QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT

How Useful Is QFD?

by John L. Sanford

Q
uality function deployment (QFD), also
known as the house of quality, is a process
pioneered by Yoji Akao at Mitsubishi’s
Kobe, Japan, shipyard in the 1960s and 1970s. Many
major companies use it as a design tool that enables
engineers to resolve customer needs with what can
be achieved both logically and practically.
QFD was introduced at my company, Cincinnati-
Lamb, in 1998 as part of our design for Six Sigma
initiative. Cincinnati-Lamb is a large domestic
designer and builder of high volume and flexible
machining and assembly systems as well as stand-
alone production equipment.
I have often wondered about the usefulness of
QFD in a work environment. This concern is large-
ly due to my opinion that many engineers have
preconceived ideas that would steer the QFD to
foregone conclusions or perhaps have egos that
would convince them they already know what is
needed. Engineers frequently exhibit reluctance to

In 50 Words
Or Less
• The author mentors a high school team in
a multinational robotics competition.

• In the second year, the team used quality

function deployment (QFD) in both the
strategy and design phases.

• QFD sped up the process and is expected

to help even more in the future.

WINNING ROBOT: The team mentored by John Sanford

won first place in its division at the championship event
in 2004. The winning robot and trophy are pictured.

QUALITY PROGRESS I JANUARY 2005 I 51

CHAMPIONSHIP COMPETITION: The competition was intense during the championships in Atlanta in 2004, where more
than 7,000 students on 295 teams participated.
use tools like this on even the most complex design
challenges. We simply love to get busy right away
without giving adequate thought to what we really
need to be building in the first place.
QFD With High Schoolers
Recently, I had the chance to experience a suc-
cessful implementation of QFD with a group of
high school students. Given a group with open
minds and some complementary tools and tech-
niques (Pareto charts, impact vs. effort diagrams,
brainstorming and a type of nominal group tech-
nique), I found QFD a very useful tool indeed, but
its power comes from the process that involves its
use rather than from the tool itself.
In late 2002, I had volunteered to mentor high
school students who wanted to build a robot for a
2003 competition. Having spent 24 plus years
assembling and testing machine tools for the aero-
space industry, I thought I might be able to offer
some assistance teaching the use of basic hand tools,
measuring equipment and parts manufacturing.
FIRST Robotics Team #1038 from Lakota East
52 I JANUARY 2005 I www.asq.org
High School in West Chester, OH, was a rookie
team made up of more than 30 sophomores,
juniors and seniors of all intellectual levels.
(FIRST stands for For Inspiration & Recognition
of Science & Technology.) Mentors guide the stu-
dents through the design, manufacturing and pro-
gramming of the robot. The students learn basic
engineering, mechanical, programming and ani-
mation skills while having fun and competing
(see “Competition”). The team is divided into five
main groups: machine, computer aided design,
animation, leadership and programming.
From the time the rules for each year’s FIRST
robotics competition are announced, each team has
just six weeks to deliver a finished robot to com-
pete at a regional event. This seemed all too much
like any project we would undertake at work. We
determine our strategy and then move to ideation,
design, manufacturing, programming and debug-
ging—all while meeting an impossible delivery
deadline.
Our first season was frantic to say the least. We
were into our third week and had still not settled
on a design. As a result, we worked extra long FIGURE 1 Scoring and Capabilities
hours and weekends to get done on time, but had Spreadsheet
virtually no time to debug. Strategic QFD Design QFD
The 2003 competition involved moving and stack-
Capabilities Engineering
ing plastic storage boxes, plus playing king of the
and features response
hill against competing robots. Although we did not

Required capabilities
place with the top finishers at regional competition,

Potential scoring
we had a tremendously successful first season. The

and features
students won several of the judge’s awards at a

regional competition, including Leaders in Controls,
Best Website and Autodesk Visualization (for ani-
mation). The Leaders in Controls award was presti-
gious enough to win us a place at the national
competition in Houston.
After we finished our season and finally had a
chance to breathe, I reflected on our use of time
and wondered what we could do to get through
the design phase and begin manufacturing sooner.
My background in quality engineering and Six
Sigma had me thinking about using QFD as a
means of arriving at the right design in less time.
But I faced some serious concerns:
• Would this process really be effective in reduc-
ing our design time?
• Could a group of high school students stay
focused enough to get through this process in
a timely manner?
• How would I deal with trying to reach consen-
sus with such a large group?
• How would we deal with matching our top
priority technical responses to our limited
available resources?
strategy
Targets Targets
QFD = quality function deployment
The 2004 Competition
For the 2004 competition, I convinced the team
coordinator QFD would work, and we decided to
give it a go. As it turns out, it was a great learning
experience for all of us.
Rather than go into the process of QFD cold, we
held a one-hour training class to review the differ-
ent components of the tool. It was easy to see the
students were a bit intimidated, and I’m certain
this was not what they expected when they joined
the robotics team.
Simply explaining the name as “qualities (fea-
tures, attributes) function deployment” seemed to
help. We reviewed the different components of the

Competition
The FIRST Robotics Competition is a multinational event that teams professionals and
young people to solve an engineering design problem.
Teams come from Canada, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Great Britain and almost every U.S.
state. Colleges, universities, corporations, businesses and individuals provide scholarships to
participants.
In 2004, more than 14,000 volunteer mentors assisted more than 50,000 youths and 900
teams competing in 26 regional events. In the championship event at the Georgia Dome in
Atlanta, more than 7,000 students on 295 teams competed.
For additional information, go to www.usfirst.org.

QUALITY PROGRESS I JANUARY 2005 I 53

QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT

FIGURE 2 Technical Responses

Strategic quality function deployment

Determines importance of capabilities and features

Correlations
= Strong positive
= Positive
= Negative

Int
era
= Strong negative

cti
on
s ma
trix
6
Relationships
= Strong 5
= Medium 3
= Weak 1

Ability to spread out the robot

Capabilities
and features

Stuff the goal with the 2x ball

Pick up and hold bonus balls

Couple/hitch with short goal

Pick up and hold small balls
Corral and move small balls

Hook/grab 10-foot bar and

Operator friendly controls

through narrow opening

support weight of robot

(6 inches or 12 inches)
Accurate autonomous

Climb variable heights

Speed of autonomous
Strategic importance

Multiple autonomous

Ability to throw balls

Punch/swat 2x ball

Herd multiple balls

3
Grab/hold 2x ball

Maneuverability
Extended reach

Driving speed

Serviceability
Drive torque

Immovable

Durability
Traction
Scoring opportunities
and necessary attributes
Release balls first. 3

Uncap 2x ball from goals. 5

Control short goals. 1 3

Deliver balls to the shooter. 5

Cap 2x balls into goals. 4

Moving small balls to your side. 5

Chin-up (50 points). 4 4

Dominate all space under chin-up
bar (keep others away). 23
Be able to get onto the platform. 4

Be anywhere in playing field quickly. 5

Unscore stuffed cap. 3

Control 2x balls. 4

Block opponent’s goal. 3

Block opponent’s doggy door. 1

Be reliable. 5

Control bonus balls. 1

Difficulty rating (impact vs. effort)
5 = high impact/little effort
Absolute importance (score) 59 58 78 126 37 82 36 65 50 38 53 48 18 53 34 68 114 45 47 85 32 94 72 25
5
Relative importance 4.2% 4.1% 5.5% 8.9% 2.6% 5.8% 2.5% 4.6% 3.5% 2.7% 3.7% 3.4% 1.3% 3.7% 2.4% 4.8% 8.0% 3.2% 3.3% 6.0% 2.3% 6.6% 5.1% 1.8%

54 I JANUARY 2005 I www.asq.org

QFD and how scoring was done. Surprisingly, the
students had no trouble understanding the matrix,
probably because most of them had done consider-
able work with spreadsheets.
When the rules were announced for the 2004
season, we were quite intimidated. The robots first
had to run in autonomous mode for 15 seconds
while attempting to trip sensors to release play-
ground size balls onto the playing court. After 15
seconds, the drivers had to take control of their
robots and herd the balls to human players who
would attempt to shoot baskets into goals (one sta-
tionary and one mobile).
To double the score tally of a goal, a robot could
TEAMMATES: The high schoolers who used quality function
lift and cap each goal with a 3-foot diameter ball.
deployment to design a robot that won a divisional trophy at
Bonus points would be awarded if a robot could
the FIRST robotics championships in Atlanta in 2004 are shown
climb steps, reach up and grasp a 10-foot high
with some of the volunteers and teachers who assisted them.
chin-up bar, lift itself off of the court (up to 130
These adults include David Campbell (program coordinator and
pounds) and stay suspended when power was cut
mentor), David McKain, Doug Noxsel, Mary Jo Oliver, Rick
at the end of the allotted playing time.
Oliver, Norm Reiboldt, Todd Statt and Bill Vinnage. Other
With just six weeks to design, build and test our
mentors and volunteers, not pictured, are Dale Barker, John
robot, we did not want to waste time building a
Sanford, John Severns and Dave Williamson.
robot that did not address the design challenges
well enough to be competitive in a match.
QFD provides a structured process for identifying
the critical to quality features, attributes and deliver-
ables. Normally, there are four phases of product For our second session, we broke into small
development (product planning, part deployment, groups to discuss the capabilities and features each
process planning and production requirements). For group determined were necessary to play the game
the purpose of building our robot, we streamlined according to its strategy. Some groups role-played:
the process to just two phases: strategy and design. Students walked through a simulated game as if
We began identifying our scoring opportunities they were the robot, while other students played
on the vertical axis of a spreadsheet and answers the opponent and tried to determine how they
on the horizontal axis by listing the capabilities would counter.
and features required to support our strategies. Afterward, the students regrouped to present
Once we established the capabilities and features, their ideas, and we filled in the technical response
these items moved to the vertical axis of our sec- portion of the QFD (Figure 2, step three).
ond level spreadsheet and were answered by engi-
neering responses (see Figure 1, p. 53). The rest of Dealing With a Large Group
the matrix was used for identifying relationships We made a terrible mistake on our third session
and correlations and scoring the importance of fea- when we tried to get more than 30 students to
tures and responses. reach consensus in placing values in the relation-
During our first QFD session, all the students par- ship matrix (Figure 2, step four). We quickly real-
ticipated in a brainstorming session to identify all ized we needed to get the group size down to a
the scoring opportunities or tasks our robot would manageable level. Now the problem was that if we
need to perform to play the game (Figure 2, step worked only with a representative group, how
one). Next, we voted on the strategic importance of would the other students have a voice in the QFD?
each item (Figure 2, step two). This completed the I asked the team leader to select a cross function-
vertical columns on the left side of the matrix. al group of about eight to 10 students. This group

QUALITY PROGRESS I JANUARY 2005 I 55

QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT

was able to quickly fill in the relationship matrix which was then charted in a Pareto diagram.
and calculate the scores for each capability and fea- Other activities were planned for the rest of the
ture (Figure 3). We then produced a 24-inch by 36- evening, but all 30 students were encouraged to
inch printout of the completed section of the matrix study the QFD results. If they thought an item was
with the calculated scores (Figure 2, step five), plus rated too high or low, they could trace their way
a Pareto chart of the capabilities and features by rel- back through the matrix to see where the problem
ative score. The printed matrix was tacked to a bul- was. They would then place a semitransparent sticky
letin board. note over the item they thought needed adjustment
Scoring was a simple matter of multiplying the and enter the score they thought was appropriate.
importance rating in the vertical column with each Near the end of the evening, it was gratifying to
score in the relationship matrix. The absolute impor- see the matrix was covered with change proposals
tance score at the bottom is the sum of the products. on sticky notes. The students’ participation without
Dividing each absolute score by the sum of all scores direction indicated to me they had begun to take
allowed us to determine the relative importance, ownership of the QFD. When we regrouped to dis-
cuss the proposed changes, it was time to let them
run with it. One of the students now took my place
as facilitator and led the group through the changes.
FIGURE 3 Relational Matrix Each student was given the opportunity to plead his
or her case for a proposed adjustment. Majority vote
would decide whether the change was valid—per-
Capabilities
and features

Relationships
= Strong 5 haps based on a strategy not thought of earlier—and
Accurate autonomous
Strategic importance

= Medium 3 the change would be made or not made depending

= Weak 1
on the outcome.
Scoring opportunities
and necessary attributes Considering Resources
Release balls first. 3 3 x 5 = 15 Once the students had tabulated the scores at
Uncap 2x ball from goals. 5 the bottom of the QFD (a simple task performed
Control short goals. 3 3x3=9 with some basic spreadsheet formulas), we made a
Deliver balls to the shooter.
Pareto chart to illustrate the relative importance of
5
each feature (see Figure 4).
Cap 2x balls into goals. 4 As powerful a tool as a Pareto chart is, it is impor-
Moving small balls to your side. 5 tant to keep in mind what the diagram is not telling
Chin-up (50 points). 4 us as well as what it is revealing. Most companies
Dominate all space under chin-up have limited resources. Our team was even more
bar (keep others away). 3
limited in this regard than most companies. We had
Be able to get onto the platform. 4 only a small machine shop, limited material and a
Be anywhere in playing field quickly. 5 tight budget. However, we had a group of mentors
Unscore stuffed cap. 3 rich in manufacturing experience. We relied heavily
on the mentors to help us determine the amount of
Control 2x balls. 4 4 x 5 = 20
effort necessary to attain specific capabilities and
Block opponent’s goal. 3 3x3=9 features based on our available resources. We scored
Block opponent’s doggy door. 1 1x1=1 the effort required on a scale of one to three.
Be reliable. 5
Finally, we divided the Pareto chart into thirds.
The items on the left would have the greatest im-
Control bonus balls. 1 1x5=5
pact and those on the right would have the least.
Difficulty rating (impact vs. effort)
5 = high impact/little effort Now it was a simple matter of entering the capabil-
15 + 9 + 20 + 9Absolute
+ 1 + 5importance
= 59 (score) ities and features into an impact vs. effort diagram
59

Relative importance 4.2% (see Figure 5). The items with highest impact and
the least amount of effort would score the highest;

56 I JANUARY 2005 I www.asq.org

 FIGURE 4 Capabilities and Features Pareto Chart
Percentage contribution
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
ch

s
lity

tion

all

my

lity

s)

ls

lls

bot

g
alls

ed

alls

l
all

ot

ty
ility

al
bal
trol

usl

nin

rqu
bal
che

bili

t go
rob
a
xb

2x b
rea

e
abi

ono

abi

f ro
b

eab
c

p
o

x
ope
con

e to

ova
Tra

s
ld 2

ple

nom

all

us

at 2
uto
2 in

hor
the
ver

Dur

ht o
ed

aut

ing

the
hro

vic
sm

bon
ulti

driv

Imm
of a

row
dly

/ho
end

/sw

hs
or 1
neu

uto

out
driv
eig

Ser
ple

to t

ith
old
dm
ien

wit
rab

old
nar

nch
tw
Ext

ent
te a
Ma

eed

lw
hes

ad
ulti

ent
dh

lity
r fr

Her

h
to g

itch
por

fici

pre
goa
u
ugh
sm

ura

and
inc

Abi
n

fici

to p
rato

a
sup

Suf

to s

le/h
lity

acc
ses

hro
up

Suf

the
s (6

up
Ope

lity
Abi

and

oup
ick

lity
Pos

ls t
ght

Be

ick

tuff
Abi
op

Abi
bal

to c
bar

to p
hei

to s
t

all
t
lity
ble

lity
foo

lity

lity
sm
Abi
aria

Abi
10-

Abi

Abi
ve
rab
bv

mo
Clim

k/g
and
hoo

ral
to
Cor
lity
Abi

those that had the least impact and required the FIGURE 5 Impact vs. Effort Diagram
most effort would score the lowest.
When dividing the Pareto chart into thirds, it’s
important to be careful dealing with mutually exclu-
Pick up and hold Be accurate Extended reach.
sive items. For instance, if there are three different dri- bonus balls. autonomously. Grab/hold 2x balls.
ves and only one can be used, do not let the drives
alone dominate the most important third of the matrix.
The correlations matrix or roof of the QFD (Figure
1 2
Pick up and hold small
balls.
Ability to throw balls.
3
2, step six) was completed offline by a small group of Ability to stuff the Ability to hook/grab Operator friendly
goal with the 2x ball. 10-foot bar and support controls.
students. This helped us group or package features.
We did not do a competitive analysis that is often
2
Ability to spread out
3
weight of robot.
4
Durability.
Effort

the robot. Climb variable heights

seen on the right-hand side of the matrix. While we Immovability. (6 inches or 12 inches).
could justify excluding this part of the QFD because
Driving speed. Herd multiple balls. Maneuverablilty.
we had nothing to compare our design to, the truth Speed of autonomy. Traction.

3 4 5
Punch/swat 2x ball.
is it could easily have been added to compare our Drive torque. Posssess multiple
Serviceability. Corral and move small
various design concepts. Couple/hitch with balls through narrow
autonomy.
short goal. opening.
More Than Halfway There
With the strategy QFD, Pareto diagram and impact Impact
vs. effort matrix complete, the students were feeling
good about their accomplishment. Unfortunately,
there was another QFD to design and complete.
Cries of “you mean we have to do this all over
again?” were heard.

QUALITY PROGRESS I JANUARY 2005 I 57

QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT

FIGURE 6 Strategic and Design Quality Function Deployment

Strategic quality function deployment

Determines importance of capabilities and features
Correlations
= Strong positive
= Positive
Inte

1 rac
tio
ns
ma
trix
= Negative
= Strong negative
10%
9%
8%
Capabilities and features Pareto

4 7%
6%
Percentage contribution

Relationships
= Strong
= Medium
= Weak
5
3
1
5%
4%
3%
3
2%
1%
0%
Ability to spread out the robot
Capabilities
and features

Stuff the goal with the 2x ball

Pick up and hold bonus balls

Couple/hitch with short goal

Pick up and hold small balls
Corral and move small balls

Hook/grab 10-foot bar and

Operator friendly controls

through narrow opening

support weight of robot

ach
trols

ll

y
s)
alls

ly

y
lls

ot

g
alls

ue
eed

alls

ball

all

ot

y
ity

l
(6 inches or 12 inches)
Accurate autonomous

Climb variable heights

Speed of autonomous

goa
Strategic importance

Multiple autonomous

bilit

a
nom

bilit

nom

bilit
ctio

nin
Ability to throw balls

ous
che

rob

rob
Punch/swat 2x ball

ll ba
Herd multiple balls

2x b

2x b

abil
torq
Grab/hold 2x ball

le b

wb

us b
Maneuverability

d re

g sp
Extended reach

t 2x
ope
con
vera

Dura

ova

ort
Tra
Driving speed

Serviceability

nom
uto

auto
12 in
Drive torque

t of

the

ice
sma
Immovable

old

the
ltip

thro

rive
Durability

nde

bon

wa

h sh
rivin
Traction

Imm
Scoring opportunities

le a

ow
ndly

Serv
neu

uto

out
b/h

mu

eig
s or

ch/s

ith
and necessary attributes

nt d
of
hold
Exte

narr
ity to

wit
hold
ultip

nt d
te a
r frie

Ma

gra

w
rt w

ad
ed
Herd
Release balls first.

che
3

icie

pun

ch
oal
spre
Spe

and

icie
gh
sm

ura

Abil

and
ity to

ppo
rato

/hit
(6 in

Suff
Uncap 2x ball from goals. 5

eg
rou

ity to
Suff
acc
ses

k up

ity to
d su

k up

ple
Ope

ff th
Abil

lls th
Control short goals. 3

hts
Pos

Be

Abil

cou
Pick up and hold Be accurate Extended reach.

pic
r an

pic

stu
Abil
eig
Deliver balls to the shooter. 5

ll ba
ity to
bonus balls. autonomously.

ity to
y to
le h

t ba

y to
Cap 2x balls into goals. 4 Grab/hold 2x balls.

1 2 3
sma

bilit
iab

foo

bilit
Abil

Abil
Moving small balls to your side. 5 Pick up and hold small
Chin-up (50 points). 4 balls.
Dominate all space under chin-up
bar (keep others away).
Be able to get onto the platform.

Be anywhere in playing field quickly.

3

5
2 Ability to throw balls.
5
Unscore stuffed cap. 3 Ability to stuff the Ability to hook/grab Operator friendly
Control 2x balls. 4 goal with the 2x ball. 10-foot bar and support controls.

2 3
weight of robot.
4
Block opponent’s goal. 3

Block opponent’s doggy door.

Ability to spread out Durability.
1

Effort
Be reliable.
the robot. Climb variable heights
5

Control bonus balls. 1 Immovability. (6 inches or 12 inches).

Difficulty rating (impact vs. effort)
5 = high impact/little effort 3 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1

Absolute importance (score) 59 58 78 126 37 82 36 65 50 38 53 48 18 53 34 68 114 45 47 85 32 94 72 25

Driving speed. Herd multiple balls. Maneuverablilty.
Relative importance 4.2% 4.1% 5.5% 8.9% 2.6% 5.8% 2.5% 4.6% 3.5% 2.7% 3.7% 3.4% 1.3% 3.7% 2.4% 4.8% 8.0% 3.2% 3.3% 6.0% 2.3% 6.6% 5.1% 1.8%
Punch/swat 2x ball. Speed of autonomy. Traction.

3
Serviceability.
Couple/hitch with
short goal.
4
Drive torque.
Corral and move small
balls through narrow
opening.
5
Posssess multiple
autonomy.

Design QFD
Impact
Determines technical requirements Correlations
= Strong positive
= Positive
= Negative
Int = Strong negative
era
cti = Mutually exclusive
ons
ma
trix

Relationships
10%
= Strong 5 Controller capabilities and features Pareto
9%
= Medium 3 Percentage contribution
= Weak 1 8%

7%

6% 10%
Ability to spread out the robot

9% Robot capabilities and features Pareto

Capabilities
and features

Stuff the goal with the 2x ball

Pick up and hold bonus balls

Couple/hitch with short goal

Pick up and hold small balls
Corral and move small balls

Hook/grab 10-foot bar and

5%
Operator friendly controls

8% Percentage contribution
through narrow opening

support weight of robot

(6 inches or 12 inches)
Accurate autonomous

Climb variable heights

Speed of autonomous
Strategic importance

Multiple autonomous

7%
Ability to throw balls

4%
Punch/swat 2x ball

Herd multiple balls

Grab/hold 2x ball

Maneuverability

6%
Extended reach

Driving speed

Serviceability

3%
Drive torque

5%
Immovable

Durability
Traction

Required capabilities

6
2% 4%
and features 3%
1%
Speed of autonomous. 4 2%
0% 1%
Multiple autonomous. 4 0%
ach
ntrols

ity
tion

ball
nomy

bility

ights

balls

ly
nomy

lls
bar
balls

balls

h ue

lseed
mous

ba
rabil

torq

lity
tion

ll

y
ty
hts

lls

y
lls
bar

lls
balls

ue
eed
ed re

Trac

ntrosp
ot

Control short goals.

old 2x

2x ba

nom

ousl

nom

5
reac
Dura
ble he

abili
le

small

row
auto

auto

le ba

ba

all ba
dly co

torq
k up

fo

rabi

ig
cong
euve

Trac

g sp
ot
multip

tono

edive

le he
b 10

nom

row
auto

auto
Extend

ck up

10 fo
Dur
y to th

drivi
euve

Deliver balls to the shooter.

ab/h

y to pic

nt dr

old

ultip

ive

3
ltiple

e sm
varia

d of

ivin
move
te au
frien

Man

ndly
tend

to th
ok/gra

auto
riab
ab/h

nt dr
tiple
Herd

cient

of

rab
to pi
y to gr

dm

nt dr
Ope SuffiExcie
Spee

Man
ess mu

Abilit

mov

Cap 2x balls into goals.

r frie

3
ed
Climb

cura

b va
ator

l and

lity
Abilit

to gr

ok/g
rate

ficie
mul

Her
y to ho

Spe

ficie
Suffi

lity

and

Abi
rato
Abilit

Clim
Oper

Be ac

accu

to ho

Moving small balls to your side.

sess

Suf
Corra

Abi

3
Poss

lity

Suf
ral
Abilit

Abi
Pos

Cor
Be

lity

Chin-up (50 points). 2

Abi

Dominate all space under chin-up

bar (keep others away). 4 Parabolas for IR Yaw sensors
sensors

1 2 3
Be able to get onto the platform. 3

Be anywhere in playing field quickly. 2

Unscore stuffed cap. 2

Control 2x balls. 2

Block opponent’s goal. 3

IR Sensors Encoders Custom power glove
Block opponent’s doggy door. 2

Be reliable. 2

2 3 4
Effort

Control bonus balls. 4

Difficulty rating (impact vs. effort) Ball funnel Hook and ladder Level climber w/dual
5 = high impact/little effort 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1
Conveyor belt ball treads

1 2 3
Absolute importance (score) 100 58 78 126 37 82 36 65 50 38 53 48 18 53 34 68 114 45 47 85 32 94 72 25
pickup Combo pitched belt and
Relative importance 4.2% 4.1% 5.5% 8.9% 2.6% 5.8% 2.5% 4.6% 3.5% 2.7% 3.7% 3.4% 1.3% 3.7% 2.4% 4.8% 8.0% 3.2% 3.3% 6.0% 2.3% 6.6% 5.1% 1.8% retractable wheels Banner optical sensors LEDs Potentiometers
Suction cup ball Multi-position rotary Toggle switches

+
4x 1
4x1
Expandable scissors
Spring steel cover
grabber

4 wheel pneumatic
Motorized shoulder
3 Joysticks
Dip switch
4 5
Limit switches

+
+
3x1
4x3
2 hook lifter
3
Raise and retract
4
arm extension
Multi fingerlinkage
Effort

+ 4x1 mechanism
+ 4x3 Impact
+ 4x5
+ 5x5
+ 2x5 Expanding net Skid plates/wheelie Pneumatic towing hook
+ 5x3 Winch mechanism Friction gripper
109

3
Beater brush
4
Expandable ball
herder
5
Impact

58 I JANUARY 2005 I www.asq.org

 The wonderful thing was we did not have to start 6. Repeat the process for
all over at the beginning. We had a great head start each level if more than a
on the second level QFD. The technical response single QFD is required.
(capabilities and features) part of the first QFD was
flipped to the vertical column of the design QFD. How Did We Do?
Then the importance of each of those features was From March 25-27, 2004,
MENTORING: The
determined by the scores in the impact vs. effort dia- the Lakota Thunderhawks
author, John Sanford,
gram. This way, the results of the strategic QFD and Team #1038 competed against
explains an aspect
our available resources weighed into the results of 60 teams at the Buckeye Re-
of quality function
our design QFD. gional event in Cleveland.
deployment to students
To finish things off, we completed the design The team won second place
in the FIRST Robotics
QFD in the same manner as the strategic one. and a berth at the April 15-17
Competition.
There were a couple of minor differences, howev- national competition at the
er. In our design QFD, we had both mechanical Georgia Dome in Atlanta.
and control design features. We wrestled with The national competition
splitting the design QFD in two but decided this is divided into four divisions:
was not wise due to the necessary correlations in Curie, Galileo, Newton and Archimedes. The divi-
the roof matrix. sion champions advance to the national semifinal
Instead, we simply split the mechanical and and final rounds. At the national competition, the
control items into two separate Pareto charts from Thunderhawks went on to win the Curie Division
the results on a single design QFD. From each championship and earned a final ranking of third-
Pareto chart, we developed an impact vs. effort place among alliances.
matrix that served as the final guide to building Did QFD make a difference? We struggled at
our robot (see Figure 6). times trying to implement this tool with a large
group in such a short time, but we managed to
Key Points reach design consensus in slightly less time than
Key steps for the design QFD were as follows: we did the first year.
1. Brainstorm to fill out the vertical column, Now that we have the process nailed down, we
importance column and top row responses. expect to spend a great deal less time on the design
Include everyone on the team. phase for 2005, which starts this month. In 2004,
2. Fill in the relationship matrix. Form an execu- the QFD process did influence and validate the
tive committee (you will never get a large choice of design, and the competition results seem
group to reach consensus in a timely man- to indicate we hit the mark.
ner). It is important each team member feel
some ownership of the QFD. Post the results
JOHN L. SANFORD is a quality engineer and Six Sigma
for everyone in the group to review. If the
Black Belt at Cincinnati-Lamb in Hebron, KY. He is a
results do not pass the litmus test, give each
team member the opportunity to post sug- Member of ASQ and a certified quality engineer.
gested changes and lobby for the group’s
approval of the suggested change. Have all
change proposals reviewed in a single session
by the entire team.
3. Use Pareto diagrams to identify the most im- Please
comment
portant features.
4. Fill in the roof matrix to determine which fea- If you would like to comment on this article,
tures can be packaged together. please post your remarks on the Quality Progress
5. Impact vs. effort diagrams act as a reality check Discussion Board at www.asq.org, or e-mail them
to make sure resources are allocated on the to editor@asq.org.
achievable items that have the greatest impact.

QUALITY PROGRESS I JANUARY 2005 I 59