See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224096948

Interoperability of QFD, FMEA, and KCs Methods in the Product Development

Process

Conference Paper · January 2010

DOI: 10.1109/IEEM.2009.5373325 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
13 193

4 authors:

Alaa Hassan A. Siadat

University of Lorraine Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Arts et Métiers
20 PUBLICATIONS   242 CITATIONS    210 PUBLICATIONS   2,143 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jean-Yves Dantan Patrick Martin

Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Arts et Métiers Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Arts et Métiers Metz
151 PUBLICATIONS   2,332 CITATIONS    210 PUBLICATIONS   1,654 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Human in the fatory View project

Manufacturing Fixturing Systems and Process optimisation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alaa Hassan on 02 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Interoperability of QFD, FMEA, and KCs Methods in the
Product Development Process
Alaa HASSAN1,2, Jean-Yves DANTAN1, Ali SIADAT1, Patrick Martin1
1
LGIPM Laboratory, ENSAM, 4 rue Augustin Fresnel, 57078 Metz, France
2
Mechatronic Engineering Department, HISAT, Barza, Damascus, Syria

Abstract
Current market conditions require design and manufacturing companies to continually increase product
functionality, reduce design cycles, decrease cost and improve quality. Today, there are many quality methods but
the links allowing passing from a method to the other one are not well defined and the designer has not a global
vision of these methods in the product lifecycle. To improve the product quality, it’s necessary to reveal the
relations between these methods. This paper studies three of the most popular quality methods: Quality Function
Deployment (QFD), Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and Key Characteristics (KCs) methods. It
analysis the complementarity and interoperability among them and presents a generic information model that
formalizes these methods in a common framework in order to support the quality team work. The model is
represented in a class diagram in the format of unified modeling language (UML) and evaluated using a simple case.

Key Words: Quality Function Deployment, Failure Modes and Effect Analysis, Key Characteristics, Quality
control, Product development, Information model.

1 Introduction
To keep or gain competitiveness in the market place, companies have to develop quality products if they want to
survive and to be profitable. Product quality is gradually grows during the product development cycle, and 80% of all
costs and problems of quality are created in early product development stages [Swift et al. 1999], [Zheng and Chin
2005]. It is necessary to consider quality and improvement during the product development process by incorporating
the principles, tools and methods at every stage of it. Product quality control has to oversee the main activities in
product planning and design. In recent years, research in quality control has been focused on product planning and
design (QFD), risk management (FMEA), product modeling and characteristics optimization (KC), etc.
KC approach is applied in the preliminary and detail design stages to emphasize the robust design. In addition,
FMEA method is used in the earliest development phases to ensure risk management and preventive quality assurance.
QFD provides a tool and methodology for building quality into a product and controlling the development process
from concept to manufacturing operations [Fung et al. 2003]. The basic concept of the QFD is to translate customer
needs and wants into technical design requirements in order to increase customer satisfaction [Park and Kim 1998].
With three different points of view, the three methods have one objective: enhancing the product quality. Figure 1
shows these methods associated with the stages of product development process.
This article presents the continuation of our work in quality management and information modeling domain. We
have presented an information model aims to contribute to the reuse of FMEA knowledge through a key characteristic
(KC) approach [Hassan et al. 2007]. It is assumed that this model allows the reusing of FMEA information in KC
approach to validate the management of KCs, hence variation risk management and product robustness. Another study
has proposed a methodology of integration between QFD and FMEA. It emphasizes the common features between
QFD and FMEA in terms of quality improvement. In order to structure the information collected during the both tools,
an information model is proposed to integrate the QFD and FMEA techniques [Hassan et al. 2008].

1
 To this end, studying the common information among these three methods and analyzing how they inter-operate
together seem to be an interesting and necessary task. The intention of this paper is to emphasis the common features of
these methods throughout the product development process in order to help the quality team work and to give it a
global view of quality control. Based on this analysis, an information model is proposed to group these methods in one
framework to support the structuring and exploitation of their information. A case study is presented to illustrate the
application of the proposed model.

Figure 1. QFD, FMEA, and KC methods in the product development process.

2 Background and literature review

This section describes QFD, FMEA, and KC methods, and then it briefly gives an overview of some literatures
which use them in development process to improve the product quality.

2.1 Quality Function Deployment

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a qualitative development tool which aims to define customer needs and
interpreting them in terms of product features and process characteristics [Chan and Wu 2002]. It is a four-phase
process: product planning, parts deployment, process planning, and production planning. These four phases approach is
accomplished by using a series of matrixes, called House Of Quality (HOQ), that guide the product team’s activities by
providing standard documentation during product and process development (figure 2). Each phase has a matrix
consisting of a vertical column of “Hows” and a horizontal row of “Whats”. At each stage, the “Hows” are carried to
the next phase as “Whats”. Quantification of matrix elements is accomplished through subjective weighting scale of 1-
5-9 to denote weak, medium, and strong relationships [Duret and Pillet 2005].

Product Critical Parts Critical Process Process Control

Hows
Requirements Characteristics Parameters Characteristics
Critical Process
Characteristics
Requirements

Critical Parts
Requirements

Parameters
Customer
Whats

Design

Design Target Parts Target Process Target Process Control

Values Values Values Target Values

Product Planning Product Design Process Planning Process Control Planning

Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV

Figure 2. Four phases of QFD [ReVelle et al. 1998].

2.2 Failure Modes and Effect Analysis

2
 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is an important method of preventive quality and reliability assurance. It
involves the investigation and assessment of all causes and effects of all possible failure modes on a system, in the
earliest development phases [Dittmann et al. 2004], [Stamatis 2003]. In general, an FMEA is conducted by specialists
from various departments (e.g. design or production) in one or more meetings. The team analyses each safety-critical
subsystem and component. For each failure mode all potential causes and effects are investigated. The team documents
which actions have already been taken, and which actions have still to be performed in order to avoid or to detect the
failure mode [Wirth et. al. 1996], [Pillay and Wang 2003]. For each failure mode, the team estimates qualitatively the
severity (S), the likelihood of occurrence (O), and the difficulty of detection (D) of the failure mode. The assessment
results in numbers between 1 and 10. The product of these numbers is called the risk priority number (RPN). These
numbers are used to indicate the parts or processes that need improvement. Depending on emphasis and objective of
the application, the main types of FMEA are [Teoh and Case 2004]: system FMEA which is used for global systems,
design FMEA which deals with design activities, such as product design, machine or tooling design, and process
FMEA which is used to solve problems due to manufacturing processes. Finally, the team summarizes the analysis in a
tabular form called “FMEA table”. Table 1 lists typical FMEA table headings.
Table 1. Standard FMEA table headings.

Item Function Failure Cause Occurrence Effect Severity Detection Detection RPN Action Responsibility
mode method recommended

2.3 Key Characteristics

Dantan [Dantan et al. 2005] defines the Key Characteristics (KCs) as follows: they are the product valuable
properties and manufacturing process valuable properties that significantly impact the final cost, performance, or safety
of the product when the KCs vary from their targets.
A hierarchical tree structure is commonly used to describe the Key Characteristics of a product. This tree structure,
referred to as a KC flowdown, links customer requirements of the product (Product KCs) to the part and process
features that influence the product KCs (Traditionally; they are dimensional specifications on subassemblies)
[Thornton 1999], [Thornton 2004], [Dantan et al. 2005].
A KC flowdown allows for a decomposition of the product into essential features and processes enabling traceability
of cause and effect. Figure 3 shows a KC flowdown. In order to determine the effects of changes quickly and to
understand the contributions of other KCs on a given KC, it is necessary to record not only the product decomposition
and the KC hierarchy but the relationships between the KCs. The relationship can take a set of forms: equations,
constraints, rules, etc.
To improve design and to assess manufacturability, we focus on impacts of Manufacturing Process KCs on Part KCs
(figure 3). It is important to identify where changes in processes may impact the product quality. To do so, designers
and manufacturers identify the KCs, create the KC flowdown at the Part and Process levels. The KC flowdown is
based on engineering requirements, engineering knowledge, product architecture, and assembly process and is typically
developed by the entire design team using a QFD process [Thornton 1999].

3
 Level KC Flowdown KC Condition
Condition Flowdown

Product KC1 KC2 KC condition

KC condition

Subassembly FR Causality
KC12 KC22

Subassembly
… GFR GFR …

Part KC1k KC2k … DT DT …

Design feature

Manufacturing
feature KC1l KC2l KCjl … MT MT

Manufacturing
…
Setup p

Manufacturing
feature
… MT

Manufacturing
Setup p-1
Figure 3. KC flowdown and Condition flowdown.
…

In addition, there is other ‘view’ of the characteristics: conditions decomposition. Indeed, the KC flowdown allows
capitalizing the relations between characteristics; but, in some cases, designers and manufacturers express conditions
on characteristics which are justified by the respect of other conditions on other characteristics, and they can’t express
any relation between these characteristics. This top/down representation shows critical trees and paths starting from
Functional Requirements (FR), leading to Manufacturing Tolerances (MT), passing through Geometrical Requirements
(GR), and Design Tolerances (DT).

2.4 Relevant researches

To improve design reliability and robustness efforts, many researches have studied quality tools and how to benefice
of their interactions during the product development process. Eubanks [Eubkans et. al. 1997] presents an Advanced
FMEA method (AFMEA) applicable at the early stages of design to enhance life-cycle quality of ownership. The
process begins by QFD method to identify customer requirements and relate them to engineering metrics and
functional requirements responsible for satisfying the customer, and then it performs the AFMEA. Chin [Chin et. al.
2003] proposes a hybrid approach to develop a rough-cut process planning for quality. This approach plans the process
quality by combining QFD together with FMEA. Chao and Ishii [Chao and Ishii 2007] have developed error-proofing
method for the product development process to prevent serious design errors. This method uses QFD to focus on the
design errors and tasks, and then it performs design process FMEA to analyze them. Ginn [Ginn et al. 1998] illustrates
how the QFD and FMEA quality tools assist the planning and decision making process during the product development
cycle. He proposes a methodology for interactions between the two quality tools. For Thornton, One way to improve
quality is to minimize the impact part and process variation has on final product quality. To address this problem, she
develops a mathematical definition of a Key Characteristic (KC) based on a variation propagation model [Thornton
1999]. In another study, Thornton [Thornton et al. 2000] proposes an ideal model of variation management, entitled

4
Variation Risk Management (VRM), to understand why companies still fail to systematically address variation. This
model was used to assess the state of industry practice. It was found that many problems with industry implementation
are due to a lack of quantitative models that enable a design team to make quick and accurate decisions.

2.5 Discussion
House of Quality has three problems: it mixes variation-sensitive and nonvariation-sensitive parameters, it is time
consuming to generate, and it can be difficult to trace through the houses. FMEA is used to track product failure
modes, their causes, and effects. Practitioners we have spoken with often note the difficulty in tracing through FMEA
charts. In addition, FMEA does not differentiate between failures caused by variation and those caused by operator
error, design error, material failure, customer misuse, etc. One problem with use of KCs is that they are known by a
small group of individuals, but fairly unknown and unmanaged at the enterprise level. Other problems associated with
widespread use of KCs include their large number, dynamic nature, and view dependence. Moreover, there is no
method for identifying those KCs that are problematic to achieve, i.e., those that can not be achieved with the current
manufacturing capabilities [Lee and Thornton 1996].
QFD is a planning tool and organizes data in a logical and systematic way, but it is rather a qualitative method. In
QFD, the matrices detail the qualitative relationships between a given What (ex. customer needs) and a given How (ex.
design requirements), and the interactions between HOWs [Chen and Chen 2001]. FMEA is a qualitative preventative
method used to identify potential ways in which a product or process might not meet expectations [Korayem and
Iravani 2007]. FMEA also aims to determine the effects of potential failures on the performance of the product. On the
other hand, the KC identification process begins by first understanding the global product requirements quantitatively.
In fact, KC approach represents a quantitative and qualitative relation in KC and condition flowdowns, and it allows
for managing the variations on parts and product. The union of QFD and FMEA with a quantitative method, like KC,
will yield greater benefits from their applications and provides any product with enhanced reliability and customer
satisfaction.

3 Interoperability of QFD, FMEA and KC

From quality engineering point of view, any quality tool should not normally be used in isolation, but should be an
integral part of the continuous improvement process. In this section, we highlight the interoperability of QFD, FMEA,
and KC methods. But what is the meaning of interoperability? There exist numerous definitions on interoperability; for
example:
1. it is a property referring to the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together (inter-operate)
[Wikipedia 2008].
2. ability to communicate with peer systems and access their functionality [Vernadat 1996]
3. ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has
been exchanged [IEEE 1990]
Figure 4 illustrates the activity diagram for QFD, FMEA and KC procedures. In this figure, the interactions between
these three procedure activities and information can be seen and show how they can support each other in parallel.
QFD is an appropriate framework for integrating other principles and methods, where the voice of the customer
selectively guides the application of efforts to eliminate waste and foster continuous improvement. Because of the
flexibility of QFD, it has been combined with other techniques and tools; this gives a credit to the use of QFD as a
systematic mechanism that is helpful in getting the greatest return on organizations’ investments on quality
improvement. The arguments above support the use of QFD as the core that could build the relationships with FMEA
and KC tools and illustrate the work of them within the product development stages.

5
 FMEA QFD KC

Customer needs

Define &
prioritize
‘’ Whats’’

Define technical
spécifications
Determine potential ‘’Hows’’
Formalize product KCs
failure modes
and their conditions

Determine
Determine the effects relationship matrix
of each failure modes Verify (Whats vs. Hows)

Determine KC relation : CharacteristicRelation Formalize part/

correlation matrix
process Kcs and their
(Hows vs. Hows)
Determine the conditions
causes of each
failure

Define the target

values of Hows
List current
Find Creat the KC and
control process
probability condition flowdown
ranking Find severity
Find detectebility ranking
ranking
Calculate
importance
ratings of Hows
Re-evaluate Complete the KC and
Calculate RPN KC condition : CharacteristicCondition condition flowdown

Correction Analyse and

required? finalise the matrix

[No] Evaluate the KC and

condition flowdown
[Yes]
Recommended Evaluate the
corrective action robustness of
the design
[Modification data]
Modification
[Not OK]

[FMEA Report] [OK]

Figure 4. Interoperability of QFD, FMEA, and KC procedures.

The starting point for these methods is the customer needs. QFD starts with identifying and prioritizing the
requirements. The Whats in QFD help the team to determine the potential failure modes while the technical attributes
help to determine their causes. Performing the house of quality in parallel, at this stage, the failure causes could help to
verify the relationships Whats×Hows and Hows×Hows. The weight of each requirement is subjectively quantified in
QFD phase; this value is coherent with the severity (S) of the effect in FMEA analysis. The RPN index could be used
to re-evaluate the target values and the importance of Hows in order to maintain the homogeneity of the data flow
throughout the next steps of QFD and FMEA. To resume the interoperability between these methods, we can say that
the FMEA analysis begins at the point where QFD trails off whereas the feedback from FMEA helps to complete QFD
matrix.
At a high level, KCs can be interpreted as simply customer requirements which are translated to support engineering
specifications for product design [Rezayat 2000]. To identify product KCs, QFD method is used to captures
relationships between the customer needs and engineering specifications, it provides information about the interesting
properties (KCs) and the corresponding conditions. Consequently, the design team formalizes the KCs, sets the

6
allowable conditions and starts to create the KC flowdown. During the construction of the KC flowdown and the
condition flowdown, the designer consults the information of the QFD activities to complete this construction. When
determining the relationships in the house of quality, the team could complete the KC flowdown in linking product
KCs to part and process KCs. Traceability between part and product KCs in KC flowdown is necessary to verify the
relationships in QFD matrix, while condition flowdown helps in defining the target values and precision levels.

4 Information model for QFD, FMEA and KC

Quality control in product development is realized through the process of translating customer requirements into
product technical specifications. QFD, FMEA and KC are three quality tools which manipulate these specifications
with different points of view: product/process requirements to improve the performance, design/process problems
(causes) assessment to reduce the risk and variation risk management to build a robust design respectively. Quality
Characteristic (QC) is introduced to describe these different views in one term. A QC is an inherent characteristic of a
product, process or system related to a requirement, and the characteristic is a distinguishing feature [International
Standard Organization 2000].

7
8
References
Almannai B., Greenough R., Kay J. A decision support tool based on QFD and FMEA for the selection of
manufacturing automationtechnologies. Robot Comput Integr Manuf (2007), doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2007.07.002

Chan L-K., Wu M-L. Quality function deployment: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research.
Vol. 143, pp. 463–497. 2002.

[4] Chao P. L., Ishii K. Design Process Error Proofing: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis of the Design Process.
Journal of Mechanical Design. Vol. 129, pp. 491-501, May 2007.

Chen, J.A. and Chen, J.O. QFD-based technical textbook: evaluation-procedure and case study. Journal of Industrial
Technology. Vol. 18, No. 1, November 2001 to January 2002, http://www.nait.org. 2001.

[3] Chin K-S., Zheng L-Y., Wei L. A hybrid rough-cut process planning for quality. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology. Vol. 22, pp. 733-743, 2003.

Dantan J-Y, Landmann T, Siadat A and Martin P. Information modeling to manage tolerances during product and
process design. Proc. Of the 9th CIRP International Seminar on Computer Aided Tolerancing, Arizona, USA,
2005.

Dittmann L., Rademacher T., Zelewski S. Performing FMEA using ontologies. The 18th International Workshop on
Qualitative Reasoning August 2-4, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, 2004.

Duret D., Pillet M. (In Frensh). Qualité en Production: De l’ISO 9000 à Six Sigma. 3rd edn, Éditions d’Organisation,
ISBN 2-7081-3388-8. 2003.

[2] Eubanks C., Kmenta S., Ishii K. Advanced Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Using Behavior Modeling.
Proceedings of DETC’97, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Design Theory and
Methodology Conference. September 14-17, Sacramento, California, 1997.

Fung Y.K. R., Tang J., Yiliu Tu P., Chen C. Modelling of quality function deployment planning with resource
allocation. Research in Engineering Design. Vol. 14, pp. 247-255, 2003.

[5] Ginn, D.M.; Jones D.V.; Rahnejat H.; Zairi M. The QFD/FMEA interface. European Journal of Innovation
Management, Bradford, Vol. 1, N. 1, pp. 7-20, 1998.

[8] Hassan A., Dantan J-Y., Siadat A. Information modelling for variation risk management during product and
process design. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management. Vol. 2, pp. 221-240, 2007.

[9] Hassan A., Dantan J-Y., Siadat A., Martin P. Quality improvement through QFD/FMEA information model.
Proceedings of the 6th CIRP International Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering.
July 23-25, 2008, Naples, Italy.

[12] IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers): Standard Computer Dictionary- A Compilation of IEEE
Standard Computer Glossaries. 1990.

International Standards Organization. ISO9000. Quality Management Systems Requirements. 2000.

Korayem MH., Iravani A. Improvement of 3P and 6R mechanical robots reliability and quality applying FMEA and

9
 QFD. Robot Comput Integr Manuf (2007), doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2007.05.003

Lee D.J., Thornton A.C. The Identification and Use of Key Characteristics in the Product Development Process.
Proceedings of The 1996 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers in Engineering
Conference August 18-22, 1996, Irvine, California, USA.

Park T., Kim K-J. Determination of an optimal set of design requirements using house of quality. Journal of
Operations Management. Vol. 16, pp. 569-581, 1998.

Pillay A., Wang J. Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning. Reliability Engineering
and System Safety, Vol. 79, Elsevier, pp. 69–85, 2003.

ReVelle J.B., Moran, J.W., Cox C.A. The QFD handbook. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, 1998.

[13] Rezayat M. Knowledge-based product development using XML and KCs. Computer-Aided Design. Vol. 32, pp.
299-309, 2000.

Stamatis D.H. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution. 2nd edn, ASQ Quality Press,
Milwaukee, WI, ISBN 0-87389-598-3. 2003.

[1] Swift KG, Raines M., Booker JD. Analysis of product capability at the design stage. Journal of Engineering
Design. Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 77-91, 1999.

Teoh P.C., Case K. Failure modes and effects analysis through knowledge modelling. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology. pp. 253-260, 2004.

[6] Thornton A.C. A mathematical framework for the key characteristics process. Research in Engineering Design.
Vol. 11, pp. 145-157, 1999.

[7] Thornton A.C., Donnelly S., Ertan B. More than Just Robust Design: Why Product Development Organizations
Still Contend with Variation and its Impact on Quality. Research in Engineering Design. Vol. 12, pp. 127-143,
2000.

Thornton. A.C. Variation Risk Management. John Wiley & Sons Ed. ISBN 0-471-44679-3. 2004.

[10] Vernadat, F.B. Enterprise Modelling and Integration: principles and applications. Chapman & Hall. ISBN 0 412
60550 3, 1996.

[11] Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability. Last modification on 20 February 2008.

Wirth R., Berthold B., Krämer A., Peter G. Knowledge-based Support of System Analysis for the Analysis of Failure
Modes and Effects. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 9, pp. 219-229, 1996.

Zheng L-Y., Chin K-S. QFD based optimal process quality planning. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology. Vol. 26, pp. 831-841, 2005.

10

View publication stats