Razor Technical Report

Components:
- Albert Lopes
- Andre Rufino
- David Ferreira
- Eric Araujo
- Mohammed Woyeso
- Thomas Caiado
- Vytor Almeida

December 2010
Summary


1) Introduction: ......................................................................................................................... 3
2) House of Quality: ................................................................................................................... 4
2.1) Customer requirements ......................................................................................................... 4
2.2) Technical characteristics ........................................................................................................ 5
2.3) Relationship matrix ................................................................................................................ 5
2.4) Expected quality deployment ................................................................................................ 6
2.5) Technical comparison ............................................................................................................ 7
2.6) Correlation among technical characteristics ......................................................................... 7
3) Lyman Normalization: ........................................................................................................... 8
4) AHP method: ......................................................................................................................... 9
5) The Q-bench Algorithm: ........................................................................................................ 9
6) Fmeca: ................................................................................................................................. 10
7) Conclusion: .......................................................................................................................... 12
8) References: .......................................................................................................................... 12
Attachement 1............................................................................................................................. 14
Attachement 2............................................................................................................................. 16
Attachement 3............................................................................................................................. 17











1) Introduction:

In this technical report will be analyzed the Razor for a targeted market
segment. There are different types of Razor available on the market such as
the straight blade, 2 blade razor, 3 blade razor, electric razor, etc.

In this project report, it was focused on the Electric Razor. It was identified
some of the criteria that the customers require from a Electric Razor, and then
due to those needs it was described the technical characteristics to satisfy
those requirements. After that the house of quality can be started.

The report is divided in six steps:
1. House of Quality
2. Lyman method
3. AHP Method
4. Q-bench Algorithm
5. Fmeca
6. Attachments











2) House of Quality:
2.1) Customer requirements

In the construction of the house of quality, firstly it should be identified the
customer requirements by making a questionnaire.

The followings are the results obtained from the administering questionnaire:
- It should have long cycle life
- It should have good appearance
- It should be safe
- It should be easy to handle
- It should be have a design project for faces
- It should shave fast
- It should not irritate the skin
- It should shave close to the skin
- It should have a good accuracy when is shaving
- The battery should have a good durability
- It should not have a loudly noise
Secondly these requirements were ordered as is written below:
- Life time of the Blade
- Aesthetics
- Risk of nicks and cuts
- Ergonomics
- Facial Adaptability
- Shaving Time
- Skin Irritation
- Close Shaving
- Precision
- Battery Efficiency
- Noise



2.2) Technical characteristics

Thirdly it was developed the following technical characteristics to meet these
requirements; here is the list of the technical characteristics:
- Edge straightness tolerance
- Blade Edge thickness
- Blade tensile strength
- Blade Vickers hardness
- Weight
- Battery Duration
- Recharge time
- No. Of colors
- Length
- Body coefficient of friction
- Sound intensity level
- Rotational Speed
- No. Of Blades
- Blade range of move
2.3) Relationship matrix

Then the degree of importance was obtained from the questionnaires, and the
relative importance can be easily calculated: just by dividing each degree of
importance by the sum of all the degrees.
In the next level the relationship matrix should be done, which shows how the
technical characteristics are related to the customer requirements (Figure-1)
Figure-1: house of quality with customer requirements and technical characteristics and the relation ship
matrix in which = 9 (strong correlation),O = 3 (medium relationship),Δ = 3 (weak relationship)
E
d
g
e

s
t
r
a
i
g
h
t
n
e
s
s

t
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e
B
l
a
d
e

E
d
g
e

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
B
l
a
d
e

t
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
B
l
a
d
e

V
i
c
k
e
r
s

h
a
r
d
n
e
s
s
W
e
i
g
h
t
B
a
t
t
e
r
y

D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
h
a
r
g
e

t
i
m
e
N
o
.

O
f

c
o
l
o
r
s
L
e
n
g
t
h
B
o
d
y

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

o
f

f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
S
o
u
n
d

i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

l
e
v
e
l
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
p
e
e
d
N
o
.

O
f

B
l
a
d
e
s
B
l
a
d
e

r
a
n
g
e

o
f

m
o
v
e
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
1 Life time of the Blade 2 5,7% 
2 Aesthetics 1 2,9% 
3 Risk of nicks and cuts 5 14,3%  
4 Ergonomics 3 8,6%   
5 Facial Adaptability 4 11,4% 
6 Shaving Time 3 8,6%  r   
7 Skin Irritation 4 11,4% r  
8 Close Shaving 5 14,3%   r 
9 Precision 3 8,6% r     
10 Battery Efficiency 2 5,7%   r
11 Noise 3 8,6%  
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Customer Requirements /
Technical Characteristics
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
2.4) Expected quality deployment

A benchmarking was done to understand the customer quality perceived. It was
asked about how the quality of current model and the competitors’ model is,
according to the result, the target was defined.
Dividing the target by degree of importance, it was found the improvement
ratio. The strength column is to identify the product’s potential strength for an
improvement, 1.5 very important strength, 1.2 possible strength, 1.0 not
considered as strength.
Then the absolute weight is calculated by multiplying the degree of importance
and improvement ratio and strength (Figure-2).


Figure-2: Expected quality deployment










3 5 3 4 1,33 1,00 3 5%
3 4 3 4 1,33 1,00 1 3%
4 3 4 4 1,00 1,20 6 11%
3 4 2 3 1,00 1,00 3 6%
2 4 3 3 1,50 1,20 7 14%
3 3 4 4 1,33 1,00 4 8%
4 3 3 4 1,00 1,50 6 11%
4 5 4 5 1,25 1,50 9 18%
4 3 4 5 1,25 1,20 5 9%
3 4 3 4 1,33 1,50 4 8%
2 2 3 3 1,50 1,00 5 9%
53 100%
T
a
r
g
e
t
s

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

r
a
t
i
o
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
A
b
s
o
l
u
t
e

w
e
i
g
h
t
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

w
e
i
g
h
t
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

M
o
d
e
l
P
h
i
l
i
p
s

8
2
6
0

X
L
R
e
m
i
n
g
t
o
n

R
-
8
1
5
0

2.5) Technical comparison

In this part, for each technical characteristic it is multiply the relationship value
by the relative importance of the correspond customer requirement then it is
sum up the results for each column this number will show the technical
importance which says how important is the technical characteristic due to
customer satisfaction.
The Absolute weight can be found by doing the same calculation but instead of
relative importance, it is used the relative weight column. This shows the
absolute weight of each technical characteristic.
At the end the technical characteristics of the current mode should be simply
compared with other competitors’ model to find its level of competitiveness.
(Figure-3)

Figure-3: Technical comparison
2.6) Correlation among technical characteristics

It was build the roof of the house of quality. At first the vector for each
technical characteristic was found. Analyzing the relationship matrix if exist any
relation the number 1 is sign, otherwise number 0, this process should be
repeat for all of the technical characteristics. Then formulas are applied with
the vectors value found:
A: (a1, a2, a3... a14)
B: (b1, b2, b3... b14)
Cosα = A.B [0: 1]
|A| |B|

Then if Cosα > 0.66, they are correlated, then it is check logically if the result
found is right if no, the word NO is sign, otherwise it is check between those
two technical characteristics that are correlated if one increase the other one
will increase too (positive correlation) it is sign with “+”, if they have negative
correlation it is sign with “-“. (Attachment_1)

As showed on the attachment_1 the result shows that:
- Blade Edge thickness & Blade Vickers hardness are positively correlated;
- Weight & Length are positively correlated;
- Battery Duration & Recharge time are positively correlated;
- Edge straightness tolerance & Blade tensile strength are negatively
correlated;
- The other correlations are irrelevant.
3) Lyman Normalization:
In Lyman normalization method, the Absolute weight of technical
characteristics can be founded by normalized relationship values.
It means that first should normalize the relationship values due to each
customer requirements then this number is used instead of exact relationship
value for calculating the absolute weight.
As noticed in Figure 4 and Figure 5, the results are a bit different but not so
much.


Figure-4: Comparison of technical characteristics importance with and without Lyman
Normalization

Figure-5: Graphic comparison of technical characteristics importance with and without Lyman
Normalization
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Techn. Char.
RANKING Comparison no LYMAN
with LYMAN

In Lyman method, it is also taken in to account the proportion in the
contribution of the requisites; it will give a better ranking for technical
characteristics.
4) AHP method:

Due to comparison evaluation of the customer requirements the matrix which
is symmetrical matrix is can be created (Attachment_2)
Then it will be needed to find λmax, the software Matlab was used, due the
calculation would be quit complicated.
After getting these results it is able to find CR and CI with fallowing formulas
(according to CI it was found RI, as showed in the attachment_2) if CR>0.1 then
it is not acceptable otherwise the result is acceptable. According the result on
attachment_2 CR is smaller than 0.1, so it has a consistency acceptable.

CI= (λmax-n)/(n-1)
CR= CI/RI
As noticed on the comparison graph in attachment_2 it exist differences in
some points but on other points there are not so much differences, because of
the small difference it is possible to accept the result.
5) The Q-bench Algorithm:

First due to the current model and competitor’s model it has been done a
domain contraction, and this it is able to find the characteristic that has the
highest weight (technical relative importance) as is shown by yellow color in
attachment_3.
Then according to the signs inc or dec the target have been chosen. In this way
that the characteristic A which has the highest weight should get to its best
situation in the target and as it has inc sign so it should have the highest
number of the domain which is 13000, but others would be in their worst
cases, except the ones that do not have any sign they will stay in their previous
situation. It means that it has improved the characteristic with highest weight.
Then it was made a comparison between the target and the competitors’
technical characteristics, and fill the matrix with these formulas:



If both situations are satisfied, it is noticed that aOa’ which means a outranks
a’.
Then according to the matrix that is built it is able to draw the graph. Then
possible eliminate all the loops, then the one that outranks all, by doing this
able to find a preference sequence. In this case the target is that last preferred
so the process should be repeated all by improving the next characteristic with
highest weight.
The process has been repeated for 4 times till find a target which is preferred to
all the others. (attachment_3). By this result it has been notice that some
improvement should be in some points.
6) Fmeca:

Failure mode and effect analysis was performed on the prototype to determine
possible causes of failure and severity of the effects. It is important to
anticipate all of the ways a product could fail so that it will operate properly
after repeated use and cause no risk to the operator.
For each component, it was examined all of the possible ways in which the
razor enclosure could fail. The internal components were not considered in this
evaluation outside of their interactions with the enclosure because they will be
purchased. After identifying all of the possible failures, we rated them on
severity of the problem and probability of occurrence. The criteria for rating
can be found in Tables 1, 2 and 3.





W W 2
W 3
+ =
+ | |
>
|
\ .
) 1 (>
÷
+
W
W
Table 1. Severity ratings of failure for FMECA
Rating Description
1 Minor
Functional failure of part of machine or process - no potential for
injury
2 Critical
Failure will probably occur without major damage to system or
serious injury
3 Major Major damage to system and/or potential serious injury to personnel
4 Catastrophic Damage causes complete system loss and/or potential for fatal injury

Table 2. Probability ratings of failure for FMECA
Rating Description
1 Frequent Likely to occur frequently
2 Probable Likely to occur several times in the life of the item
3 Occasional Likely to occur sometime in the life of the item
4 Remote Unlikely to occur but possible
5 Improbable So unlikely that occurrence may not be experienced

Table 3. Detection ratings of failure for FMECA
Rating Description
1 No uncertainty
2 Very low uncertainty
3 Low uncertainty
4 High uncertainty
5 Very High uncertainty

The results of the FMECA are presented in the Attachment 4.
7) Conclusion:

The product analyzed in this report was electric razor; the work had been
started with the structure of the house of quality, then the relative importance
of the technical characteristics and relative weight for customer requirements
were found and also the correlation between technical characteristics.
The work has been started by the structure of the house of quality, and then it
was found the relative importance of the technical characteristics and relative
weight of customer requirements, also it was found the correlation between
technical characteristics.
In next steps we found rankings for customer requirements by AHP method and
compare it to the results of the house of quality.
It was applied the same approach for the ranking of technical characteristics by
Lyman method.
Then it was found a target for technical characteristics by applying Q-bench
analysis.
And at end the potential failure mode were analyzes, showing what potential
failure mode the product may have, then also it was found out which failure is
more critical and risky than the other ones.
8) References:

www.philips.com.br
www.panasonic.com
www.remingtonproducts.com
www.braun.com
badgerandblade.com
www.consumersearch.com/electric-shavers
shaverguide.com






Attachement 1








Correlation Matrix

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
A 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3
B 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.5
C 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4
D 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.6
E 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
F 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
G 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
H 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
J 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
K 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
L 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.3
M 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.8
N 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 1.0



A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N

0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.5 0.447 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.577

0 0.447 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.707 0.577

0.5 0.447 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0

0.5 0.447 0.707 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.5 0.447 0.707 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.707 0.577

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 0 0
sum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1







Attachement 2

w relative w
AHP
ranking
Original
Ranking
A Life time of the Blade -0.031 1.26% 11 9
B Aesthetics -0.051 2.07% 9 11
C Risk of nicks and cuts -0.505 20.72% 2 1
D Ergonomics -0.191 7.86% 5 5
E Facial Adaptability -0.137 5.61% 6 3
F Shaving Time -0.370 15.17% 3 5
G Skin Irritation -0.267 10.95% 4 3
H Close Shaving -0.680 27.94% 1 1
I Precision -0.098 4.01% 7 5
J Battery Efficiency -0.037 1.54% 10 9
K Noise -0.070 2.87% 8 5



















Pairwise Comparison Matrix

A B C D E F G H I J K
A 1.00 0.33 0.11 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.20 0.50 0.25
B 3.00 1.00 0.13 0.20 0.25 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.33 2.00 0.50
C 9.00 8.00 1.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 0.50 6.00 9.00 7.00
D 7.00 5.00 0.25 1.00 2.00 0.33 0.50 0.20 3.00 6.00 4.00
E 6.00 4.00 0.20 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.33 0.17 2.00 5.00 3.00
F 9.00 7.00 0.50 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 0.33 5.00 8.00 6.00
G 8.00 6.00 0.33 2.00 3.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 4.00 7.00 5.00
H 9.00 9.00 2.00 5.00 6.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 7.00 10.00 8.00
I 5.00 3.00 0.17 0.33 0.50 0.20 0.25 0.14 1.00 4.00 2.00
J 2.00 0.50 0.11 0.17 0.20 0.13 0.14 0.10 0.25 1.00 0.33
K 4.00 2.00 0.14 0.25 0.33 0.17 0.20 0.13 0.50 3.00 1.00
largest eigenvalue = ì
max =
11.74

ì
max
= 11.74 CI = 0.074

n = 11 RI (n>9) = 1.49


CR = 0.050 ≤ 0.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
A B C D E F G H I J K
customer reqs
RANKING Comparison
interviews/questionnaires AHP
Attachement 3











.................................................................................................... 12 Attachement 1.......6) Correlation among technical characteristics .................................................... 8 AHP method: .............................. 9 Fmeca: .....................................................................5) Technical comparison ............ 7 2.................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.............................................4) Expected quality deployment ..........2) Technical characteristics ......................................... 6 2............. 16 Attachement 3................... 14 Attachement 2......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 House of Quality: ...............................3) Relationship matrix .............. 5 2.....................................................................................................................1) Customer requirements ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 .................................................................................................................................. 5 2........................................................ 9 The Q-bench Algorithm: .................. 7 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Lyman Normalization: .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2..................................Summary 1) 2) Introduction: ..... 10 Conclusion: ...................................................................................................................................... 12 References:......................................................................

It was identified some of the criteria that the customers require from a Electric Razor. electric razor. etc. The report is divided in six steps: 1. Fmeca 6. Q-bench Algorithm 5. and then due to those needs it was described the technical characteristics to satisfy those requirements. Attachments . In this project report. After that the house of quality can be started. Lyman method 3. 2 blade razor.1) Introduction: In this technical report will be analyzed the Razor for a targeted market segment. There are different types of Razor available on the market such as the straight blade. it was focused on the Electric Razor. House of Quality 2. 3 blade razor. AHP Method 4.

1) Customer requirements In the construction of the house of quality. firstly it should be identified the customer requirements by making a questionnaire.2) House of Quality: 2. The followings are the results obtained from the administering questionnaire:  It should have long cycle life  It should have good appearance  It should be safe  It should be easy to handle  It should be have a design project for faces  It should shave fast  It should not irritate the skin  It should shave close to the skin  It should have a good accuracy when is shaving  The battery should have a good durability  It should not have a loudly noise Secondly these requirements were ordered as is written below:            Life time of the Blade Aesthetics Risk of nicks and cuts Ergonomics Facial Adaptability Shaving Time Skin Irritation Close Shaving Precision Battery Efficiency Noise .

6% 5. here is the list of the technical characteristics:               Edge straightness tolerance Blade Edge thickness Blade tensile strength Blade Vickers hardness Weight Battery Duration Recharge time No.3% 8. In the next level the relationship matrix should be done. Of Blades No.4% 8.6% D  E F G H  I J K L M        r r       r       r  r  Figure-1: house of quality with customer requirements and technical characteristics and the relation ship matrix in which = 9 (strong correlation). Of colors Length Body coefficient of friction Sound intensity level Rotational Speed No.7% 8.3) Relationship matrix Then the degree of importance was obtained from the questionnaires.2. and the relative importance can be easily calculated: just by dividing each degree of importance by the sum of all the degrees.O = 3 (medium relationship).4% 14.6% 11.6% 11.Δ = 3 (weak relationship) No.3% 8. which shows how the technical characteristics are related to the customer requirements (Figure-1) Blade Vickers hardness Blade tensile strength Blade Edge thickness Sound intensity level Customer importance Blade range of move N    Body coefficient of friction Edge straightness tolerance Rotational Speed Battery Duration Recharge time Relative importance Customer Requirements / Technical Characteristics A B C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Life time of the Blade Aesthetics Risk of nicks and cuts Ergonomics Facial Adaptability Shaving Time Skin Irritation Close Shaving Precision Battery Efficiency Noise 2 1 5 3 4 3 4 5 3 2 3 5.2) Technical characteristics Thirdly it was developed the following technical characteristics to meet these requirements. Of Blades Blade range of move 2.7% 2.9% 14. Of colors Length Weight .

00 3 1 5% 3% 6 11% 3 6% 7 14% 4 8% 6 11% 9 18% 5 9% 4 8% 5 9% 53 100% Figure-2: Expected quality deployment Relative weight Current Model Strength Targets .50 1.00 1. the target was defined. The strength column is to identify the product’s potential strength for an improvement. It was asked about how the quality of current model and the competitors’ model is.00 1. Remington R-8150 Improvement ratio Absolute weight Philips 8260 XL 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 4 4 3 2 5 4 3 4 4 3 3 5 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 5 4 3 1. 1.2. 1.33 1.5 very important strength.00 1.00 1.33 1.50 1. 1.25 1.00 1.50 1.20 1. it was found the improvement ratio. Dividing the target by degree of importance.4) Expected quality deployment A benchmarking was done to understand the customer quality perceived.33 1.20 1.33 1.50 1. according to the result.2 possible strength.20 1.00 1. Then the absolute weight is calculated by multiplying the degree of importance and improvement ratio and strength (Figure-2).00 1.0 not considered as strength.25 1.50 1.

(Figure-3) Figure-3: Technical comparison 2. otherwise it is check between those two technical characteristics that are correlated if one increase the other one . a14) B: (b1. This shows the absolute weight of each technical characteristic..B [0: 1] |A| |B| Then if Cosα > 0.. b2. then it is check logically if the result found is right if no.. At first the vector for each technical characteristic was found. At the end the technical characteristics of the current mode should be simply compared with other competitors’ model to find its level of competitiveness. this process should be repeat for all of the technical characteristics.66.. it is used the relative weight column. b14) Cosα = A. Analyzing the relationship matrix if exist any relation the number 1 is sign. they are correlated.6) Correlation among technical characteristics It was build the roof of the house of quality.2. Then formulas are applied with the vectors value found: A: (a1. b3. the word NO is sign. a3.5) Technical comparison In this part. otherwise number 0. The Absolute weight can be found by doing the same calculation but instead of relative importance. a2. for each technical characteristic it is multiply the relationship value by the relative importance of the correspond customer requirement then it is sum up the results for each column this number will show the technical importance which says how important is the technical characteristic due to customer satisfaction.

3) Lyman Normalization: In Lyman normalization method. Figure-4: Comparison of technical characteristics importance with and without Lyman Normalization 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 RANKING Comparison no LYMAN with LYMAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Techn. Battery Duration & Recharge time are positively correlated. Figure-5: Graphic comparison of technical characteristics importance with and without Lyman Normalization . The other correlations are irrelevant. Char. Edge straightness tolerance & Blade tensile strength are negatively correlated. As noticed in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Weight & Length are positively correlated. if they have negative correlation it is sign with “-“. It means that first should normalize the relationship values due to each customer requirements then this number is used instead of exact relationship value for calculating the absolute weight. (Attachment_1) As showed on the attachment_1 the result shows that: Blade Edge thickness & Blade Vickers hardness are positively correlated. the results are a bit different but not so much.will increase too (positive correlation) it is sign with “+”. the Absolute weight of technical characteristics can be founded by normalized relationship values.

but others would be in their worst cases. . it is also taken in to account the proportion in the contribution of the requisites. so it has a consistency acceptable. After getting these results it is able to find CR and CI with fallowing formulas (according to CI it was found RI.1 then it is not acceptable otherwise the result is acceptable. as showed in the attachment_2) if CR>0. 4) AHP method: Due to comparison evaluation of the customer requirements the matrix which is symmetrical matrix is can be created (Attachment_2) Then it will be needed to find λmax. and this it is able to find the characteristic that has the highest weight (technical relative importance) as is shown by yellow color in attachment_3. CI= (λmax-n)/(n-1) CR= CI/RI As noticed on the comparison graph in attachment_2 it exist differences in some points but on other points there are not so much differences.In Lyman method. Then according to the signs inc or dec the target have been chosen. In this way that the characteristic A which has the highest weight should get to its best situation in the target and as it has inc sign so it should have the highest number of the domain which is 13000. due the calculation would be quit complicated. the software Matlab was used. except the ones that do not have any sign they will stay in their previous situation. According the result on attachment_2 CR is smaller than 0. because of the small difference it is possible to accept the result. 5) The Q-bench Algorithm: First due to the current model and competitor’s model it has been done a domain contraction. it will give a better ranking for technical characteristics. It means that it has improved the characteristic with highest weight.1.

The criteria for rating can be found in Tables 1. 6) Fmeca: Failure mode and effect analysis was performed on the prototype to determine possible causes of failure and severity of the effects. The internal components were not considered in this evaluation outside of their interactions with the enclosure because they will be purchased. Then according to the matrix that is built it is able to draw the graph. In this case the target is that last preferred so the process should be repeated all by improving the next characteristic with highest weight. . (attachment_3). It is important to anticipate all of the ways a product could fail so that it will operate properly after repeated use and cause no risk to the operator. it is noticed that aOa’ which means a outranks a’. For each component. it was examined all of the possible ways in which the razor enclosure could fail. By this result it has been notice that some improvement should be in some points. by doing this able to find a preference sequence. then the one that outranks all. The process has been repeated for 4 times till find a target which is preferred to all the others. After identifying all of the possible failures. Then possible eliminate all the loops.Then it was made a comparison between the target and the competitors’ technical characteristics. 2 and 3. and fill the matrix with these formulas: W  W  2    W  3 W ( 1) W If both situations are satisfied. we rated them on severity of the problem and probability of occurrence.

no potential for injury Failure will probably occur without major damage to system or serious injury Major damage to system and/or potential serious injury to personnel 1 Minor 2 3 4 Critical Major Catastrophic Damage causes complete system loss and/or potential for fatal injury Table 2. Detection ratings of failure for FMECA Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Description No uncertainty Very low uncertainty Low uncertainty High uncertainty Very High uncertainty The results of the FMECA are presented in the Attachment 4. . Severity ratings of failure for FMECA Rating Description Functional failure of part of machine or process .Table 1. Probability ratings of failure for FMECA Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Frequent Probable Description Likely to occur frequently Likely to occur several times in the life of the item Occasional Likely to occur sometime in the life of the item Remote Unlikely to occur but possible Improbable So unlikely that occurrence may not be experienced Table 3.

br www. 8) References: www.com badgerandblade.com/electric-shavers shaverguide.com www. And at end the potential failure mode were analyzes.remingtonproducts. It was applied the same approach for the ranking of technical characteristics by Lyman method. then the relative importance of the technical characteristics and relative weight for customer requirements were found and also the correlation between technical characteristics.braun.com.panasonic. The work has been started by the structure of the house of quality.philips. and then it was found the relative importance of the technical characteristics and relative weight of customer requirements. showing what potential failure mode the product may have. then also it was found out which failure is more critical and risky than the other ones.com www.com www.7) Conclusion: The product analyzed in this report was electric razor.com . also it was found the correlation between technical characteristics. In next steps we found rankings for customer requirements by AHP method and compare it to the results of the house of quality.consumersearch. the work had been started with the structure of the house of quality. Then it was found a target for technical characteristics by applying Q-bench analysis.

.

0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.447 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 E 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 1 M 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.707 0 0 1 Correlation Matrix A 1.5 0 0 1 M 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 F 0.0 0.447 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 0.0 0.447 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.707 0 0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.707 0.7 0.8 N 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.447 0 0 1 B 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 J 0.0 0.0 K 0.0 1.5 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.3 0.577 0 0 1 sum 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.4 D A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.577 0.5 0.0 G 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.577 0 0 0.0 0.5 C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.3 M 0.6 0.3 0.707 0 0 1 D 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 D E 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 H 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 J 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 L 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 L 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 B 0.0 0.0 0.0 L 0.0 0.0 0.Attachement 1 A 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 A 0 0 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 H 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.447 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0 0 1 B 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.

.

00 2.267 -0.191 -0.72% 7.00 4.95% 27.00 2.33 1.00 9.14 0.25 1.50 7.00 C 0.137 -0.074 RI (n>9) = 1.050 ≤ 0.13 max = I 0.17 0.17% 10.00 1.00 0.00 6.00 3.25 0.00 1.098 -0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.20 H 0.00 3.00 3.54% 2.00 0.87% Pairwise Comparison Matrix A 1.00 1.00 0.33 F 0.037 -0.14 2.00 6.20 0.00 0.Attachement 2 AHP ranking 11 9 2 5 6 3 4 1 7 10 8 Original Ranking 9 11 1 5 3 5 3 1 5 9 5 A B C D E F G H I J K Life time of the Blade Aesthetics Risk of nicks and cuts Ergonomics Facial Adaptability Shaving Time Skin Irritation Close Shaving Precision Battery Efficiency Noise w -0.00 2.50 0.10 0.20 4.00 4.33 0.00 9.74  CI = 0.031 -0.00 7.00 0.33 6.00 8.50 3.00 2.74 11.00 8.00 7.00 B 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.61% 15.00 4.25 E 0.33 2.00 0.00 5.13 0.86% 5.00 4.50 J 0.07% 20.00 3.00 5.051 -0.14 0.01% 1.00 7.50 0.33 0.00 8.1 n = 11 RANKING Comparison 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A B C D E F interviews/questionnaires AHP G H I J K customer reqs .50 2.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 K 0.00 A B C D E F G H I J K largest eigenvalue = max = 11.00 10.00 6.17 0.00 1.13 1.680 -0.20 0.11 0.50 2.25 1.370 -0.17 G 0.17 3.14 0.13 0.070 relative w 1.25 0.00 4.00 0.33 2.26% 2.11 0.00 0.20 0.00 5.25 5.00 6.20 0.00 1.00 5.00 5.33 0.11 0.00 9.00 8.50 3.505 -0.00 0.00 5.25 0.00 7.94% 4.00 9.11 0.00 9.17 0.17 0.00 4.33 1.20 0.14 D 0.11 0.50 0.00 6.00 2.49 CR = 0.

Attachement 3 .