETS How Mech Y Figure 7.12. ‘Template for the House of Quality. —____ | sewer pwd som Jo]o]]o]-o wax popmcdln)esfed fn] fun AEN worse PID |in}e4] cof ef wo] ef ca] owe sen09 pao 1998 | Peele fof 22301492, 291 22109 30 [|e fe Daleioe pena Saye aN eae a GTO ETT SPT LTE (mal SUINOA [OL ERRBERBBEBES | npoud weap oF aut EERERBREEEES SSO OPE OTOH ST ele-Petle} 3 SES Tr Fava jo amma | TO eset EaaEe] = — ues ur sayea jo ounjoaT TO} je} ales] eyelet efal- aoe = Tai Tm Jonnuoa wy st owe aun || sl iletel-fel-| afel= 2 == aR Bios upon eam Te Geelelalelstaal-] = : soumnoday aamioafapatat lalate g 33 2 212) 3 = 2) 2} $) B18) 8) 315 5 3} £18] 1212] Ble]. da | 1 Jee asses: 7d sl lel ol lal | sielelel ella g Bags 8s] 215) SBSIS|PlS elle] gs 2] s ele|alal gel: ay £13) 4a 28) el 8| slAle 9 af] RS yi] al 8) 51548) 318] & 8 gs] 33 Be ee) BE So = = ee ma 3.4 Quality Function DeploymentHouse of Quality 57 emphasize team, and the consequences of false, misleading, or insufficient information. To will be diss help us answer these difficult questions, we should consult company experts and upper management for their experience, wisdom, and guidance. | he curve is, Note that the information gathered involves many departmental functions | anderstand from across the company. It is no wonder, therefore, that successful product de- itatively or sign teams have representatives from sales and marketing, engineering, finance, and manufacturing, In addition, recall that the industrial designer on the team. will focus on desired aesthetics, while the design engineer will concentrate on the desired functions. In the next section we examine quality function deployment (QFD) and “— the house of quality for product planning. The house of quality, in particular, is ee — aa an outstanding method that systematically structures and develops the design K ee problem information fae et 3.4 QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT/HOUSE OF QUALITY ter surveys As we consider the entire product realization process, from identifying cus- ential cus- tomer requirements to delivering the finished product, we recognize that thou- {surveys in sands of decisions by many different people using various evaluation criteria ilable from are involved. Hopefully our company will appoint a concurrent engineering product development team that is colocated, cross functional, and coordinated ablish mar- by a high-ranking manager. But will the product have the quality that the cus- ~= trends. The tomer is expecting? production —— 3.4.1 What ls Quality? dition to J Consumers were surveyed by Time magazine (1989) about what a quality prod- uct is? The most frequent responses were: (1) works as it should, (2) lasts a long pe time, and (3) is easy to maintain, An earlier work by Garvin (1987) corroborates ee the survey's findings by identifying the following characteristics of quality: (1) eer performance, (2) features, (3) reliability, (4) durability, (5) serviceability, (6) con- esas formance to conventions/standards, (7) aesthetics, and (8) perceived quality! reputation of manufacturer. oe Since a product is as good as its parts, a quality product is made of quality parts, which are made by high-quality processes. Consequently it will function aes Or perform as expected (reliable), last a long time (durable), and be easy to example maintain (serviceable), among other things, But, which department in the com. eee pany is responsible for quality? Is it sales and marketing? Production? Engi- neering design? Other? lled bench- coduets are to their 3.42. Quality Function Deployment (QFD) sch product Every department contributes to the quality of the product, and is therefore re- | sponsible, ust like the responsibility for financial matters is a business function nation are that can be assigned to a group of employees in the “finance” department, so ible to the ‘can quality. But everyone in the company is responsible for quality. How can we eee Chapter 3 Formulating a Design Problem assign or “deploy” quality throughout our company? We can't call every depart- ‘ment the quality department. Yes, there is the quality control “department.” But that group is usually responsible for only a limited set of raw material and fin. ished goods tolerance checking activities. But, don’t we need to have all the de. partments focus on quality? Quality function deployment (QFD) is a team-based method that draws ‘upon the expertise of the group members to carefully integrate the voice of the customer in all activities of the company. The method makes use of focused dis. cussion groups to systematically address product, part, process, and production quality. Group discussions are summarized in four house of quality diagrams that structure (1) product, (2) part, (3) process, and (4) production information, Since representatives from all corners of the company are involved in the deci, sion making, the method achieves a high level of consensus, and consequently results in high-quality products. In other words, quality, as defined by the cus. ‘tomer, is deployed throughout all the other functions of the company. Let's ex. amine the fist ofthe four houses, the house of quality for product planning 3.4.3 House of Quality for Product Planning The “house of quality” (HoO) for product planning isa systematic graphic rep- resentation of product design information organized as a matrix of “rooms” “roof,” and “basement.” The house of quality is a useful and illustrative summary of product information, The three other houses of quality (part design, process planning, production planning) wil be discussed later in this chapter, ‘The true value of the HoQ is not the diagram, Rather, the true value lies in the group decision making, which requires that the team discuss and ultimately obtain a common understanding of the design problem, Recall that during problem formulation the team tries to obtain a detailed understanding of the design problem. It gathers and evaluates information re- lating to: customer and company requirements, their importance weights, eng neering characteristics, and competitive products used as benchmarks. Some of this work will be done in groups. But, lot of the work will be done individually. If discussion and summary are a group activity, however, the team is likely to obtain a consensus of opinion on many aspects of the product design require- ‘ments. The HoQ for product planning, shown in Figure 3.5, systematically struc- tures the following information: customer requirements customer importance weights engineering characteristics correlation ratings of requirements and characteristies benchmark satisfaction ratings 6. coupling between engineering characteristics — 1 Customer requirement FIGURE 35 ‘Rooms ofthe pr 7. benchm 8, new pre 1. Custom rized as tions fo termino The list exceeds 2. Customs columa 10, the quireme sum to1 3.4. Quality Function Deployment/House of Quality 59 depart- ‘uetion aging channels nation, ” ] he cus- = ie at's ex. cul a 4 Benchmark ing. Customer | o£ Correlation ratings satisfaction :oms,” 6 lies in a nately performance orgs tailed ome of ae 7. benchmark performance values 8. new product design target values 1. Customer Requirements (Room 1). Customer requirements are summa- rized as rows in the first column. A clear list of functions and subfunc- tions focuses on important needs of the customer. Customer wording or terminology is frequently used to express the “voice of the customer.” ‘The list should contain only the more important requirements and rarely exceeds 25 items. 2. Customer Importance Weights (Room 2). Adjacent to the requirements column is the importance weights column. Using values between 0.0 and 1.0, the weights establish how important the customer considers each re- quirement with respect to the other requirements. The importance weights sum to 1.0. 60 Chapter 3 Formulating a Design Problem 3. Engineering Characteristics (Room 3). Along the top row, underneath the roof triangle, i a list of quantitative performance parameters and their associated units, arranged in a row vector. An engineering characteristic can be used to quantify the amount of satisfaction of each customer re- quirement 4. Correlation Ratings Matrix (Room 4). At the intersection of a row and col- umn is a cell that is used to indicate the amount of correlation between ‘customer requirement and an engineering characteristic. Each cell is given six of three correlation rating numbers: 1 (low), 3 (medium), or 9 (high) for Positive correlation and ~1, ~3, ~9 for negative correlation, The cells left blank for no discernible correlation. The numbers 1,3,and 9 are frequently used in practice, although other number schemes have been used. Note that poorly correlated customer requirement/engineering charac- teristic pairs are not good indicators or predictors for the team. If all we have are uncorrelated or poorly correlated engineering characteristics, we have no real measure of the satisfaction of a customer requirement. How will we ever know whether our new product design will satisfy the cus- tomer if we don’t have any correlated measures? 5. Benchmark Satisfaction Ratings (Room 5). To the right of the correlation matrix we list customer ratings for competitive products used as bench- marks, First, the team rates its own current product (CP), ifit has one, as to hhow well it satisfies the customer on each requirement. Then, the team rates each competitive product. This, of course, requires the team to con sider what the customer thinks about each alternative product. Market re- search data can be used too. A new produet idea can also be added to the benchmark section, tobe rated against the competition. 6. Benchmark Performance (Room 6). Below the correlation matrix we indi- cate the performance of each benchmark product, using the measurement units designated for each engineering characteristic. This section, there- fore, is an arrangement of statistics gathered on the competitive products as to how well each product performs or: 7. New Product Targets (Room 7).Below the performance statistics, in the base- ‘ment, we list performance targets, or desirable goals for the new product. 8. Coupling Matrix (Room 8). The triangular roof of the HoQ, called the coupling matrix, is a matrix of values that estimate the amount of cou- pling, or interaction, between engineering characteristics. Rating numbers such as 1 (low),3, and 9 (high) are given for positive coupling and —1, —3, and ~9 for negative coupling. Uncoupled engineering characteristics can be optimized, one by one, without affecting other engineering characteris tics. Inversely correlated characteristics indicate that compromises will need to be made, or “trade off.” In other words, if we improve one charac- teristic we will worsen the other. Example A proc sharpener fo) combined wi requirements te insertion 1 ties shavings sharp point. determined a Alter ¢ teristics: slide (bE), hold fo number of st (degrees), nu ‘Then, ings, and cou derstanding « shown in Figt 3.4.4 Dov The house ¢ constructed we need to planning, an Qualit houses of q the product neering cha lates the eng house of qu based on pe relates proc sion making logical seat process par: Furthe quality can (1988); King 3.5 PREPA In the early information neering cha | 35. reprng an Engineering Dein Spceaon E05) 61 i Behe their Example istic [A Product development tam has been formed to design a new electric pencil Tie: sharpener for use in homes or ofces The tam has obtained market reeereh date on combined with their own surveys, have come toa consensts about the mejor aeons col- requirements incting: doesn" lide when wing. needs litle insertion fore: reson Wa a te snsertion ore, operate when pen sinsete, colts pens shavings seco ven ties shavings eas plugs ito wall socket easily, cord is long enough, gris renal ip Tae sharp pont and needs only one hand two operate Though proces of ora ken iy fe determined approximate importance weights foreach After considerable cicustion they agree upon the following engineering chara- ntly teristics: slides (yes/no): friction factor, start switch force (Ib), insertion force te sharpen {ht hod fore required (Ib), rasp torque (n-1) shavings storage volume (ec rac- umber of steps to empty standard 120 VAC (yesfno), cord length (0) point core ores we (cearecs), numberof hands o operate, weight (ox, and point roughness (mens) fs Ten sjstematically, they dscusted correlation ratings customer satetaeies rate iow and coupling ratings snd establish new product targets They sumunersed hegre ae derstanding ofthe product design problem in a house of quality for prot placing shown in Figure 36 ion che ito 3.44 Downstream Houses of Quality am ‘The house of quality for product Planning is the first of four houses that can be ane constructed. As we wish to deploy quality throughout the whole organization, © we need to involve people responsible for part design, manutactuting procece e planning, and production planning, Quality function deployment isa systematic method that includes all the di. houses of quality, not just the product planning house. As shown in Figure 3, a at the product planning house of quality connects customer requirements to engi, © neering characteristics, Then, the part design house of quality connects or te, {ites the engineering characteristics to part characteristics. The proces planning house of quality is used to determine process characteristics and/or parameters based on part characteristics. Finally, the production planning house of quality relates process characteristics and production characteristics. The proup deve, e fon making that goes into the development of the cascading houses produces a logical sequence of product engineering characteristics, part characteristics, s Process parameters, and production characteristics 3, Further information on quality function deployment and the house(s) of B | _ duality ean be found in Clausing (1994); Cohen (1995); Hauser and Clausing * (1988); King (1989); Summers (1997); and Urban (1993). | 3.5. PREPARING AN ENGINEERING DESIGN ‘SPECIFICATION (EDS) In the early phases of the formulating process, we gather, examine, and evaluate information regarding customer requirements, company requirements, engi, neering characteristics, constraints, and customer satisfaction, | 62 Chapter 3. Formulating a Design Problem Enginecring characterises (unite) pty Customer requirements rt cone angle egies) No. eps to em Weight (oz) i Cason oem Tose tae eran — fogs [Needs ie meron oes — Regus ue isenton erga rE [Ogee vine eo teat pene shag 6 finesse Pp a ea ae mag 5 ferns pexco erp pao _Nesibony oat hand oopesre foot ta} "Taal porn TD FIGURE 37 Quality function de art, proces. and p departments. It derstanding of t Consequei ‘ument that capt the design probl information on = Sompetier A Melis DLT ata Toto ae characteristics, CompetitorB [| imi which lists some “prosuctienpets IN] TTo ToT oT OTS ya) yr ehst thats} = some cases it is ¢ OF course, the o« ice. part, subass: times called a pr equivalent to pr New FIGURE 3.6 House of quality for an electic pen! sharpener, problem-solving At iis juncture, we usually devote some etfort to summarizing the design Not all oft fron erpents in a document commonly called an engineering design specifing we should cons tion, or EDS.The information is fresh in our memories and we nece to consoli Progress and dyr date the notes of our individual team members. More important some members and knowledge ¢ ay have diferent interpretations ofthe data, which need to be reselved. Tine even up to the p Tay be especially tru if we did not prepare a house of quality for product plan ahead of time, th Ring. Therefore, discussing and writing the engineering design specification will save us time more than recording the team’s findings. It isa useful process thet can correct documented by € ‘misunderstandings and clarify terminology among tear members from than the company for ‘ton oI o » N 3.5. Preparing an Engineering Design Specification (EDS) Production ZN Sc = Process Production characterise planning Customer Pan mstseenes design Product planning FIGURE 3.7 ‘Quality function deployment method uses cascading house of quality diagrams to stucture product, art, process and production information. departments, Itis a homogenizing process that usually results in a common un- derstanding of the customer’s needs and priorities. Consequently, the engineering design specification (EDS) is a single doc- lument that captures the whole team’s understanding of the specific details of the design problem (Dieter, 2000; Dixon and Poli, 1995; Haik, 2003). It includes information on customer requirements, company requirements, engineering characteristics, constraints, and customer satisfaction. An example template, which lists some of the more important categories, is shown in Table 3.6, In some cases itis only one page long and in others it may be dozens of pages long. Of course, the contents of an EDS will be tailored to the item being designed, i.e. part, subassembly, product, system, or plant. Note that the EDS is some- times called a product design specification (PDS) (e.g. Pugh, 1991). This step is equivalent to preparing a “statement of the problem” that we find in general problem-solving methods, Not all ofthe design problem details will be known at this time. Therefore, we should consider the engineering design specification to be a work-in. Progress and dynamic in nature. As we develop the product, more information. and knowledge develops. Therefore, we can fine-tune the EDS as we proceed, even up to the point of production engineering, Of course, the more we know ‘ahead of time, the fewer the engineering design changes we have to make, That will save us time and effort since in a manufacturing enterprise, changes are documented by engineering change notices that need to be circulated through the company for approval signatures. 64 Chapter3_ Formulating a Design Problem TABLER6 Engineering Design Specification Template Cover page Retiement Title Reliability Stakeholders Robustness Date Pollution Introduction Ease of use Design problem description Human factors Intendedunintended uses Appearance Special features ‘Company requirements Customer requirements Marketing Functional performance Manufacturing Operating eavronment Financial Safety Other Economie Appendices Geometric limitations Site visit data Maintenance Salesimarketing data Repair House of qual a Note that the term “product specifications” is different from the EDS, Product specifications refer to printed information about the finished product, Usually given to the customer in the owner’s manual or “instructions” sheet, For example, a product specification sheet for a water pump might list items such as: Weight 5 pounds, 120 volts, and pumps 5 gallons per minute. Also, note the ab- sence of the word “design” in the phrase. Engineers design equipment, systems, Plants, and facilities in addition to just products. Therefore, the phrase “engi. neering design specification” is perhaps more appropriate because it includes “design” and covers more artifacts than just products. Engincering design specification = Product design specification Engineering design specification + Product specification AAs the team prepares the EDS, draft sections are circulated among team members for review and comment. Frequent discussions may result as team members resolve specific issues. A team meeting is often convened to discuss its contents, The finished version, however, usualy integrates different viewpoints into a common understanding of the design problem. In other words, the process of writing the EDS establishes a team consensus on the important cus. tomer and company requirements ‘The engineering design specification provides a convenient mechanism to communicate the team’s findings to all stakeholders, In some cases, the EDS is Presented to upper management in a desiga review meeting to obtain their ap- proval to continue the product development efforts. Example ‘Smart Kit company i inte typical Smart Ki delicious coffe, ered and interpr liminary engine TABLE 37 Exam Tite: New Coffee Introduction Design problem: h Intended purpose « Uniniended puro Special features Control switch sho Means to keep cot Customer Reqsire Functional perforn Water should be Brewing time sh © Drip brewing m Inputeecticny 1 Power consumpt ‘Operating environe "= Residential tmp Pocand baskets ™ Minimal dust Economie ™ Should have eco, § Should not requi Geometric imitatio Compact ie is ¢ Height, width, an "Pos must contain ™ Brew chamber sh Maintenance, repair © The coffeemaker 1 No repair shoule No special dspos Reliability, robusine No failures shoul "Will accommodat am am its ats he as 3.5. Preparing an Engineering Design Specification (EDS) 65 ee Example Smart Kitchens Inc. makes a variety of kitchen appliances for residential use, The company is interested in expanding their product line into electric coffeemakers. The 'ypical Smart Kitchens customer wants a coffeemaker that can brew about 8 cups of hot, 4lcious coffee. Company management formed a produet development team that gath, cred and interpreted pertinent data, The team then summarized their findings in pre. liminary engineering design specification, shown in Tables 3.7-3.8 and Figures 38-310, TABLE 3.7__Example Engineering Design Specification fora Callcomaker Tite: New Coffee Maker for Smat Kitchens, In. May 2003 Introduction Design problem: home kitchen coffeemaker Intended purpose or use: brew coffee Unitended purpose: heat water for tea or hot chocolate Special feature Control switch should have onloff indicator light, Means to keep coffee warm ater brewing Customer Requirements Funetonal performance 1 Water should be heated to temperatures between 135° and 175° F ' Brewing time shouldbe es than 6 minutes Drip brewing method is required rather than percolation 5 Laput clecticy must be 110-120 volts AC ' Power consumption should be less than 400 watts ‘Operating environment © Residential temperatures 50"-125°F and humidity 10-100% 4 Pot and basket should be dishwasher safe © Minimal duse Economie ™ Should have economic life of more than $ years Should not require any routine servicing other than cleaning GcometrcHinitaions Compact sie is desired {8 Height, width, and depth ess than 15 in, by 10. by 10m IF Pot must contain a minimum of 48 o2 (eight 6.02 cups) of brewed beverage ' Brow chamber should accommodate up ta cin. of coffee grounds Maintenance repair rtieent 1 The coffeemaker casing shouldbe etsy to clean 4 No repairs shouldbe requited during economie life " No special disposal etforts should be required Retibility: robustness ® No failures should occur during economic life * Will accommodate variations in water, coflee ground quality, supply power voltage 66 Chapter 3 Formulating a Design Problem TABLES Continued Se Will not burn orelectrocue user "Will not combust or catch fire during normal use Pollution 5 Will not crete noise >40 ab Ease of use B Simple to fil wate, adlremove grounds and iter paper 4 One switch to turn onioft * Simple to remove basket and place in dishwasher Human factors 8 No large forces or torques required to operate BF Pot handle to ft 595th percentile females and males & Switch tohave obvious mode of operation Removable pacts shouldbe gaspable and not slippery Appearance Color scheme to match curren}popular appliance irnds S Surface finish should be very smooth to facltate cleaning " Shape shouldbe consistent with current trends Company Requirements Marketing "Reta pice shouldbe less than $30 nufscturing § Production run quentity is estimated at about 25,000 units © A beta prototype should be ready for testing in U2 months * Components must be made with injection-molding processes availble in curren plant Financial " Development costs shouldbe paid back in three years Other § Production protoype must be UL-approved Satisfaction Brewing time (min) FIGURE 3.8 Customer satisfaction versus brewing time in minutes for example cofemaker oo FIGURE 3 Customer coffer 19 00 FIGURE Castome example qual quan Bzncumaaxina anp Esraausr Ine $?: | TABLE 7.4, EXAMPLE: LOUDSPEAKER DESIGN, QUALITATIVE SPECIFICATIONS VS. QUANTITATIVE o Speciiations Quan uate Functional: Broad dynamic range Broad frequency Very linear Constraint: Use standard box shape Quancave Functional: — Dynamic range 0-100 a8 at 1.75 m Frequency range 20-20.000 Hz within = 1 aB ‘THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) ess than 001% Constraints: Geomeny ro larger than XY 2) miss a better solution. If specifications are not restrictive enough, the goals of a project may not be met. Table 7.4 depicts both qua titative and qualitative specifications fora loudspeaker design be- fore different concepts are developed. Basic Method: The House of Quality At this point, from previous work, the design team should understand the customer needs, expressed in their voice. They should also under- stand the current product (ifit exists) and how it satisfies these needs. ‘We now need to determine the priorities for design to achieve the de- sign goals and make the product better. To accomplish this task, we must > find the weakly satisfied customer needs > their dependencies or interrelationships determine what product changes we can effect to improve these ‘weak points ‘This process will define the level of modeling required, both in func- tion and in product components. ee 289 Propuct Desien CHAPTER Quality tion deployment (QED) is a methodology for defining the cus. tomer’ desires in the customer’ own voce, prioritizing these desis, trang. Jating them into engineering requirements (quantified specifications) an establishing targets for meeting the requirement. Italso embodies too] for defining the “right” problem to solve (scoping), where a seties of me trices are used to structure information acquisition and documentation Each matrix is called a House of Quality (Hauser and Clausing, 1988), QED was initially developed by Yoji Akao, and first applied in the 19705 by Mitsubishi's Kobe Shipyard to manage design logistic for large com. Plex ships. It has been adopted in a numberof industries, including automotive and electronics Overview B {In product design, the ability to frame the problem i important osu. cess to ask the right question atthe right time of the right person. QFD isa process intended to aid the design eam in asking the right questions, atthe right ime, and of the right people Its a 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-analyss processes, and its intent i to improve the {quality of product in the broadest sense. It means much more than avoiding repairs for consumers. It means learning from customer ‘aperience and reconciling what customers want with what engineers can reasonably build. t means aligning diferent disciplinary subsystem boundary specifications to establish a working whole product, © Before the industrial revolution, products were simple and the producers ‘were close to their customers, they dealt with them and their needs on a ‘one-on-one basis and thus they had a better sense oftheir needs, With dis The“whatscan be listed in primary secondary, and tertiary se quence » List needs in the customer's own voice (“easy“fast? “ight weight...) 3. Determine the relative 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 require ‘ments (or HOW). Determine how the product can be changed in Performance to better meet customer needs. The customer domain tells us wharto do, the engineering domain tll us howto do tat least in terms of measurements. For any customer need, there may bbe multiple engineering requirements that can be expressed ig quantifiable terms. One should document: > each how in terms ofa label and specification value the direction for improvement for each how, using a + or 5. Determine relationship of engineering design requirements to customer needs. Indicate the relationship and the strength ofthe relationship between the engineering requirements and the cus. tomer needs. Indicator Seng ° Indicates strong relationship or much imporance 9 © Indicates some relationship or some importance 5 a Indicates small eaionship or importance Blank Indicates no relationship ° If there are no strong engineering requirements for a given cus tomer need, there is a problem. Possible engineering requirement responses for the customer need should be reconsidered, 6. Perform or execute competitive benchmarking. Here the objective isto determine how the customer perceives the competition’ abi ity to meet each oftheir needs. Use a simple device to capture cus tomer input, such as a compressed scale such as 1-5, with | Tepresenting not satisfied and 5 fully satisfied, comparing the benchmark’ design attribute with the ist of customer needs This Step represents a qualitative benchmarking exercise, capturing the “Teelings" ofthe customer. CHAPTER 7 292 — requirements ct. These cus of Chapters nd tertiary se. “fast “light he customer tld be deter ring require ve changed in omer domain awto do tat ed, there may expressed in tue asing a+ or airements to rength ofthe and the cus Seng o a given ow requirement ved the objctie etition’ abi capture 1-5, with | sparing the sr needs Ths apturing the cuarran 7 Sencomanune anp BsmaousHins Exomezns SrecimcaTIONS eee eee eee 7. Rank the technical difficulty of each engineering requirement. ‘Again a pair-wise comparison can be used to determine ranking ‘The technical difficulty of achieving each customer need in terms of the changes defined by the engineering requirement should also be defined, again using a scale of 1-5 or 1-10. Correlate technical relationships to determine interrelationships of design requirements. This step entails completing the “roof” of the House of Quality. Technical characteristics may be competing rather than complementary. These relationships must be defined and resolved, Indleator Meaning @ Indicates high postive coreaton + Indicates positive coreition - Indicates negative colton e Indicates bigh epative comeation 9. Set engineering requirement targets (specifications) for the prod: uct design. One can do this by comparing the requirement mea surements of each of the benchmarking products and positioning the new product among these specifications. Fundamentally, one must consider two factors when setting atar- ‘et: 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 in the basic House of Quality approach, More quantitative means are discussed in the next section of value analysis. Setting targets early in the design process is advantageous, Specif- ic values work best for targets. Relatively narrow ranges of values are next best, but ifa range is used, be wary of allowing the least sat. isfactory end of the range to be adopted as a de facto target, espe-

    You might also like